RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate.

RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 7:25:25 AM)
quote: Finally ID is not a scientifically valid or useful concept. Kitzmiller v Dover proved quite thoroughly that ID is simply a new name on biblical creationism. I specifically avoided capitalizing "intelligent design" for that very reason. However, the inappropriateness of a specific curriculum does not dismiss the basic question as a valid point of scientific inquiry.

DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 7:25:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Second science can make no claims on the supernatural, positive or negative. Science is about what can be observed, measured and repeated. The supernatural is none of those and so science cannot deal with it. If there is an intelligent "First Cause" agent behind evolution, such an entity would not be "supernatural" but exceedingly "natural". Then you and anybody else is welcome to provide evidence. Until someone presents positive evidence for such the propsition is not scientific. Occam's Razor specifically applies.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 7:35:14 AM)
quote: Until someone presents positive evidence for such the propsition is not scientific. Occam's Razor specifically applies. As a predicate for further logical extrapolation, you are correct. As an initial hypothesis inviting inquiry you are incorrect. Occam's Razor cuts both ways here. A "First Cause" agent would be the simplest explanation of how the processes of evolution began. Remember, Occam's Razor advises not to introduce plurality without necessity.[;)]

DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:02:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Until someone presents positive evidence for such the propsition is not scientific. Occam's Razor specifically applies. As a predicate for further logical extrapolation, you are correct. As an initial hypothesis inviting inquiry you are incorrect. Occam's Razor cuts both ways here. A "First Cause" agent would be the simplest explanation of how the processes of evolution began. Remember, Occam's Razor advises not to introduce plurality without necessity.[;)] So now we're talking abiogenesis not evolution? If you want to postulate and intelligent entity somehow started life here then I'll simply ask what started the intelligence. With sophistry out of the way abiogenesis is a field with lots of theories and lots of inquiry but not a whole lot of evidence to how life got started. However we have enough evidence, both from fossil material and from lab work, to be fairly certain no outside entity was needed. The basic material was here and enough energy was input into the system to cause those components to form appropriate organic compounds. So Occam clearly applies in that positing an additional cause without reason is logically and scientifically pointless. Now for a quick trip through philosophy of science since this looks to be going down a very familiar path. Science deals with observed phenomena. Theories are explanations that most simply explain those observations and make predictions about future observations. Therefore speculations without any evidence is not science. Neither is any explanation that adds complexity unnecessarily. Intelligent design, both the form pushed by the Discovery Institute and what you seem to be advocating here, are scientifically invalid on both of these points. There is no evidence not more simply explained and speculation without evidence is not science.

rulemylife -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I know... Loving supporting parents are America's worst nightmare. The "Fundies" had planned to stay home this time out but now they are coming to the party in droves, thanks in part to Palin who has show herself not only a tough politican and a strong independant woman but also a loving and caring parent. A loving and caring parent might have considered declining the job offer to avoid exposing her teenage daughter, who is already facing the trauma of an unintended pregnacy, the further traumatization of having the whole world know about it.

Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:16:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion". Actually, no, it does not. Think about it. The belief that there is no God is a religion -- Atheism. The belief that there may be a God is a religion -- Agnosticism. The belief that there is a God is several religions -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, et cetera. The belief that there is more than one God is several religions -- Wicca and Paganism (which I have also seen termed neo-Paganism). Whether the belief is no God, one God, or Many Gods, it is still belief. It is still religion. We cannot be "free from religion," because religion--belief--is part and parcel of being human. Yes,actually it does. Freedom of religion is freedom of thought. There`s no requirement to believe. There`s no laws forcing people to believe,yet....... And there`s no ruling authority determining what one can and can`t believe in. It`s no one`s business to meddle in one`s beliefs and no one should try to legislate their religious beliefs on to the rest of us. What I`m I missing? Seems fair to me. ~GR~ to the cutesy remarks that I`m a fundie of sorts.Where have I attempted for force my beliefs on anyone? The fundies are a political movement.Not a religious one.Fuck them if they can`t stand the heat of politics.Same goes to their apologists.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:25:49 AM)
DK, the only thing I am advocating is not excluding questions merely because they make a certain group uncomfortable. My thesis here is a simple, "why not?" A constant drumbeat that it is "not science" is a most unscientific response.

