I guess there is something to write about- Republicans are the stoopid party:
Republicans Most Likely to Reject Evolution
As noted previously, belief in evolution has been injected into the political debate already this year, with much attention given to the fact three Republican presidential candidates answered a debate question by saying that they did not believe in evolution.
It appears that these candidates are, in some ways, “preaching to the choir” in terms of addressing their own party’s constituents — the group that matters when it comes to the GOP primaries. Republicans are much more likely to be religious and attend church than independents or Democrats in general. Therefore, it comes as no great surprise to find that Republicans are also significantly more likely not to believe in evolution than are independents and Democrats.
People who reject scientific evidence in favor of fantasy and myth are not “deeply religious,” they are stupid. The numbers overall are frightening, but the GOP in particular appears to be a lost cause.
Zombie Santa Claus
Anyone who’s ever been to Blogs “4” Brownback already knew this.
Snarky Shark
If its any consolation John, I believe Religion has jumped the shark by its unreserved canonization of St. Bush. In my younger days, the unsaid deal was that they would stay the hell out of secular politics and everybody would respect their right to indoctrinate the young-ones in their stupid cult. When they decided to shove their crap down our throats, that deal is void.
Time to start treating them like the cult they are, complete with de-programmers and BATF raids on their compounds(churches).
Subject them to 527 rules and tax them like any other money making scam.
I would also like to see a little lions vs Christians for half-time entertainment, but I realize this might be a little severe.
It would be interesting to see how many would jump ship under that circumstance however.
I’m guessing something like 99.9%
Rome Again
Yes, they are. God damn those idiots!
ThymeZone
Hey, that’s my family you are talking about!
Heh. And you’re right, of course.
Dreggas
I’m shocked…really I am….seriously.
I am Dreggas’ utter shock..
Ted
I still can’t tell if that site is one hell of a slick parody, where the parodist doesn’t want their joke to be blown anytime soon. I mean, doubting that the Earth revolves around the sun and preferring that your child not be taught that it does is beyond the pale.
But if it is parody, they’re not playing any games with being extremely authentic.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Interesting but not surprising that people who consider themselves independent of either party happen to have the least percentage that do not believe in evolution.
Dreggas
John…what do you expect after all the republicans write stuff like This
I think I will have to find me one of those liberal re-education camps just to undo the trauma inflicted by reading 3 posts on that site…
pharniel
i love flat earthers
those that deny newtonian motion are doomed to be crushed by those of us who can do the math for relative velocity orbital weaponry.
Dreggas
Ok I just finished reading the whole post on whether or not kids should learn “globe theory” all I can say is spooftastic.
Punchy
A-fucking-men. Great post. I’ve been saying this to all the jesus hacks that I know, and they just turn around and say that I’m bashing their religion. No, I’m bashing their idiocy. I’m now convinced they go hand-in-hand.
Jake
Just think how different things would be if Jesus had been as stupid as some of his followers:
And the Devil took him to a high place and said Jump, Gravity is just a Lie put forth by the Romans to deny thy Father’s power.
And Jesus looked down and said: Damn those Romans, I’ll show them!
The End
Fwiffo
A distinction without a difference?
tballou
Lets not forget that about 30% of the US population thinks Bush is doing a good job!
ThymeZone
Clarified.
Rome Again
That would be Laura? Or is she so zombified she doesn’t count anymore?
Cernig
I follows some of the links from Blogs4Brownback authors’ other sites and their friends. I don’t think it’s a parody site.
Regards, C
Pb
I hope you’re right; I’d think that the above poll results show how likely it is that you’re wrong, though, not to mention the rest of the intarweb…
Zifnab
For some reason, that little factoid gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling. It’s nice to know that the middle ground in politics just also happens to contain the sanest among us.
Alan
This sort of info makes it easy to leave the GOP after the primary. Though it makes me question choosing the least objectionable in the primary is even worth it. As Victor Gold says, the GOP needs to die before it could ever live again.
Teak111
They have always been there, I want to know how they got into power and then managed to stack half the courts in the country and the SC too. New litmas test for Funies, do you believe in evolution, Rush, Hannity, Michelle, et al. BTW, that blogs for brownback has to be paradym beautiful, sweet parody.
ThymeZone
She is headed that way, for sure. A future Nancy Reagan.
What kills about these women is how they say “My husband …” and “Ronnie …”
As if these men were just their hubbies and their mistakes don’t fucking kill people. Aw shucks, etc.
They make me quite sick. They act as if this stuff is all about them.
Dreggas
Pb, Cernig
you guys are probably right. That site should be used as the poster child for forced sterilization to prevent further pollution of the gene pool.
Dreggas
Pb, Cernig
you guys are probably right. That site should be used as the poster child for forced sterilization to prevent further pollution of the gene pool.
Rome Again
Ye must be reborn again?
That makes sense, but, I got an idea. Let’s let it die, and then drive a stake through the heart and make sure it never rises again, shall we?
ThymeZone
Heliocentrism is a huge scam, the key that opened the floodgates to rampant secularism.
Trust your eyes and your hearts people. You see the sun come up every day, move across the sky, and settle in the West. Who are you going to believe, “mathematicians,” or your lying eyes?
dlw32
Just trying to figure this study out.
Do you believe in Evolution: 53% yes
Do you believe in Creationism (including young earth): 66% yes.
So what, 13% of the respondents believe God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years while humans also developed through millions of years from less advanced forms?
I think it’s clear that at least 13% of the respondents are stupid.
RSA
For those who didn’t click the link, check out the reasons people gave for rejecting evolution, in an open-ended question:
(The response “Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise” is incoherent, but it’s not clear to me whether it’s accurate or not.) My favorite response is “No reason in particular”.
Rome Again
LMAO!
Pleaes don’t do that again, you’ll make me destroy employer property.
Too funny!
Rome Again
The two ideas are NOT mutually exclusive if you recognize that there are no time limits on such.
There are some people (me included) who do believe in a higher power, and that he used evolution as a means to create the world. We do not believe the world is only 6,000 years old. We do not believe that Noah gathered all the animals that we have today on an ark. We simply believe a higher power used evolution as one of his “works of mysterious ways” that Christians keep talking about but never seem to want to admit.
ThymeZone
Satan is trying to decieve you with fancy ideas, and we think it’s funny?
You guys have a strange idea of humor here.
Dulcie
This kind of shit makes the Baby Jesus cry.
/irony
Pb
Heh. For an encore, check out this poll from WorldN
eutDaily…Rome Again
I find it highly telling that 9% proclaim to be Christians, yet a completely different 19% believe in Jesus Christ. Hmmmm, I guess the two really aren’t the same thing anymore.
Jake
Not to piss on your parade or anything but when I hear Independent, I think of Joe “I-Con” Lieberman.
When I think of Joe Lieberman “sane” is not the four-letter word that comes to mind.
caustics
It seems all the folks that were promised America would morph into JesusLand by 2006 are a bit less interested in politics these days.
Hopefully they will go back to what they do best – wanking like monkeys to their secret porn stash and and making threatening anonymous phone calls.
Bubblegum Tate
Spoof or not (and I think it is), Blogs4Brownback is awesome.
Yes–you are what can be called “non-crazy Christians.” My mom is one as well, thereby giving me an illustration that being Christian doesn’t require you to be a nutbag.
Rome Again
Fuck you TZ!
;) – I mean that in the nicest sort of way, I really do!
LITBMueller
The Stoopid Party AND the Party of Whores [pronounced Hooooarhhhs, if yer from NYC].
ThymeZone
How did this thread turn into a constant bashing of my relatives?
Enough is enough.
Dreggas
Should just call them what they are. The party of the Pharisees.
ThymeZone
Roget’s Thesaurus is our friend.
Zifnab
Joe Lieberman just doesn’t have the balls to change parties. When I think of a Senator with an “I” in front of his name, I think of Jim Jeffords, who flipped back in ’01 when his party basically ran him out for being too liberal.
Zifnab
Joe Lieberman just doesn’t have the balls to change parties. When I think of a Senator with an “I” in front of his name, I think of Jim Jeffords, who flipped back in ’01 when his party basically ran him out for being too liberal. Jeffords was one of the 23 Senators who voted against going to war with Iraq.
canuckistani
I dream of the day when the question “Do you believe in evolution” determines the quality of medical care you get; people who answer “no” get antibiotics suitable for unevolved diseases and a side dish of prayer.
LongTimeLurker
After checking out the heliocentric rant I got to thinking that the earth could be the center of the universe. Using Sisyphus” diameter of 1 light day it would only require the outermost frige of this universe to travel at 2,102,544,000 mph. Seems reasonable.
Rome Again
I’m not a Christian.
Just because I believe in God doesn’t mean I believe some man who came along about 2,000 years ago claiming to be his son was actually ‘the son of God’.
ThymeZone
Blasphemers!
S.W. Anderson
So many eyes on the wrong ball. Sheesh.
The really scary, dangerous thing is these people believing they can make their own reality and have it turn out any better than the hell on Earth they made of Iraq.
As a believer in God but not any particular religion once said, “Faith can move mountains, resulting in unimaginable collateral damage — so, be careful with it.”
Rome Again
This I agree with wholeheartedly.
Jake
Fixed.
And he’s a dick.
Has anyone ever asked Gore if he knew what a nasty little serpent he’d clutched to his bosom?
Zombie Santa Claus
Blogs 4 Brownback almost HAS to be a spoof. It’s too Darrelly not to be.
Either it’s a spoof, or Darrell’s cellmate is writing it…
conumbdrum
Sigh. It’s threads like these that make me mourn the wholesale desertion of the Balloon Juice right-wing nutjobs… they really livened up the discourse, not to mention provided the rest of us with gales of derisive laughter.
