US ambassador killed over a film

[kandrathe]

If religion were based on any scientific facts whatsoever, then I might agree, however I can't see for the life of me how anyone with any intelligence ...

Because it's not. But, as disciplines they don't need to conflict. See NOMA - by Stephan J. Gould.

I would say that because you do not understand, doesn't mean others cannot find meaning beyond what you do.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999)

[Jester]

Because it's not. But, as disciplines they don't need to conflict. See NOMA - by Stephan J. Gould.

I would say that because you do not understand, doesn't mean others cannot find meaning beyond what you do.

"Meaning" is something for each person to find. Simply because you found it somewhere, does not mean other people do not "understand." Some people find "meaning" in their families, others in their ideologies, yet others in nature, or in art, or religion, or any other thing. It is not an issue of philosophy or knowledge. Simply because someone finds meaning in something, does not in any way make it empirically true. This is the very essence of NOMA.

If the religious were, as a whole, willing to stand back and not make factual, empirical claims about the phenomenal world, and merely pronounce on "spiritual" matters (whatever those are), then NOMA would work fine. But they aren't, and so it doesn't.

Religion bleeds over into public policy, into education, even into scientific theory itself. The Discovery Institute exists, and advocates a fusion of science and faith - in direct violation of NOMA. Creationism, or its bastard offspring, are regularly pushed as science in the school system, driving out the study of evolutionary biology - also in violation of NOMA. Activists for a whole series of issues, from abortion to economics to foreign policy, use explicitly religious justifications for their advocacy.

For now, Stephen Jay Gould is a dreamer, and NOMA is toilet paper. Those of us who prefer science will not sign one-sided treaties, where we lay down our arms only to watch creationists, dominionists, and fundamentalists continue to march against science.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Because it's not. But, as disciplines they don't need to conflict. See NOMA - by Stephan J. Gould.

I would say that because you do not understand, doesn't mean others cannot find meaning beyond what you do.

"Meaning" is something for each person to find. Simply because you found it somewhere, does not mean other people do not "understand." Some people find "meaning" in their families, others in their ideologies, yet others in nature, or in art, or religion, or any other thing. It is not an issue of philosophy or knowledge. Simply because someone finds meaning in something, does not in any way make it empirically true. This is the very essence of NOMA.

If the religious were, as a whole, willing to stand back and not make factual, empirical claims about the phenomenal world, and merely pronounce on "spiritual" matters (whatever those are), then NOMA would work fine. But they aren't, and so it doesn't.

Religion bleeds over into public policy, into education, even into scientific theory itself. The Discovery Institute exists, and advocates a fusion of science and faith - in direct violation of NOMA. Creationism, or its bastard offspring, are regularly pushed as science in the school system, driving out the study of evolutionary biology - also in violation of NOMA. Activists for a whole series of issues, from abortion to economics to foreign policy, use explicitly religious justifications for their advocacy.

For now, Stephen Jay Gould is a dreamer, and NOMA is toilet paper. Those of us who prefer science will not sign one-sided treaties, where we lay down our arms only to watch creationists, dominionists, and fundamentalists continue to march against science.

-Jester

We don't agree on much, but here, I agree with this completely.

[eppie]

I think a main point that so many people overlook is that there are a number of societies in the Middle East that are built upon a power structure that is dependent on the majority of their citizens to be in a constant state of external blame. As long as focus is kept elsewhere, the people will not realize how poorly they are being treated by their leaderships, and will not focus internally to see how they are being taken advantage of. This goes on everywhere, by the way, to different extents. Something has to keep the proles in line. In America, we have TV, abortion debates, sports, and other distractions. In other countries, we have...hatred of other people and violent fundamentalism. Whatever works, right?

Blaming that on religion is, in my opinion, false. Religion is simply the tool used by the ruling elite; if religion were not available, it would be something else.

There are a few things playing here.
First as you say the problems are cultural, these kind of things are happening in countries that are not as developed as ours. If you see how christians behave in many 3rd world countries it is almost the same as muslims are doing in those countries (same rituals etc.) showing that this is a cultural thing. Add to that the fact that these people have much less to loose.

Ashock, you are not going around to riot because you can have fun behind your computer, and if not, without ever having done anything that gives you the eternal right to be living in western country than shear luck (like the rest of us) you can go out and eat yourself senseless on hamburger, go to the movies etc. etc.

If I were you I would (like me) worry a lot more about christian fundamentalists in western countries that have no excuse whatsoever of being extremists and in the mean time try to get rid of science.
Half of the population of the US are the same type of people as these protesters only they have their second religion which is consumption which most of the time is a bit more powerful.