kittinSol -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:31:06 AM)
You got my answer: it's cool to teach different beliefs in religious education classes. It's okay to remind kids that Darwin came from the Victorian era where not believing in god was anathema. It's good to tell them that Einstein wasn't devoid of spirituality. It's fine to talk about metaphysics. It's not fine to mix up belief and scientific enquiry and to help further a right-wing political agenda, which is all this is about. You're hammering the same question over and over again because it serves your sophistic purpose: or maybe it just annoys you that nobody is fooled by it?

DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:31:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 DK, the only thing I am advocating is not excluding questions merely because they make a certain group uncomfortable. My thesis here is a simple, "why not?" A constant drumbeat that it is "not science" is a most unscientific response. Then present evidence in support of your idea. Until you do you're not talking science.

rulemylife -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 8:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber I just find it incredible that the Republicans on this forum would so quickly get behind a group of people who would, frankly, love to send each and every one of them to prison, a mental hospital, or a gas chamber, if they could. Why they are so willing to give up their personal freedoms, and their private lives to such nazi scum is beyond me. You REALLY think that having your rights to free expression (sexual or otherwise) is worth giving up... for slightly lower taxes, and a bigger military? (nevermind we already have the biggest fucking army on the face of the planet) Once these fundie "true believers" start in with their "religious purge" on GLBT folk, you honestly believe they are going to suddenly stop when it comes to people like you and me who like to use handcuffs in a friendly way? Don't think it'll happen? Bush thought he was "born again" and that god had hand picked him to be president. Now, eight years later, we have hebeas corpus off the books, and torture is being discussed as "appropriate" in the highest levels of government. Each and every one of us has their phone calls automatically logged, when we pick up, or log on. Anti gay rights ammendments to the US Constitution are being pushed through. Before 9/11, Ashcroft & Co were getting ready to make an assault on pornography, and "alternative sexual lifestyles." The "War on Terror" has only delayed their agenda, not stopped it. You guys REALLY just don't see this storm coming, do you? You're that fucking blind. This amazes me too. How a group of people involved in what's called an "alternative lifestyle" support those who view anything but missionary-position sex for procreation as perversion. In my younger, naive days I was what was called a Reagan Democrat, until I realized that the Republican claim of less government didn't apply to one's personal life. Evidenced by the "war on pornography" Reagan's Justice Dept. launched and the influence of the Moral Majority's puritanical views on the administration's public policy. Not to mention the fact that the largest budget deficits in history, as well as the largest increases in the federal debt, have occurred under the "fiscally responsible" Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush Jr..

Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sensiia Myth: 1. Abstinence Only Sex-Ed.These extreme mother-fuckers don`t even want basic contraception to be legal for anyone, young or old.Morning after pills?Forget about it. Fact 1 Under existing law and the new legislation, parents can excuse their children from human-sexuality classes. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20070201&slug=sexed01m0 Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) plans to apply for federal funding to support abstinence-only sex education programs for organizations and schools in the state, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. According to the Inquirer, the state Health Department is applying for approximately $1.7 million in federal money that will be dispensed by the Rendell administration for abstinence-only programs, which restrict teachers from discussing birth-control methods except in terms of failure rates ) Yes he is a democrat! and he isn't the only democrat interested in abstinence teachings. I teach sex ed here, you get pregnant before you graduate college I break your legs, working so far. lol Myth 2 The teaching of nonsense theo-scientific fairy tales, in our schools.Creationism. And bunch of other fake science. Fact 2 The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. (I don't see where it states they want to teach intelligent design only) 3. Fighting abortion rights.Fundies don`t give a shit about the woman who`ll be affected by this.With her in the # 2 spot,the pro-lifers their best chance yet,to overturn Roe v. Wade. Fact 3. It wont happen it has been fought for over 30 years and still survives. Who are we to say how parents want their children taught, I thought this was America where people were free from religious persecution. If the Christian right wants their children removed from sex ed classes so be it it is their right. What is wrong with children being taught intelligent design alongside evolution, nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. Having knowledge isn't a bad thing, just because one learns it doesn't mean they will follow it. Name calling is very unbecoming and shows ignorance 1,you didn`t address whether AOSD is affective. Opting out of sex ed is everyone`s right and not pertinent to this issue. Does teaching people to"just say no" work?I don`t think it has worked. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm 2.Teaching a fairy tale,even alone side of science class gives creationism the authority and legitimacy of the state.How are kids going to know the difference? This is where the rubber meets the road with fundies.They want to teach and foist their religious beliefs on non-Christians,secularists,non-believers using the power ,authority and legitimacy of the state. This is what defines a fundie.Not a fundamentalist christian.Jesus didn`t want politics to taint his religion and he didn`t want religion in politics. " Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s Pretty clear to me. This "what`s the big deal" attitude is scary. Our nation is slipping behind the world in science. HTF is teaching theo-science(fake science)going to help that problem? We need to improve our competitive edge,We`re importing brain power from overseas to fill the employment gap here.What`s that about? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who are we to say how parents want their children taught, I thought this was America where people were free from religious persecution." What do you think I`m talking about? Fundies don`t want religious freedom.They want to use the state for religious indoctrination. How is apposing that,religious persecution? Telling a group to leave people and their personal beliefs alone is not religious persecution.

rulemylife -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:08:04 AM)
Want me to share the hateful stuff spoken by those folks of the religious persuasion supporting Obama?[8\|] Trust me I can fill the boards with it. I would say it is time for folks to take a step back and take a breath. Because nothing good can come of it. [/quote] The difference being Obama has publicly denounced those who have preached hate on his behalf while McCain has embraced the right-wing hatemongers he formerly criticized in order to gain their support.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:23:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Science is built around theories that are built upon factual evidence. A scientist can 'believe', but he or she will not confuse empirical evidence and scientific research with belief. So you base your beliefs on facts? Give some scientific facts on which you base your belief in science on. Nuclear fusion powers the sun? Is that a fact? Water has two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom? George Washington was the first president of the United States? Are these all facts? Firm

rulemylife -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion". Think about it. If you can`t distinguish between the lunatic fringe christo-fascists and regular church goers,regular believers in Christ,normal rational fundamentalists types,then maybe you shouldn`t play in the OTD board. Problem is,the GOP leadership is wed to these nuts,for better and for worse. I've likely thought about it more than you have, my friend. While I agree that "Freedom from Religion" is a subset of "Freedom of Religion", attacking someone simply because of they have religious beliefs is not a sub-set of "Freedom of Religion". It is its anti-thesis. Think about it. Firm PS. One or two people who have certain beliefs may be able to be described as "nut-cases". When millions of people have those beliefs for generations, I'm not sure they qualify as "nut-cases" simply because you disagree with them. I believe his point is that fundamentalist Christians have converting others as one of their major priorities. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs until they try to impose them on others.

meatcleaver -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:38:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Second science can make no claims on the supernatural, positive or negative. Science is about what can be observed, measured and repeated. The supernatural is none of those and so science cannot deal with it. If there is an intelligent "First Cause" agent behind evolution, such an entity would not be "supernatural" but exceedingly "natural". If that is the case then there will be no problem for people that believe to furnish the rest of us with objective evidence.

kittinSol -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:41:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I believe his point is that fundamentalist Christians have converting others as one of their major priorities. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs until they try to impose them on others. Nod. Some of the extremists think that rejecting their forceful convictions is akin to intolerance: pure perversity [>:] . It goes like this: Mr. Fundamentalist: "I think I know the universal truth, and it's that the Lord created the Universe. You must follow the word of the Lord: I know what He wants. You must do as I say." Me: "No, thanks. I'd rather go my own way. Please keep your beliefs to yourself, and don't bother me again." Mr. Fundamentalist: "You're so intolerant, because you won't let me impose my ideas on you and the rest of society, and you're interfering with my desire to turn times back! You're sooooooooooo intolerant!". Pretty amazing, but you've got to give it to them: they do pull it off [&o].