SCS? Stormy? Darrell? Come home to us, children. Daddy needs a schadenfreude-laden chuckle…
Zombie Santa Claus
I wonder if Cheney ever lets him play in the undisclosed location with him. After all, 547 Floridians and 5 corrupt-ass Supreme Court Justices were all that kept that place from being all his for 4-8 years!
Zombie Santa Claus
We can always spoof up some shit for you, if you want.
Or, we can cut-and-paste posts from Redstate, Blogs 4 Brownback, and Town Hall. That’d be almost as good…
Another “classy” post, typical for you dishonest leftard kooks
dslak
It is a fortuitous coincidence that the anti-science Christianists have taken the helm of the GOP just in time to ram it into the shoals. We can only hope that they go down with the ship and get blamed for sinking it.
Zombie Santa Claus
They’ll be alright. God is with them.
conumbdrum
Aw, thanks, Santa… it’s just what I wanted! That sure takes me back.
And in the appropriately Darrellian spirit, you left out the final period! (sniff) Brings a tear to the eye, I tells ya…
Dreggas
It’s ok they’ll all burn in hell along with the pagans, homosexuals and ACLU which caused 9/11 to happen
Pb
That day came and went–they were called Christian Scientists, and they lived and died by the courage of their convictions, much like the Shakers did. This is, of course, in stark contrast to today’s brand of cowardly, opportunistic, GOP-wedded zealots.
Of course, if they believed in evolution, perhaps it would explain their hypocrisy, what with all the previous courage of convictions having been bred out over time through natural selection. But no, they don’t even have that excuse–at least until they eventually choose to adopt it anyhow.
Zombie Santa Claus
Yeah, I always liked that special Darrell touch.
RSA
Sorry, God is only the co-pilot. If they go down, it’s their own fault. Not that Republican leaders have shown much in the way of taking responsibility for their actions, of course.
Zombie Santa Claus
We need someone to do Stormy now! I forget the specifics, I just remember the general recurrent theme was, “You guys are boring. I’m drunk on whiskey. Did anyone watch ‘Lost’ last night?”
scs is easy, she just accuses everyone of being DougJ and goes off about Terri Schiavo for 57 posts in every thread on every subject.
Zombie Santa Claus
We need someone to do Stormy now! I forget the specifics, I just remember the general recurrent theme was, “You guys are boring. I’m drunk on whiskey. Did anyone watch ‘Lost’ last night?”
scs is easy, she just accuses everyone of being DougJ and goes off about Terri Schiavo for 57 posts in every thread on every subject.
Pb
Best bumper sticker evar…
Zombie Santa Claus
He may Rapture them out of their seats before the collision.
Jake
Urgh. ZSC, you may be a head in a jar but you’re one sick head in a jar.
Oh, um. And a “Dishonest scumbag.”
Did I get that right?
Zombie Santa Claus
Ho ho ho, little boy!
If memory serves. Then again, Darrell hasn’t posted here in at least a month or so. Hard to believe, isn’t it? All the threads with fewer than 300 comments, all the comments that didn’t get your honesty and your character attacked, all the well-reasoned, civilized discourse. This is a completely different blog without Darrell.
Dreggas
in other news the No-Confidence vote goes down 53-43 (as in they can’t get cloture) more here
Zombie Santa Claus
You’re not a Boy Scout, are you jake? That would make this whole situation a little bit too Darrellesque, if you know what I mean.
Andrew
The governor of Georgia has declared an official day of prayer… for rain.
I shit you not.
Soon we will be sacrificing vestal virgins to prevent forest fires.
Jake
You filthy f*cking moonbat. Many, many people say it isn’t and if you don’t SHUT YOUR LYING FACE, I’ll pull some link to a blog or a five-year old article out of my butt that proves what a liar you are.
You’re confusing me with Maf54.
And making me throw up a little in my mouth.
Although, there were hordes of Boy Scouts clogging up the Metro system around the time Darrell faded from view.
Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
Dreggas
Funny that this fall, for the fourth time, I will be helping run the East Coast DomCon in Atlanta GA.
Jake
At last, the Talevangical’s obsession with abstinence explained.
I mean you don’t want to ask women if they’re virgins before you throw them on the altar. What if they lie? You’d look pretty stupid and God might get mad. Things would be so much easier if you could just grab any unwed woman and be certain you were sending God 100% Pure Maiden. Once the Talevan figures out a way to stop Allah from stealing them for his followers they’ll be ready to sharpen the knives.
Dreggas
I say we start a subversive campaign to convince them that being a virgin isn’t such a good thing because all the virgins that die wind up being one of the 72 given to the islamofascist martyrs when they die and go see Allah.
Zifnab
Weren’t the Shakers the guys who were so against sex, they wouldn’t even tolerate it between married people? Yeah, that went super-well, alright.
Of course, there’s still no shortage of Christian Faith-Healers (see: snake-oil salesmen) running around the country “curing” people of cancer and AIDS and diabeties with a wave of their hands, a passing of their collection plates, and the pow-ah of Jee-sus!
But much like lawyers coming out of Regent U., doctors with degrees from Liberty just don’t seem to do alot of work with anyone who has the option for real treatment.
AkaDad
40% of Democrats don’t believe in evolution? This explains why Hillary is ahead in the polls…
HyperIon
from the govenor of georgia:
sounds like he thinks that what they are experiencing might be less than “optimal”. maybe he should let the NASA administrator know.
re: “people’s education are interrupted”
you have to love that down home grammar in elected officials!
Jake
They might blame me during the next election and I’d have to get a real job!
Thank goodness Compassionate Conservatism made it so much harder to declare bankruptcy!
Bubblegum Tate
Coming soon to WIngnutLand:
Man tied to stake: “I’m telling you, the earth revolves around the sun.”
Torch-bearing mob: “Burn him!”
Pb
Zifnab,
Died out, yep–natural selection at work. Of course, we still have lots of crazed zealots who hate sex and don’t believe in natural selection, but for some reason they still breed like rabbits anyhow, and more’s the pity.
Dreggas
Fixed.
maf54
It was interns, not boy scouts, you perv.
Dreggas
An intern a day keeps Mark Foley away?
Andrew
To be fair, that quote appears to have been taken down by a retarded reporter. However, the good governor did indeed say, “We don’t need the government’s help, we need God’s help.”
And:
“As smart as many of us think we can be sometimes and all that we think we can create and all the government programs we think we can have, I’m here to tell you as your governor that we’re still dependent upon a graceful and almighty God,” Perdue said. “…Only God can make it rain.”
Dreggas
I’d beg to differ since man can seed clouds. However I believe that the lack of rain in georgia is the direct punishment inflicted upon them by the eternal spaghetti monster for not clapping loud enough.
dslak
I actually understand the sentiment behind this kind of thing. There are certain things which are beyond the government’s power, and people would do well to often look to the heavens and hope for the best. As a philosophy about how to live, it has its uses. As government policy, not so much. Let the people stick to coping with drought in what way they see fit, and let the government determine how much to aid them when they can’t.
I don’t need the government to tell me about God and what God can or can’t do. Let’s put that on the list of things the government can’t do. Oh, wait! We already did.
Krista
I always did have a soft spot for Stormy. Anybody who shares my unbridled lust for Naveen Andrews can’t be ALL bad. D-man (I don’t want to say his full name, in case it summons him, like Candyman or Beetlejuice), and scs on the other hand, drove me to utter rage on more than one occasion due to the sheer pigheadedness of them.
Andrew
Well, i don’t see how there can be any doubt about that.
JL
The Republicans are now divided into two groups, the creationists who really think that their taxes were cut and the top 1% of the income scale who are evolutionists and know their taxes were cut.
srv
First John hated liberals and dirty hippies. Then he hated Cindy. Then he hated Kerry. Then he hated Republicans. Now he hates the God Fearing Christians who created this great nation.
Where will it stop?
Andrew
Prediction: The end game is when Cole marries Cindy Sheehan.
Jon
WRONG QUESTION.
I am glad to see public discussions about important scientific theories. However the question is being framed poorly. The correct question is…
Do you accept evolution as mainstream science?
IMHO, it does not matter that Politicians can have their own personal beliefs. What matters is how their beliefs are going to impact government policy. Any person that does not acknowledge mainstream science is simply a radical and should be labeled as such.
Regards.
tBone
Presided over by Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson. It’ll be a beatiful ceremony.
jake
Ah yes, I believe that’s handled by National Onan Air & Atmospherics.
Excuse me. I have to go beat myself over the head with a Bible.
Dulcie
Or Zombie Jerry Falwell.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Bah. Joe LIEberman is only an “independent” because he would be ripped apart if he were to switch parties.
I’m surprised Lieberman hasn’t join the Lukid party already. He sure does advocate Israel’s interests before ours.
Bruce Moomaw
At the risk of being stripped of my liberal Brownie Badge, I’ll say that I have a certain element of sympathy with people who are uneasy about the implications of pure Darwinian evolution. If you assume that the human moral sense is absolutely nothing but a biological instinct (rather like a taste for ice cream), which only came into existence because (on the average) it increased the number of children we manufactured as copies of ourselves, you’re faced with the obvious philosophical question: why the hell should you force yourself to behave unselfishly when you don’t really want to do it at the moment? What happens to the concept of moral duty? If you don’t want to behave unselfishly but feel some guilt pangs about doing so, why not simply squelch them as being meaningless and outdated feelings, instead of feeling an obligation to try and AMPLIFY those feelings of guilt until you act on them?
Darwin and (as I’ve only recently learned) Thomas Huxley themselves were uneasy their entire lives about the implications of this. A hell of a lot of other intelligent people have been, too, ranging from Chesterton to William Jennings Bryan (who was the victim of an outrageous smear job in “Inherit the Wind”). Nor should we forget all the ultra-Right British and German writers who gleefully embraced Darwinism precisely because it indicated that unselfish people are fools (which was the sole reason Bryan gave for being uneasy about it). I myself also think there are genuine and serious philosophical problems with “pure” (or maybe “unelaborated” is a better word for it) Darwinism where epistemology is concerned, but this isn’t the time to go into those.
But: the scientific evidence — even on an elementary common-sense basis — does point squarely toward Darwinism. (There was an especially good essay on this in the New Republic a few years ago.) So what do we do? Declare — as the Vatican recently did — that Darwinism can explain everything about the origin of human beings EXCEPT for their moral sense? I think the answer is subtler; I think that that phenomenon known as “free will” — which remains largely mysterious to scientists and philosophers — has, to the extent that it has appeared in the brains of humans (and prehumans), transmuted what started out as a simple biological social instinct into something higher and more important. That is, I tend to think that Darwinian evolution is the material process that constructed the altar onto which the fire from Heaven could then begin to descend through the still-mysterious detailed processes within our brains. And while I remain thunderstruck by the fact that 1/4 of the American people in that Gallup poll said flatly that they believe BOTH in the theory of evolution AND that “man was created in his present form a few thousand years ago”, I can’t help thinking that a lot of their nervous squriming around and self-contradiction may be due to the fact that (as with the abortion issue) most of them would really prefer some such intermediate third position.
By the way, one more encouraging note from that Gallup poll: it also found that, if a candidate says that he “doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution”, it would definitely work AGAINST him in a Presidential campaign (by 28-15, and by 15-8 among people who feel strongly about the subject). Which just proves again how scrambled and ambiguous the American people’s position on this issue really is.
Bruce Moomaw
At the risk of being stripped of my liberal Brownie Badge, I’ll say that I have a certain element of sympathy with people who are uneasy about the implications of pure Darwinian evolution. If you assume that the human moral sense is absolutely nothing but a biological instinct (rather like a taste for ice cream), which only came into existence because (on the average) it increased the number of children we manufactured as copies of ourselves, you’re faced with the obvious philosophical question: why the hell should you force yourself to behave unselfishly when you don’t really want to do it at the moment? What happens to the concept of moral duty? If you don’t want to behave unselfishly but feel some guilt pangs about doing so, why not simply squelch them as being meaningless and outdated feelings, instead of feeling an obligation to try and AMPLIFY those feelings of guilt until you act on them?
Darwin and (as I’ve only recently learned) Thomas Huxley themselves were uneasy their entire lives about the implications of this. A hell of a lot of other intelligent people have been, too, ranging from Chesterton to William Jennings Bryan (who was the victim of an outrageous smear job in “Inherit the Wind”). Nor should we forget all the ultra-Right British and German writers who gleefully embraced Darwinism precisely because it indicated that unselfish people are fools (which was the sole reason Bryan gave for being uneasy about it). I myself also think there are genuine and serious philosophical problems with “pure” (or maybe “unelaborated” is a better word for it) Darwinism where epistemology is concerned, but this isn’t the time to go into those.
But: the scientific evidence – even on an elementary common-sense basis – does point squarely toward Darwinism. (There was an especially good essay on this in the New Republic a few years ago.) So what do we do? Declare – as the Vatican recently did – that Darwinism can explain everything about the origin of human beings EXCEPT for their moral sense? I think the answer is subtler; I think that that phenomenon known as “free will” – which remains largely mysterious to scientists and philosophers – has, to the extent that it has appeared in the brains of humans (and prehumans), transmuted what started out as a simple biological social instinct into something higher and more important. That is, I tend to think that Darwinian evolution is the material process that constructed the altar onto which the fire from Heaven could then begin to descend through the still-mysterious detailed processes within our brains. And while I remain thunderstruck by the fact that 1/4 of the American people in that Gallup poll said flatly that they believe BOTH in the theory of evolution AND that “man was created in his present form a few thousand years ago”, I can’t help thinking that a lot of their nervous squriming around and self-contradiction may be due to the fact that (as with the abortion issue) most of them would really prefer some such intermediate third position.
By the way, one more encouraging note from that Gallup poll: it also found that, if a candidate says that he “doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution”, it would definitely work AGAINST him in a Presidential campaign (by 28-15, and by 15-8 among people who feel strongly about the subject). Which just proves again how scrambled and ambiguous the American people’s position on this issue really is.
Bruce Moomaw
Damn it, I was afraid that post would go through twice. *sigh*
Pb
Bruce Moomaw,
Why would you do that? Darwinism doesn’t rule out culture or learned behavior. However, given that assumption (and I’m not saying that genetics, evolution, etc. plays no role there, as recent research seems to indicate that it might have)…
Err… nothing? Unlike, say, Determinism, I don’t see how the theory of Darwinism really has to do with that at all, or why it’d preclude reasoning, following a personal moral code, etc….
On this issue and many others. Other factors to consider are how much the individual people involved actually know or care about whichever issues, how much they have actually thought about them, and how much they actually rely on ‘knowledge’ or ‘thought’ when it comes to issues in the first place.
Ted
Whatever happened to Darrell, anyway?
Bruce Moomaw
“Unlike, say, Determinism, I don’t see how the theory of Darwinism really has to do with that at all, or why it’d preclude reasoning, following a personal moral code, etc.”
I explained this. Unelaborated Darwinism doesn’t “preclude” the idea of moral duty; it just says flatly that it’s a totally stupid thing to do.It’s not that hard a point to understand, and I can name scientific advocates of pure Darwinism (such as William Provine) who enthusiastically agree with the argument. (Richard Dawkins seems to, although his penchant for using conveniently fuzzy language makes it hard to be sure.)
As for the idea that valuing unselfishness is “culture” or “learned behavior”: if it’s nothing but that, of course, it’s just as meaningless and just as absurd to feel any obligation to do it against your whims of the moment.
Pb
Bruce Moomaw,
Well, next time, speak slower… that is to say, what is “Unelaborated Darwinism”? Would it, say, interpret the phrase “survival of the fittest” in some manner that doesn’t necessarily have to do with natural selection? Because I don’t think it’s clear that having a set of morals (and/or acting in an altruistic manner) necessarily helps or hurts one’s chances of survival.
dslak
The theory of evolution by natural selection has a history of being associated with Social Darwinism, just as American Protestantism has a history of being associated with slavery. Surely it’s possible to see that the connection in each case is not a necessary one.
I find the idea of trying to derive morality from biology rather misguided, but some respectable ethicists (e.g., James Rachels) have tried. I’m more inclined to think it’s in some way related to our sociology and culture(s).
Bruce Moomaw:
This is often said in response to naive proponents of socially-based ethics, but I think it’s wrong even then. The language we use is a product of culture or learned behavior, yet it’s not absurd to use it even when you might feel disinclined to do so. This is because successful communication is dependent upon using a language that other people will understand, and languages have rules – grammar – which restrict what counts as proper communication in the language.
You could, of course, refuse to follow the rules, but then you wouldn’t really be speaking the language anymore. When it came to ethics, if you acted for transparently selfish reasons all the time, you wouldn’t really be following the rules of what it means to be a decent person.
mclaren
Bruce Moomaw’s view of Darwinian selection is a familiar albeit inaccurate one.
If you read Darwin’s Origin of Species, you’ll find that he stresses the role of cooperation both intra- and interspecies.
Examples of intraspecies cooperation include prairie dogs doing lookout duty in cycles for predators while the rest of the pack forages, cats and dogs taking in young pups of other species and suckling them, etc. Intraspecies examples of cooperation abound and prove even more fascinating. Certain species of cleaner fish and cleaner shrimp remove contaminants and fungi from other fish’s gills by eating the fungi. It would be very easy for the larger fish simply to eat the cleaner fish, but they don’t.
What is probably going on is that Bruce Moomaw has been deluded into believing the warped twisted misrepresentation of Darwin’s ideas promoted by American political economists and popularized in the 19th century as Social Darwinism. This unrecognizable distortion (highly popular in American pop culture and among American economists) bears no relation to Darwin’s actual theory, since commensal cooperation as well as competition play equally important roles in differential reproduction of species.
The reason why American classroom overemphasize the role of competition to a sociopathic degree is obvious: America is based on a frenzied cannibalistic stand-on-a-drowning-man’s-shoulders-to-keep-your-head-above water perversion of genuine free market capitalism. American educators grow up seeing nothing but savegely ruthless cannibalistic comepttion all around them in the economic sphere, and they hear it called “survivla of the fittst” of companies and workers, so naturally they associate this bizarre distortion with Darwin’s actual ideas.
The reason why we should (and do) act unselfishly is that cooperation is also genetically hardwired since it proves equal as valuable — depending on the circumstances — to the survival of the species, as competition.
This twisted innacurate view held by American economists and politicians of Darwinian selection, as all competition and no cooperation, with genes passed down to progeny only because of brutal tooth-and-claw death struggles and never because of synergies enjoyed from mututally beneficial cooperation, remains one of the most sociopathic dysfunctions in the American political and economic landscape.
W. Edwards Deming, one of the greatest industrial efficiency economists in history, “Describ[ed] prevailing management style as a prison, Deming show[ed] how a style based on cooperation rather than competition can help people develop joy in work and learning at the same time that it brings about long-term success in the market. Indicative of Deming’s philosophy is his advice to abolish performance reviews on the job and grades in school.”
http://www.amazon.com/New-Economics-Industry-Government-Education/dp/091137907X
Since Deming’s economic philosophy transformed Japan from a backwater into one of the great industrial titans of the world, it stands to reason that Demings’ anti-competition pro-cooperation vision of capitalism must be systematically ignored and ridiculed, denigrated, sneered at, and laughed into oblivion by the arrogant ignorant incompetent doyens of the Chicago School of Economics and the anacephalic devotees of Von Mises’ and Hayek’s cannibalistic dog-eat-dog “kill or be killed” brand of “crush the competition into powder or die” view of capitalism. Since scientific evidence now proves that Hayek was demonstrably wrong, it’s doubly important that Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom be held up as the apotheosis of economic wisdom and the apex of economic insight. As we all know, nothing cements an economic doctrine more firmly in the pantheon of great ideas than scientific proof that it’s foolishly false.