rulemylife -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion". Actually, no, it does not. Think about it. The belief that there is no God is a religion -- Atheism. The belief that there may be a God is a religion -- Agnosticism. The belief that there is a God is several religions -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, et cetera. The belief that there is more than one God is several religions -- Wicca and Paganism (which I have also seen termed neo-Paganism). Whether the belief is no God, one God, or Many Gods, it is still belief. It is still religion. We cannot be "free from religion," because religion--belief--is part and parcel of being human. Actually it does. Find me any dictionary or encyclopedia reference that defines either atheism or agnosticism as a "religion".

FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 9:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I believe his point is that fundamentalist Christians have converting others as one of their major priorities. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs until they try to impose them on others. So I ask you ... when have the "fundies" (or less insulting, US Christian Evangelicals) held a gun to anyone's head to convert them Christianity? If you have an example, do you believe that this is the doctrine of Christianity? To convert by force? Or are you really saying that a Christian can't talk about their religion, in a nation in which "free speech" is suppose to be for all? Or is it just for the people who agree with Owner59? Firm

DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 10:01:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So I ask you ... when have the "fundies" (or less insulting, US Christian Evangelicals) held a gun to anyone's head to convert them Christianity? If you have an example, do you believe that this is the doctrine of Christianity? To convert by force? Have you never heard of Ann Coulter or Ron Parsley? Two prominent evangelicals who both support forced conversion or execution. Both Hagee and Robertson have made statements close enough to that to make many people wonder which side of the line they are on.

philosophy -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 10:02:45 AM)
......let me go through your sincere response point by point. Again, i'd like to reiterate i'm not trying to be contentious. Faith and the issues around it are highly personal things and i respect those who hold positions based on their faith even if i disagree..... quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The problem is that it's a battle between two different belief systems, in which "lefties" try to use the "separation of church and state" as a tool to prevent people who have religious beliefs from acting their moral conscious in the public arena. ...probably, at least on occasion true. Though i am a little concerned at the blanket use of the word 'lefties' here. For myself, the reason i tend to oppose faith based politics is not because i don't think that those with faith ought not act on that faith. It's because i don't want them telling me to act on their faith too. quote: In other words, since the "liberal" moral sense differs from the "Christian" moral sense, the goal is to defeat the political by marginalizing the religious, simply because the morality is based on a particular organized religion (Christianity). ....the reverse is also true. The highly contentious arena of abortion is a good example of this. Using the labels you have applied, 'liberals' tend to think that (within limits) the woman has a right to choose. 'Chrisitans' think that there is a moral or ethical over-ride of that choice. The current political compromise allows those who think there ought to be a choice to have a choice but (and i can't stress this highly enough) no-one is forced to have an abortion. It's not compulsory. quote: It's a very socially destructive ad hominem attack. ......if you take an action of mine personally when i didn't intend it to be, is that an ad hominem attack? quote: A "liberal" finds "acting in concert with one's conscience" a perfectly acceptable answer ... as long as the actions agree with their political agenda. Otherwise, you are a "fundie". ...i'm sure you can find examples of that. However i can easily find examples of the opposite too. Those who firebombed abortion clinics for example. quote: Separation of church and state is simply a red herring, and an excuse to carry out the attack. ...here i'm afraid i simply disagree. As i stated earlier, regardless of what country we're talking about i consider a seperation of church and state to be a mark of a civilised country. Those countries where that seperation does not exist are pretty much quintessentially fundamentally religious. This is not to say that those with faith can't hold office. But faith applies, at that level, only to ones own personal actions. To apply the ethics of a particular faith to an entire population seems to me to be wrong. Once again, i hope you take this reply in the spirit in which it was intended.....in the immortal words of the great Irish comedian Dave Allen, "may your God go with you".....

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875