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/sachs_friedrich.html
The fact that purely competitive Darwinism devoid of cooperation (a gross perversion of Darwin’s subtle ideas) gives us Enron, rather than increased productivity, is a fact we Americans must be careful to forget.
Zombie Santa Claus
It’s like the concept of punctuated equilibrium, only it happened in space-time. Evolution is correct, and so is Creationism. God just shot life into a wormhole for those 400 million years of evolution. The process took 6 days. Or something like that; sorry if I sound high. I’m not. I swear.
He went home for the summer. He’ll be back in the fall, when John Cole’s students need a project again.
Tulkinghorn
90% of the confusion could be avoided by everyone refusing to use the term “Darwinism”. There is no damn thing, and it is used as a palimpsest where detractors first define evolution for their purposes and then denounce their own creation.
I would compare this to “Eugenics”, which was originally a general term for public health involving what we now call genetic counseling (with a role for state enforcement of same, admittedly), and was appropriated as a euphemism for genocide. We don’t denounce genetic counseling today because of the genocide carried out in the name of eugenics.
Similarly, ‘Darwinism” was appropriated as a euphemism for the “abusing the poor is natural law” mentality of the robber barons. Then, as now, there was a semi-academic industry for dishonest apologists for raw power. Nonetheless, the understanding of natural selection is not abandoned when we have to find solutions to the evolution of drug resistant infections.
Bruce, you should know better! You are choosing a dishonest and flatly wrong frame for the discussion when debating the moral implications of “Darwinism”. Darwin did not agree with “Darwinism”, he concluded, against his own moral principles, that Natural Selection caused adaptation and speciation. The straw men evolved after his death.
jake
The only reason we shouldn’t forget what other people have done with pure theories is that it proves what I call The Grand Theory of Arseholes:
If there is any way to use a theory or idea to grind someone’s face, it will take an arsehole about five seconds to find it and put it to work.
Now, it is easy to say that because the arsehole abuses the theory, there’s a flaw in the theory when in reality the only problem is the arsehole. To say otherwise is to imagine that a theory in and of itself has the power to make men act. Take for example the original writings of Karl Marx. There is nothing in them that would lead a reasonable person to the USSR, its secret police, gulags and so on. Unfortunately, arseholes got their paws on it and voila: One Giant Police State. Even flawed, false theories are harmless if no one acts on them. Unfortunately there are enough arseholes who’ll try anything.
Therefore, one of the arguments I hear used against evolution is that “Darwinism was used to fuel the eugenics movement and racism in the U.S.” Sure. Completely true. But before, during and after the E.M., people used religion and “custom” to justify slavery and then segregation etc. Does that prove religion and customs are bad?
Nope, it just proves there are arseholes at work.
RSA
I’m not sure I understand the point here, but if I do, then I’d say that being able to attribute some idea or feeling to biology rather than learning or culture doesn’t really help in the way of meaningfulness.
Newport 9
That’s not a coincidence. That’s cause-and-effect.
And John, just in case you think this suddenly happened to the GOP last week, let me remind you that Saint Ronnie himself once pointed out that, “After all, evolution is only a theory.”
Punchy
Uh…what? That’s like saying I used my computer as a means to wash my car. Mutually exclusive. Biology 101.
RSA
There are deep populist roots in both the Republican and Democratic parties. I think that in the Republican party this has extended to include a large anti-elitist streak as well, the kind that makes some people comfortable saying, “Scientists’ views of the world are just opinions, no better than mine,” and “Al Gore is a boring wonk,” and “I want a President I can sit down and have a beer with.”
Punchy
News flash–unless you want to sacrifice a 10-year old, there are no virgins in GA. Whores aplenty in them parts.
Zifnab
There was, for a period of time in the 60s and 70s, a great number of wonk pop psychologists and liberal social consultants who made a very big business of giving out very bad advice. I think they’re now currently employed as Democratic Strategic Consultants.
Regardless, these “liberal elites” made a very big television carrier of pandering to the masses. The Republican Party took advantage of these “experts” and cleverly painted the entire Democratic Party in their colors. Then they went the extra mile and took the brush to every individual who disagreed with them using facts, evidence, or logical discourse. Finally, they populated their own breed of wonks and intellectual elites who always got things wrong – neo-cons – and unleashed them on the media to pitch equally bad, but philosophically different, advice.
So the ball went full circle, but the rhetoric wasn’t able to keep up. Now you’ve got the elitest Republicans appearing on FOX News and pitching bullshit while at the same time decrying the non-extinct elitest Democratic strawman who disagree with them for ficticious reasons (those evil liberal University Professors don’t want to invade Iraq because they hate freedom).
The result is a party that stinks to high heaven of hypocrasy and couldn’t appear more two-faced if they all grew second heads. And for some reason they’ve got almost no credibility left with the American public. So I’m not as worried as I used to be anymore.
Rome Again
No, it’s not. It is saying that evolution was a tool used by an intelligent force, over millions of years, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible creation story. I see no problem with that, and I’ve talked to several people over the years that agree.
I see no problem with evolution. I do see a problem with a lake of gook creating the spark which was the beginnings of life, I don’t personally believe it could be formulated purely by accident in a puddle of liquids. My belief is that an intelligent life merely created the spark and developed living creatures over time (millions of years) using evolution, much as you would prepare a cake mix, put it in an oven and then watch it bake.
Hyperion
IMO someone who believes that a personal god produced a human prototype a few thousand years ago has already demonstrated the ability to hold many contradictory views. that he/she can also accept evolution is not so surprising. i would imagine that this “belief” was subjected to the same rigorous examination as the creation story.
dlw32
Rome Again, we miscommunicated. I can accept some people believe God created everything and used evolution as a mechanism to achieve that.
But the question in the survey specifically defined Evolution as “human beings developed over millions of years” and Creationism as “God created human beings … at one time within the last 10,000 years”.
It’s the 13% that apparently can’t figure out that 10,000 years
dslak
But various experiments have shown that this is indeed possible. I think this is the source of most people’s problem with evolution. Their belief in God is based upon reasoning about events in the pre-human past rather than on religious experience or tradition.
Part of this is actually the fault of the Church(es), which pushed very heavily on scientists – then known as ‘natural philosophers’ – to support the prevailing theology with their research. When the project to use science to prove the truth of Christian doctrine collapsed, much of what had been staked on it fell through, as well.
Punchy
No, that’s not evolution. If “intelligent life” “developed living creatures”, you most assuredly don’t have evolution. Evolution is by its very nature RANDOM–thru mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift. All random, undirected and non-choreographed possibilities that ultimately led to the myriad species. Pure, unadulterated trial-and-error. Statistics, really.
You can believe God started the Big Bang, or maybe even he formed the planets, but you absolutely cannot argue using science that a God “directs” evolution, unless you are willing to argue he can control every single DNA mutation on every animal of every species everywhere at all times forever in the past and future, and since mutations can come from almost an infinite number of chemicals and energy (photons!), then yeah, he has controled every single possible chemical molecule and photon ever uleashed by our planet and sun, respectively, for the past 4.5 billion years.
Good luck with that.
srv
Re “morality”, has anyone done a study of what percentage of mammals kill intra-species, and with what frequency?
dlw32
oops… I used a symbol that cut off the bottom of my reply…
Rome Again, we miscommunicated. I can accept some people believe God created everything and used evolution as a mechanism to achieve that.
But the question in the survey specifically defined Evolution as “human beings developed over millions of years” and Creationism as “God created human beings … at one time within the last 10,000 years”.
It’s the 13% that apparently can’t figure out that 10,000 years is less than milions of years. They also have a problem co-relating “developed … from less advanced forms of life” with “pretty much in their present form at one time”.
Zifnab
Which many people – believing in a super-duper-amazing-All-Powerful-God – do.
The more benign belief is that God would guide evolution, kinda like a guy flicking dominos on a giant domino board, to create the effects he desires precisely at the right moments. Like a master weaver, letting the shuttle do most of the work, but weaving in the right threads at the right moments. Kinda an artisy God.
But, again, its all premised on the idea that a magical man in the sky is the driving force behind everything. This “puppeter God” is comforting, but ultimately rather delusional. It clings to the Voltairian “We live in the Best of All Possible Worlds” delusion.
AlanDownunder
Yeah, we know plenty about ‘the stupid party’. Especially of late, under Bush. But 40% of democrats. 37% of independents. The ‘stupid country’ is what’s really scary.
Zombie Santa Claus
That’s kind of what the idea of an All-Powerful God is all about, really. The God who can answer Reggie White’s prayers at the same time as He directs pond scum on Alpha Centauri.
You may think it’s pretty stupid, but as my father pointed out to me once, a lot of people who were smarter than me believed quite fervently in this idea.
dslak
Presumably, God could know which circumstances would lead to the evolution of the human race, and actualize a universe in which those circumstances obtained. Then you’ve got God and no interference in evolution. I don’t think the idea that God somehow ‘encouraged’ evolution at certain points is all that absurd, but it shouldn’t be pawned off as science.
Punchy
Come on, y’all. For the last time–IT’S NOT EVOLUTION IF IT’S BEING “GUIDED”!! This is the antithesis of evolution as defined by Darwin. Random mutations leading to random changes in a species that may or may not affect its ability to breed more. We only see the former, as the latter types are quickly extinguished.
If you truly believe that God DOES control every single photon ever released, and the origin, direction, and outcome of every stray chemical mutagen, but WON’T control or direct the actions of the VaTech gunman….well…that’s so fucked up it’s beyond words.
And PLEASE don’t tell me that there’s no proof of evolution. Three words–antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That’s evolution, bitches.
Zombie Santa Claus
Science should be purely empirical. It is quite neutral on supernatural explanations for its mechanisms. “Neutral” is not the same thing as “hostile”, although large numbers of previously-accepted supernatural explanations have been disproven by science. Whether or not this means that all supernatural explanations are, ergo, horse plop, is a matter of personal opinion. Reasonable minds can differ, often violently and with staggering body counts.
les
Nicely stated ,mclaren. The notion that you must have a god to have morals, or that evolution can’t produce ethics, is based on another false notion as well–that the individual is somehow the focus of everything, and “no god” means each person can/will do whatever they want. Which, oddly enough, in the case of religionists appears to be rape, pillage and kill if fear of divine punishment is removed. Evolution is about the species, not individuals; and it’s pretty clear altruism/ethics is good for the species.
Andrew
I would just like to point out that mclaren’s post was actually pretty interesting and intellectual.
This will not stand!
I like boobies.
Zombie Santa Claus
Assuming, arguendo, an omnipotent and omniscient God, the idea of randomness transforms into the idea of an Order indiscernible to human eyes.
This was the main theme of the Book of Job. The believers in God have answers for these questions: it’s all part of a Plan that humans are not privy to. Another possible answer: free will is something God doesn’t fuck with, so if the Virginia Tech guy or Stalin or Hitler decides to go and be evil, well, that’s what Hell is for. It’s the celestial jailhouse for ne’er-do-wells.
You and I may not like those answers or ascribe to them, but they do exist. As I say again, smarter people than myself have agonized over this crap for thousands of years, now.
No one argues with the existence of evolution except for spoofs and morons.
srv
It’s why religious evolutionists are as literally as stupid as creationists. They accept that creationists are crackpots, but fantasize an even more complicated deterministic theory.
No offense intended, but it is scientifically correct.
Zombie Santa Claus
Religion is an ideology. Like any other ideology, it provides cover for the worst instincts of humanity- this is what Samuel Johnson was referring to when he criticized another ideology, patriotism, stating that it was the “last refuge of the scoundrel.”
Atheism, also has provided ideological cover for horrendous misdeeds. Stalin killed 30 million people in the name of human progress, a progress beyond both the bourgeois ideas of property distribution and the “opiates of the masses” that deterred the proletariat from attempting a more equitable redistribution of capital.
(Yes, really Stalin was a power-hungry despot, but that’s my point- the ideological cloak he found useful to justify his behavior was atheist Marxism. In other eras, the Tsars used Christianity. In the Islamic world, Islam was used. Etc., etc., etc. The world worlds regardless of the ideas in vogue at the time.)
Zombie Santa Claus
Let me see if I understand you correctly: 95% of the world are stupid for believing in any form of religion. 5% of the world, the atheists, are smart.
How is this smugness any different than that of the Bible-thumpers who presume they themselves will be the only ones who get to hang out in Heaven while the rest of us roast in fire? You have your faith in sheer empiricism, they have theirs in Scripture. The underlying issue I have is with the smugness, not with whichever particular crackpot ideology it chooses to leech on to.
Zombie Santa Claus
I mean, the least we can do is admit that we don’t know everything. A pluralistic approach is the only one with any prospect for humility. Rigid dogmatism is not good for science, either. I’d prefer you leave a question mark at the ultimate questions, rather than pull out a stupid stick and start whacking everyone who disagrees with you over the head with it.
Andrew
Wrong. You need not have any faith in empiricism and science for such things to be born out as correct. The whole “faith” thing is pretty much the key difference.
Tim F.
My two pence: people can believe whatever the hell they want as long as they respect the barrier between church and my life. See, intelligent people with religious beliefs recognize that people with different beliefs have an equally valid claim on reality, neither of which can be objectively demonstrated. Therefore any effort to impose the beliefs of group A onto group B constitutes what we used to call tyranny.
For two hundred years our country got along fine believing in spaghetti monsters at home and empiricism at work. I see no reason why that should not go on. Conveniently enough the nutters who disagree now have a handy catchbasin, the Republican party, where they can stand up and declare themselves irrelevant.
srv
You’re fine with John calling a majority segment of republicans stupid for believing in creationism or ID, but I’m just an arrogant smug dogmatist because I call out people who believe something just as ridiculous?
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it is as duck. It isn’t reasonable or scientific to believe it is a deterministically engineered mammal God came up with after 4 billion years of playing with proteins.
You’re not an enlightened open-minded pragmatic intellectual, you’re just another enabler of people you oppose Reason. How can someone like George Bush can get elected twice? Because people like you flip-flop about in your ‘un-smug’ manner.
As I said, no offense intended. But you’re stupid wrt to science and evolution.
srv
“people who oppose Reason”
And nobody said athiests are smart.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
You’re all wrong.
See you in 4377 suckers.
Zombie Santa Claus
Atheism is a faith. You have no specific proof in the non-existence of a Higher Power, yet you assert this is the case.
Empiricism is a form of reason. Science is a method whose primary virtue is skepticism. The opposite of that skepticism being dogmatism, of any form whatsoever.
I agree completely. What grates on me is the smugness of atheists. This is the same quality that grates on me with religious dogmatists of other types.
Their beliefs have been, to the general satisfaction of objective minds, disproven by science. The existence of a Higher Power is still open to debate. Intelligent people can differ on this subject.
No. It’s faith, which is outside of reason and not subject to the constraints of intelligence.
No, you are. To rally the right, all people like Bush have to do is point to smug cocksuckers like you as the leftist alternative.
You and I aren’t even discussing the same things, yet you somehow think we are.
Well, you did say this:
There are pretty much only three kinds of people in the world: various forms of Creationists, “religious evolutionists,” and atheists. You’ve just called the first two categories stupid, so unless you’re willing to label the third category equally stupid (in which case, I wholeheartedly agree with you), then I’m afraid you’ve established atheists as the only intelligent people in your worldview.
Zombie Santa Claus
Well, in fairness I guess you might concede that agnostics have a glimmer of intellect.
Zombie Santa Claus
Perhaps I should clarify. Scientific observation gives you no more right to chastise the supernatural beliefs of others than supernatural belief gives others the expertise necessary to evaluate scientific observation. To presume otherwise in either direction is smugness, assholitude, and dogmatism; whether it’s Crusaders slaughtering Muslims or Stalinists shooting priests in the skulls, or even just middling political strife in America that splits the moderates and helps elevate the Fundamentalists at the expense of the seculars, I don’t see much of value in this kind of attitude.
Hopefully, that clears my position up a bit.
canuckistani
Sorry, ZSC, belief in non-existance is not the same as non-belief in existence. I am an atheist, and I do not believe in any god. Not the same as saying “I believe there is no god”. The burden of proof stands with those who assert the existence of a supernatural being.
Tim F.
I am an atheist,
That would make you an agnostic. Nietzsche was an atheist. What matters is that either you are willing to make a statement of fact (no god) or just don’t know and don’t care (agnostic).
From my perspective the atheist statement is as irrelevant as the theistic one since neither are falsifiable. It honestly bewilders me that people would spend time and energy arguing about something which by definition cannot be resolved.
Tim F.
huh. The first line of my comment above belongs in the blockquote.
Zombie Santa Claus
This not a courtroom. This is a philosophical discussion. I don’t have to prove or disprove anything, much less endure a burden of proof. Belief in non-existence is still belief. Hence, it’s faith. Faith applies to non-existent things as well. I have lots of faith. I have faith that Alizee is not standing behind me right now waiting to ravish me, unfortunately. I have faith that tomorrow I won’t find a million dollars in my bank account. I have faith that God is probably not a flying spaghetti monster, if there even is a God. But I haven’t turned around yet, I haven’t woken up tomorrow and checked my bank account yet, and I haven’t died and avoided going to Pasta Heaven yet. So how are those faiths based on reason? Prior experience doesn’t even conclusively dictate future experience, much less supernatural realities or non-realities.
Faith is confident belief in anything. The term itself exists completely outside of the realm of reason. I have faith in the laws of science. I have faith that they won’t radically alter themselves in the next 5 minutes. Rational observation leads me to that conclusion; I can hedge my bets. Nevertheless, I am as ignorant of what will happen in the future as I am of the supernatural.
HyperIon
i say to those who believe in god: please provide scientific evidence. just one shred. but they NEVER do. yet they continue to state that god exists.
so how does pointing that out make me smug?
Zombie Santa Claus
This is exactly what I was driving at. Thanks for saying it better in one paragraph than I said it in 5 posts, Tim.
It honestly bewilders me that people would claim themselves superior to those belittling others for their non-falsifiable beliefs would then choose to do so themselves, based on other non-falsifiable beliefs. That’s what’s been nagging me this whole time. I’m quite tolerant of everyone’s beliefs; what I hate is when others refuse to extend me the same courtesy.
Andrew
This is simply ridiculous. That is like saying my hobby is not collecting stamps.
Of course, this real nail in the coffin of this criticism is perhaps best expressed by Stephen Roberts:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The only reason that atheism seems arrogant is that religious believes are totally blind to their very own, far worse arrogance.
Zombie Santa Claus
Why should they? It’s based on faith. Even Thomas Aquinas only provided Aristotle’s Prime Mover argument before conceding that faith in God required a “state of grace” to fall upon the person inquiring.
Because you’re asking them to prove something which is supernatural and not subject to proof.
Prove conclusively that God does NOT exist. Please provide one shred of evidence which is unambiguous and not subject to differing interpretations. (As already demonstrated, the randomness of evolution does not count; one could just as easily argue that it’s proof of an Order of creation outside of human comprehension.)
If you fail to do so, does that give others the right to smugly deride atheism as a demonstrably false belief system?
Andrew
The notion of the existence of purple ninja monkeys that shoot lasers from their arse-holes is not falsifiable either.
On the other hand, followers of the mystical purple ninja monkeys are not trying to dominate my world and country. If they were, I would point out that there are no purple ninja monkeys, believing in them is stupid and makes you spend your sundays sticking lasers up your ass, and you really don’t need to believe in purple ninja monkeys to lead a decent life.
(Watch there actually be a youtube video of purple ninja monkeys…)
canuckistani
No, no, no. There is a huge difference between “I do not believe” and “I do not know”. An agnostic will say “maybe there is, and maybe there isn’t, who can tell?”, but an atheist will say “If you want me to believe that shit, you’d better find some better evidence than the Shroud of Turin”.
From Wikipedia –
I’ll take the broad definition, thank you. I do not believe in Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Superman or Gumby. But I have seen spaghetti, which means the FSM has one more bit of evidence than any of the others.
Andrew
I ain’t never seen her round these parts.
ThymeZone
Empiricism isn’t about getting answers, as much as it is about asking questions.
Saying that one has faith in questions is not the same thing as saying that one has faith in a scripture or text.
Faith in a process is hardly comparable to dogmatic belief in a set of “truths.”
So let’s cut the crap here, please.
The whole idea of faith in a process is that in the long run, the process, if it is sound, will produce a better result than faith in a dogma.
Asked to choose between faith in a set of pat answers to somebody else’s pat questions, versus faith in a process that is likely to reveal new and better questions, I will choose the latter every time. But that’s just me.
Punchy
Like hell it doesn’t. When someone comes to me screaching about evolution spewing “God” or “intelligent higher beings”, I have every right to chastise, mock, and correct such nonsense. As a scientist, I will make no stink about what you practice in your house, car, or church; but how dare you come into the science realm and try to infect it with supernatural bullshit.
You believe in creationism? Fine. But don’t call it evolution, and don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously. If you’re willing and able to overlook fossils, Carbon-14 dating, geology, etc., who knows what other established, bedrock, fundemental scientific principles such a person may overlook. Maybe gravity. Perhaps God just gave us all really sticky feet, eh?
Zombie Santa Claus
False analogy. It’s a bit more like saying you have no hobby, then criticizing the hobbies of everyone else.
I contend that we are both Deists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I don’t dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I don’t dismiss ours.
It’s a non-falsifiable belief. All such beliefs are “arrogant” in terms of reason. All are based on faith.
Zombie Santa Claus
I’ve never seen North Dakota. By your solipsistic proof, it doesn’t exist either.
Zombie Santa Claus
I can’t conclusively disprove it either. Nor do I try to. Nor would I look down on people who pointed out that it can’t be disproven.
Neither am I, jerkoff.
All true. But you presume much about the adherents of this belief system. I, having never met them nor heard about their beliefs, am far less inclined to pass judgment on them.
Punchy
Are you serious? You cannot prove a negative, and you know this. Incredible, such dishonesty. That’s like saying “prove conclusively that dogs aren’t secretly flying invisible airplanes looking for more Alpo.” WTF? You prove what you can see, not what you cannot.
Andrew
Of course atheism is falsifiable. I just need proof of god’s existence. I would accept Zeus appearing above Mt. Olympus and shooting lightning bolts at passing goat herders. Or Jesus coming back and rapturing up all the believers.
Andrew
Well, not since they all got melamine’d to death.
Zombie Santa Claus
Who’s trying to prove anything here? All I’m asking for is tolerance and respect for the beliefs of 95% of the human race. Apparently, that’s beyond you guys.
What does this have to do with calling everyone who believes in any form of religion an idiot?
No one’s interfering in the realm of science. This is about the bigotry of atheism, not the scientific method.
No, you idiot! I don’t!
Bu
If someone wants to believe that evolution, in all its randomness, is the product of an omniscient, ominpotent Order beyond human comprehension, how does that hinder scientific inquiry? How does it hinder acceptance of scientific findings in any way, shape, or form? How does it render that person an idiot? (Darwin believed in God, so I guess he was an idiot by such standards.)
You’re missing my point completely, which is: Religion per se /= anti-evolution. People who say otherwise are intolerant atheist bigots.
I believe in evolution. I also believe in tolerance and religious pluralism. If that makes me an idiot, go fuck yourself. If that makes you smarter because your non-falsifiable belief makes more sense to you than the non-falsifiable beliefs of the other 95% of the planet, go fuck yourself. If you think your faith is correct, and everyone else’s is incorrect, go fuck yourself.
None of this has anything to do with the scientific method or the process of evolution. It’s a philosophical discussion, not a religious one. But frankly, I’d rather have religious bigotry than anti-religious bigotry. At least the religious bigots don’t call me an idiot while they’re burning me at the stake. They leave that to the Stalinists.
Zombie Santa Claus
Should read, “It’s a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.” Can’t edit posts.
Zombie Santa Claus
The point is that FAITH IS NOT BASED ON PROOF!!!!! How many times do I have to say this? How many different ways? Your anti-belief is a belief. The only true non-belief is agnosticism.
Zombie Santa Claus
I’m not trying to prove anything to you, you unspeakably smug asshole. I’m just trying to get your to accept the fact that 95% of the human race disagrees with you without you calling them morons. Why is that so hard for you to do? How much of your ego is wrapped up in this question?
Who are you to say there is no God? I’m not even saying there is one, I’m just saying that at least I won’t have the arrogance to call other people idiots for believing in one.
If we can’t agree to disagree, you fuckers are every bit as dangerous as the Christianists and Islamists you hope to supplant.
Rome Again
Wow, I wrote that post this morning before going to work and come back at lunch to see this whole thing blown wide open. Sorry I didn’t contribute until now, I was busy working.
Tim said:
I do, so thanks!
The rest of you, argue amongst yourselves. I said what I wanted to say. Have at it. ;)
Punchy
Please go wiki “scientific method” and tell me how God fits in this picture. It doesn’t; it cannot. Nobody is dogging on your religion, or your right to possess one. You’ve got a martyr’s complex now. My anger is directed only at those who wish to conflate, mix, meld, and twist evolution with God. If you want to talk like a scientist, keep God out. If you want to talk like a Jesusist, keep science out. Not that hard to understand, really.
Zombie Santa Claus
I agree.
So far, Tim has been the only person here who understands what I’m trying to say. I have no idea why that is. Either I’m too stupid to properly articulate myself, or everyone else is too arrogant to concede that the presence of faith does not equal the absence of intelligence.
Andrew
I think I am me, therefore I am thinking, or something like that.
n.b. I didn’t call all believers idiots, as far as I can remember. Just the creationists who believe in things that are obviously ridiculous. I too have no problem with a religious person who thinks physics is god’s rules or whatever. Yay deism.
Zombie Santa Claus
How does that answer my question?
I have no quarrel with either group. Nor do I have a quarrel with segregating personal religious belief from scientific empiricism. I have a quarrel with those who equate faith per se with idiocy. By their own reasoning, Darwin was an idiot. As are “religious evolutionists” who constitute the overwhelming majority of secular humanists in this country.
Apologies if that wasn’t clear to you.
Andrew
Maybe the jar is getting in the way?
tBone
I want to believe!
Zombie Santa Claus
Descartes was incorrect. Cogito, ergo sum is a false concept. I have faith in my own existence. Thinking is occurring, but that doesn’t mean it necessarily attaches to an “I.” It’s an Indo-European linguistic trick that a subject has to attach to a verb. Our frame of reference dictates our logic, but that does not dictate its reality.
And even if it did, Descartes’ next move was to argue that God existed as the creator of the “I” doing the thinking.
srv, 10:32 am:
This is where the trouble started. Everyone’s an idiot who’s not an atheist, by this rationale. (If atheists are added in to the category of “stupid”, I have no trouble with this statement; my personal belief is that we’re all a bunch of fools clutching at straws known variously as “faith”, “reason”, or “method.”)
This kind of smug atheism is every bit as intolerant and bigoted as Jerry Falwell’s kind of Christianity. That’s my point here. I don’t know how you guys took that to mean I was a Creationist or any of the other shit you’ve been shoveling at me.
Punchy
Or a third choice could be that no one is saying this, but you enjoy thinking you’re being persecuted for your faith.
I’ve specifically kept this about evolution, so yeah, you’re an idiot if you deny the existance of evolution. You do not, ergo, you’re intelligent. But feel free to twist that around to mean the complete opposite.
Zombie Santa Claus
What faith would that be? I haven’t even argued a fucking faith.
It’s not. It’s about the arrogance of dogmatism run amok. Specifically dogmatic atheism. More specifically, dogmatic atheists who call everyone who disagrees with them stupid.
I was arguing with srv specifically. I have no idea why the rest of you guys decided to jump in on it. I presumed that you were defending his viewpoint, which is that I’m an idiot for not dogmatically accepting that atheism is the only dogma acceptable to persons of intelligence.
Andrew
I may be a lot of characters (just 2, actually) but I’m pretty sure I’m not srv.
Zombie Santa Claus
Then, I wasn’t addressing you. Why did you jump in on it if you didn’t agree with him?
srv, 11:53 am:
IOW, everyone who’s not an atheist is an “enabler” of the Republican Party. Everyone who tolerates religion is an “enabler” of the Republican Party. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are “enablers” of the Republican Party.
This, from a former Republican to a lifelong Democrat.
If you guys aren’t defending what srv said, I have no quarrel with you, and apologize if I wasn’t articulate enough to make my objections clear.
RSA
I haven’t jumped in, but my impression was that there were a few familiar disagreements going on: whether atheism (in contrast to agnosticism) can be logically justified, and about the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The Creationism versus evolution issue was just the hot sauce.
Punchy
Fixed.
Andrew
On the other hand, I agree that the notion of god pre-designing the paths of genes so that border collies pop into existence 3 billion years after the amino acids start to get jiggy is pretty stupid too.
Just not as stupid as the coconut eating t-rexes.
Tax Analyst
That’s not a bad post for someone who countenances Elf-cannabalism.
RSA
Well, yeah, but. . .um. . . never mind. Short attention span.
Tax Analyst
Rather than attempting to fully articulate my particular POV I’ll just simplify and say that this stated view makes the most sense to me…I would really just be paraphrasing. I can’t find anything within it to quibble about.
srv
No, you’re right. John was right that Republican creationists are stupid, but Rome Again is smart because she believes something akin to Andrews Border-Collie theory. And I’m just a smug, arrogant prick for calling that stupid.
You seem to think embracing the plurality is what is important, and no one (save Johns Republican Creationists – how arrogantly selective of you) should be offended.
Best of luck defending the herd, I’m sure it will make your grandkids world a better place.
ThymeZone
Again, the ttacks on my relatives.
Why, why? Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
{ apologies to the memory of Joseph Welch }
Andrew
Back to Tim:
Guess what? Many don’t respect the barrier. Parsing this out, what you’re actually saying is that those people can’t believe whatever they want. What do you want to force them to believe?
HyperIon
personally i don’t believe in santa claus. and i don’t mean that in a smug way. i just don’t. and i freely admit that someone who DOES believe in SC will not get my vote for anything.
Andrew
I have no quarrel with the weekend experimentations of various free-thinking peoples, although such things may be illegal in most states.
srv
Oh, and I never said anything about athiests.
Rome Again
Well, neither do I, so we’re even. ;)
Andrew
What you mean to say is:
I contend that we are both Anti-Clausians. I just believe in one fewer Claus than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Clauses, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Rome Again
You come from purple ninja monkeys? Really!
Tim F.
I want to force them to believe that they don’t have a right to dictate their personal faith to other people. Failing that I want them to go on believing that in a state of total political irrelevance.
HyperIon
i missed that. could you summarize briefly?
ThymeZone
That is exactly my own thinking on the matter.
However … ahem … if one of “them” is here to defend their point of view, as did one of the Republican Church of God candidates the other day …. he’d say ….
People have all sorts of reasons for getting and having the politicial and policy ideas that they have. Why should people of faith be excluded from turning their beliefs into action any more than anyone else would be excluded?
In other words, why are you (we) picking on people of faith?
That’s their argument. Not mine. Mine is, we should give them the southern tier of states and cut them loose to be the Confederate States of America, and be done with them. I don’t want to share a country with them, particularly.
Rome Again
Sorry, the other way didn’t make sense, but I believe this is what you meant, and if so, me too!
canuckistani
The “atheists are smug” thing reminds me a lot of the “leftists are angry” argument – it’s a convenient way of boxing up and discarding arguments you don’t want to hear with an irrelevant observation.
Which is not to say that I’m *not* smug – but I was also a smug Christian before I shed my faith.
ThymeZone
Jesus was smug.
Rome Again
The only reason that seems to make sense for me is that certain people of faith refuse to allow both schools of thought (not they they learned it in a real school, but you know what I mean) to exist side by side, which is exactly what Tim pointed to in his first sentence of that statement.
Jack H.
The blue vmeme G folk go apeshit thinking how we could’ve evolved from primates. If they can’t get there I bet their heads would explode contemplating that we came from frisky gunk in primordial ooze a few billion years ago.
Punchy
Well said (golf-clap). IMO, the reason many people simply don’t believe in evolution and the creation of life from a soup of amino and lipids is that we humans simply cannot properly fathom what 4.5 billion years entails. We cannot properly put into perspective exactly how long such an epoch is, and thus to our 80-90 year-old lifespans we simply fail to compute exactly how simple it was for evolution to happen, given ~4 billion years Earth had at trial-and-error natural selection. Statistically, getting all the right combos of proteins, nucleics, and lipids together is maybe a billion to one shot. But if one tries even just once a day, you’ll get it only a billion years in, with several billion left to form species.
Hell, the dinos and most large animals kicked it vis-a-vis a meteor only 65 mill years ago, and that didn’t keep Earth from “remaking” more very large animals in that relatively short time.
Zombie Santa Claus
Fuck you, then. The only thing stupider than faith in ID is believing that your own faith (or atheism, the anti-faith that IS a faith) makes you smarter than people who believe in ID.
You’re still a monkey, you still have >80 years to live, and none of us can prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God.
Fuck you as well, you Stalinist bigot. Why don’t you worry a little bit more about your own limitations, and worry a little less about the intellectual limitations of people who acknowledge theirs and find a faith that addresses them to their personal satisfaction?
To reiterate, I’d rather live under a Christianist Taliban than your atheist variant. At least the Christianists wouldn’t call me an idiot before they shot me.
Punchy
Or just once a year. Math sux.
Face
Zombie Santa Claus
IMO, calling people stupid for holding religious beliefs in the privacy of their own homes is the act of a bigot. You wouldn’t tolerate it if people called you idiots for your beliefs, so why don’t you stop insulting others?
Should ID be taught in science class? Fuck no. Is ID any stupider than any other non-falsifiable belief, including atheism? Fuck no.
This is the process. The cause is where religious types differ from atheists. Was evolution caused by some form of intelligence, or was it caused by a random fart in oblivion? Who the fuck knows? Why the fuck is someone stupid for disagreeing with you on this question if they accept the same scientific processes you do?
Zombie Santa Claus
Certain atheists are doing so on this very thread, in fact. If you’re not an atheist, you’re a gibbering moron. The omniscient srv tells us so, so it must be true!
canuckistani
Falso choice. They can shoot you, or we can call you an idiot and not shoot you. Atheism != Stalinism, but that’s one sweet strawman.
What if I call you an idiot for reasons other than religious faith?
Face
Let’s try this again:
People who believe in ID are stupid. Idiots. There, I said it. They ignore the mountains of solid, repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence of a natural progression of species. They willfully ignore DNA homology , carbon dating, and the tenets of natural selection. They take the most ludicrious and patently absurd tact that God somehow guides the development of every single animal at all times and thus somehow controls speciation. They advocate the notion that life is “too complex” to be formed by chance, without fully defining what life is, and what “complex” is (viruses, anyone?).
In short, they are willing to suspend common sense simply b/c they’re too damn stubborn to use reason and common sense and make very simple conclusions based on overwhelming evidence. Only stupid people do this.
Andrew
Hey, I want to be a stalinist bigot too!
Hey srv and punchy, let’s game plan our secular humanist authoritarian atheist empire of godless evolutionary awesomeness.
Which religion do we kill off first? I say Zoroastrians, ’cause no one will miss them, and it’s good to start with a test run.
On the other hand, we should keep a few of each type of god-talker in a big zoo, just in case we need someone to trade to the space aliens, and they might have a particular taste for Southern Baptist or something.
As for TV programming, I think we should add a laugh track to all of the historical religious shows and then some special effects where our Dear Non-lord and Non-savior Richard Dawkins, Praise Be Upon His Unbelief, will smash them with his huge Boot of Darwinism, like on Monty Python.
Zombie Santa Claus
BTW, this is the most anti-American thing written in this entire thread:
I don’t think religious beliefs should be taught in science class. They’re falsifiable by scientific methods. I also don’t think religion has a place in secular centers of learning or public discourse (schools, courthouses, etc.) The reason I don’t feel this way is because I feel that majoritarian religious bigotry is contrary to the religious pluralism and tolerance is the cornerstone of American civilization. You obviously disagree. You clearly have no problem with anti-religious bigotry, and from your prior statements you lead me to conclude that you would embrace the abolition of religious tolerance and pluralism if your positions ever attained majority status.
No one deserves a place in the Republican Party more than Fascists like you.
Zombie Santa Claus
Nor does Islam equal Taliban, or Christianity equal Jerry Falwell. However, intolerance carried to the srv degree becomes Stalinism. We can call it something else, but the bottom line is that he’s dogmatically intolerant of all non-atheists. I shudder to think of what his monolithic control of society would resemble, the closest analogy I could think of is Stalinism. If you have a better one, I’m all ears.
Fine by me, especially since I have no religious faith. What if I call you a fucking asshole?
Zombie Santa Claus
Faith is not stupidity. Only a bigot thinks this.
Nearly every religion involves intelligent design. If you think every religious person is an idiot, you’re a bigot. It’s as simple as that.
Zombie Santa Claus
You’re on the right track.
You guys aren’t secular humanists. I’m a secular humanist. You’re bigots. There’s a pretty big difference between tolerating what people believe in their own homes and wanting to kick their doors down and force them to burn their religious texts.
Fuck you.
Fuck you. This isn’t funny.
There are 30 million corpses in Russia, 5 million corpses in Cambodia, and who-the-fuck-knows-how-many corpses in China of people who died to the anti-religious intolerance of atheists who thought they knew everything. If they were alive, none of them would be laughing with you.
RSA
(Off-topic:) My rough understanding is that metaphysical naturalism holds that nothing exists outside nature. Supernatural stuff is out–if you can’t fit it into nature, it just doesn’t exist. (There are subtleties that have to do with the existence of unobservable things like universals, but I’d need to refresh my memory to talk about those.) Methodological naturalism doesn’t make the same commitment: it just says, “Let’s exclude supernatural explanations from our scientific toolbox,” but doesn’t go further to rule out their existence. I brought this up because I think it’s one plausible (though perhaps not universal) difference between atheists and theists who both accept evolution.
Zombie Santa Claus
Yes, that about sums it up. But if you believe in methodological naturalism (assuming you’re using the terms correctly), you’re a fucking moron. Andrew, srv, and Punchy all say so.
Face
Hmmm…I wonder why. Maybe because it’s in their BEST DAMN INTEREST to put everything in the context of a God. Maybe, because God is the product they’re selling, that God ought to be a key feature, truth, honesty, and accuracy be dammed.
The Cavs will tell their season ticket holders that Lebron is the best player in the NBA, when everyone knows it’s actually Kobe. They don’t give a fuck about the truth; they’re just selling their product. I always knew the Cavs were just a bunch of Kobe-bigots.
Punchy
I’m going to call you Scarecrow, cuz you are The Man Of Straw. Just wow.
Zombie Santa Claus
Here’s what wikipedia says about it, anyway:
Seems like a reasonable approach to science to me. What this has to do with calling everyone who believes in any form of religion an idiot is beyond me, though.
I like this part:
(emphasis mine)
That’s half of what I’ve been trying to say this entire thread. The other half is sort of what it says here:
canuckistani
My bullshit meter just pegged. Damned few, if any of these people were killed for refusing to espouse atheism. I doubt Stalin gave a rat’s ass if the Ukranian people were Christians or not, but if they acted like Ukranian nationalists, he was going to kill them whether they were Christians, Jews or Zoroastarians. Just think of all the fellow marxist/atheists he killed in his various purges.
As for me, I don’t care what you believe, but I reserve the right to mock religion wherever I see it, and I’ll point out religious stupidity any time and any place, and if it offends people, well, fuck em. If their faith is strong, they’ll shrug it off. I’m sick of religion being the sacred cow that we must not question, lest we offend people’s deeply held convictions. If their convictions are stupid, then they need to be held up to scrutiny. Certainly no one is holding back at questioning atheism.
Ho, ho, ho bitch indeed. We can’t poke at *your* precious sensibilities? Are the mean militant atheists wounding the poetic, sensitive soul of Zombie Santa Claus?
Hey! What about me?
Andrew
Hmmmm, I think that believing in a magic being who took it upon itself to pre-program genes for all eternity, forseeing by 14 billion years such awesome things like a sterile 63 chromosome donkey/horse hybrid, does indeed make you sort of stupid.
On the other hand, religious believers who think that I am going to BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for not praying to their god in a very particularly proscribed manner are the reasonable folk.
Let’s rephrase:
Designing donkeys 14 billion years ago? Reasonable.
Calling people who believe that sort of stupid? Stalinist.
Zombie Santa Claus
Maybe because they believe it. Maybe because it makes them feel better. Maybe they’re not selling anything. Maybe because it’s none of your fucking business what they believe, nor is it any mark upon their intelligence that it helps them to believe that.
I don’t give a fuck about your basketball teams. By the standards of your analogy, you don’t even believe the game exists and think that anyone who does is an idiot.
Zombie Santa Claus
I think the 95% of the human race that DOES believe this would think you’re a fucking asshole. They would also think you’re an intolerant asshole. In other words, a bigot.
They’re fucking bigots too. But you can only clean your side of the street, you know. Or you SHOULD know, since you’re so fucking smart.
Andrew
I’m pretty cool with that.
People think I’m an asshole for a number of dumb reasons, like being American, Southern, dead sexy, etc.
srv
You’re not the only one who can go over the top
You are the locals in Salem shouting “Burn Them!”
You are the cheering section for Remember the Maine
You are the hooting audience at the Scopes Trial
You are the folk that never saw the back of a bus
You are the trembling air traveller after 9/11
You are the masses afraid of Saddam
You are the plurality, and anything contrary is just bigotry.
Zombie Santa Claus
As long as we’re agreed, then.
canuckistani
It just crossed my mind that this is a big logical fallacy. If atheists were Einsteinian saints, or if atheists were blood-soaked child killers would make no difference to the question of whether or not there is a god, and if he/she has let us see enough evidence to choose to worship correctly. Start from the correct default position – if I have no beliefs at all, what evidence do I see that leads me to one faith or another – or do you say there is no evidence, I will not choose any of the above?
Zombie Santa Claus
Tolerating different beliefs is obviously something you need to bone up on a bit, bigot Stalinist asshole. You don’t seem to grasp the concept yet.
ThymeZone
I might think that you are going to burn in hell for eternity. But for the reason you cite.
It might just be that you have never joined our mailing list, or if you have, you have not confessed as to your true identity.
Have you looked into your soul on this? Are you ready to be saved?
ThymeZone
And you, ZSC, are NOT WELCOME on our mailing list.
We have no desire to smell it up with the corpses of the dead.
Andrew
Before you get to join our club, you either have to build a 300′ shrine to Darwin right in front of a church, or kill a hobo with your bare hands.
Zombie Santa Claus
Enough of them were killed for religious reasons to prove my point. Or are you going to argue that Stalin was a friend of the Jews, the Muslims and the Greek Orthodox Church?
I hate bigotry even when it doesn’t affect me. If you were writing specifically anti-Islamic crap instead of anti-religion in general crap, I’d be just as offended. If you want to goose step, fuck off and die.
The point is the end result of dogmatic intolerance. Since atheism, like Shintoism and Wiccanism, can neither be proved nor disproved, the validity of its ideas is irrelevant. What is relevant is that atheism as the official doctrine of the state leads to results every bit as bloody as the adoption of any other religion as the official doctrine of the state.
srv
Actually, I’ve been working on my own Church of America (working title) for some time. We’re going to have services before wrestling events. Jesus will wrestle the other gods and Satan, and wear red, white and blue.
The problem has been finding the right fall guy. You want someone very charismatic, who can draw in something more than working class, but not someone too independent. So if you see someone who looks a bit like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh with a wrestling build on the street somewhere, let me know.
Zombie Santa Claus
Fuck you guys, this is a waste of time. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Fine. 95% of the human race are idiots. Fine. People who accept the same science, but allow for irrelevant supernatural thoughts outside of the raw materialism in which you engross yourselves is too stupid to associate with you.
Have fun being the 4 or 5 smartest assholes on the planet. Maybe you should start your own political party, the Atheist Party. Best of luck!
Andrew
Yes, we are definitely agreed that I don’t mind that people who think that god designed donkeys 14 billion years ago think that I am a prick.
That’s a bit wordy, so let me rephrase:
Creationists of any sort are D-U-M dumb about the origin of species. (They might be perfectly good mathematicians or truck drivers.)
Punchy
You’re right. Until they enter my schools and demand to teach one stupid fucking crazy-ass piece of shit laughable ID theory as science. THEN it becomes my biz-nazz, and I shall say so.
As for this:
Are you saying that 95% of the world believes in creationism? Cuz with what you’ve blockquoted, that’s how that reads, and I’m pretty sure that’s complete crap.
HyperIon
ZSC, chill.
you are beginning to sound like a not-completely-deranged-Darrell. in fact at this point i’m seriously considering that you ARE Darrell’s author but you forgot to take your meds today. your vehemence is over the top.
i BELIEVE that no one in this thread has said that religious belief = idiocy, which seems to be your main assertion. perhaps you could cite a post where that equivalency is stated. i’ve looked but i can’t find it.
Andrew
I think ZSC is intolerant of intolerance.
canuckistani
I’m cool with that.
ThymeZone
Okay, I’ll do it. I’ll say that unexamined adherence to dogma, whether cloaked in recognized religious practice or not, is idiotic. It’s based on the idea of faith as “belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary,” which is getting pretty close to what I would consider a priori idiocy.
srv
Actually, we’re all DougJ.
HyperIon
EXCELLENT THREAD.
congrats to all participating.
i learned some things and laughed many times.
B-J does not often soar to such substantive heights.
but when it does, it’s because the commenters are determined to express their POVs and are willing to take the time to debate.
ThymeZone
Okay, it’s a wrap, everyone. Please be sure to check for your Excellent Thread, or ET, spiff on your paystub.
There is a team meeting at 7:30 EDT and a flame war seminar, “Swallowing the Flame In a Heated Discussion,” under the canopy right after the evening nude ladies’ mudwrestling.
Thanks all, good job. And be careful out there.
RSA
Andrew wrote:
I commend you on your choice of words. How many times have we seen Origin of THE Species, as if Darwin was writing exclusively about human origins?
Tulkinghorn
Lets just give up rational discussion and trot out our favorite moments of historical bloodthirstiness to support whatever assertion we like.
I like to think of Tamurlane as representing all secular muslims, Genghis Kan as representing all Pagans, Attila the Hun as representing all, well, Hungarians, the crusader princes who raped half of the middle east as representing all Christians, Ted Kazcinki as representing all hermits, and ZSC as representing all elvish voodoo victims. It is so much easier to smear than to think about something substantively.
RSA
I like to think of humanity as a blight upon the planet. </Agent Smith>
Tulkinghorn
Maybe we can develop our sciences and grow, so that we can become a blight upon a decent-sized chunk of the galaxy.
Andrew
I’m just looking forward to the Butlerian Jihad.
Fuck you, Visual Studio.NET 2005, I’m talking you down first.
RSA
You are Agent Smith’s worst nightmare.
tBone
Obviously you haven’t subjected yourself to those shitty prequel novels, then.
Andrew
Um, hell no. I’d rather pull out my own heart plug.
Bruce Moomaw
Looks like I missed all the fun.
Unfortunately, Tulkinghorn, PB, Dislak and McLaren all completely miss my point — which, yet again, is that if you assume that the human moral sense is absolutely nothing but a biolgical drive (or, for that matter, a bunch of social rules) that came into existence because ON THE AVERAGE it maximizes your chances of survival, there is absolutely no possible reason for obeying it on those very frequent occasions when (1) it clearly is NOT in your individual interest to obey it, and (2) you don’t really want to obey it.
I’m very far from resolving this point in my own mind — except to say again that I think that what happened is that Darwinian evolution forged brain structures in this Universe that are so complex that processes that are NOT materialistic or mechanical in nature have started to occur in them, with those processes being linked in some ways — but not in others — to the purely biological processes going on in our brains. I suppose at some point I’ll have to elaborate my similar epistemological qualms about simple Darwinism (which, I’ve only recently learned, are shared by that very shrewd British philosopher Mary Midgeley), but I don’t feel like it tonight. Maybe later.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Late to the game. Reading through this thread, I’ve reached the conclusion that atheists are douchebags.
My $.02. Thank you. Good night. You’ve all been a wonderful audience.
Andrew
Smart, sexy, and badass douchebags, thank you very much.
person of choler
Teak111: funny to see someone using words like “litmas” test and “paradym” to point out the stupidity of others.