[FireIceTalon]

^^But of course, comrade Eppie.

Commodity Fetishism is much more powerful, and in many ways, much more volatile than religion is. CF is the essence of Capitalist greed and consumption - it was the perfect tool to produce bullshit (with a little advertising, people can be convinced to buy anything, no matter how useless it may be) that people somehow think is intrinsically valuable, and the ultimate compliment to cheap credit (don't have the cash to buy garbage? NP, just slap it on a piece of plastic for convenience and pay more later with interest - you now have the power buy things with money you dont have!!).

Religion, while used as an instrument to divide the working class, doesn't directly harm them economically. CF, however, does - it is almost like religion but in a economic context - instead of praying and worshipping gods, we worship Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nike, or Apple instead. Culturally, it really turns much of society into a bunch of shallow, mindless material consumers - where hamburgers, designer clothes, sports/luxury cars, or diamond rings mean more than a college education or reading a book for some folks. People's existence has come to be defined by this crap, and they express a relationship to the products and money, instead of with each other. I personally think CF is the peak of "alienation". Pretty sad, when you think about it.

[kandrathe]

Those of us who prefer science will not sign one-sided treaties, where we lay down our arms only to watch creationists, dominionists, and fundamentalists continue to march against science.

And for them, vice versa. The trouble as I see it is that as usual, the two tribes must fight and position themselves with little compromise for the position of other. I don't favor the political meddling from either side -- such as in enforcing one sides point of view in a textbook, or forcing coverage of birth control onto faith based organizations. This is not "the wall of separation" -- it is not a position of respecting the freedom of thought of others.

[kandrathe]

If I were you I would (like me) worry a lot more about christian fundamentalists in western countries that have no excuse whatsoever of being extremists and in the mean time try to get rid of science. Half of the population of the US are the same type of people as these protesters only they have their second religion which is consumption which most of the time is a bit more powerful.

Yeah, you don't understand them. They have no interest in tearing down science. They have an interest in preserving their belief system against a minority of science revering folks who are calling them irrational idiots - a small minority are Christian fundamentalists and/or believe in biblical inerrancy and/or papal infallibility. The vast majority just try to find a path of coexistence -- with both extremes yelling that coexistence is not possible -- you must choose a side.

The bigotry that I see is in when some people take wacko extremists - such as those who funded/promoted the film, or that wacko Kansas family, and paint the entire Christian world with them. They are useful idiots whose antics draw negative attention in the press and aid the anti-religion crowd make their point. Just as Islamic terrorists do not represent the typical Muslim, nor make Islam an evil and violent religion.

[shoju]

Yeah, you don't understand them. They have no interest in tearing down science.

No, I don't think you understand them.

They have an interest in preserving their belief system against a minority of science revering folks who are calling them irrational idiots - a small minority are Christian fundamentalists and/or believe in biblical inerrancy and/or papal infallibility. The vast majority just try to find a path of coexistence -- with both extremes yelling that coexistence is not possible -- you must choose a side.

I also think you underestimate the number of Young Earth Creationists in the United States, which by far has the most YEC's. Are the YEC's a minority in Christianity as a whole? Sure. In the US? I'm not so sure.

EDIT: Here is some info from the link I just put in:

When asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism, depending on the poll.[8] The percentage of believers decreases as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less.[9]

between 40 and 50% of those surveyed.... And not everyone surveyed was a Christian....

EDIT 2:

Young Earth creationism is characterized as opposing the theory of evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics[68] and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology,[68] astronomy,[69] cosmology,[69] paleontology,[70] molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others. Young Earth creationists are fundamentally opposed to any explanation for the origins of anything which deviates from their literal reading of the Bible, whether it be the origins of biological diversity, the origins of life or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some young Earth creationists to criticize intelligent design, a proposal generally viewed as an alternative form of creationism, for not taking a stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even the identity of the designer.
Young Earth creationists challenge the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which they conflate with philosophical naturalism, and uniformitarianism as the dominant principles of the scientific community. They assert instead that available physical evidence best supports original catastrophism and a young Earth. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.

Yes. They do oppose science.

END EDIT

You can preserve your belief system, and not be a young earth creationist who thinks that:

1.) evolution is a lie
2.) that fossils are a lie put in the ground to test your faith
3.) that carbon dating is a joke.
3.) that the bible truly did mean 6 days, and not something else (there are plenty of theories out there. I tend to just point at the bible, where God/Jesus makes reference multiple times to time not being "a big deal" with quotes like "A day and a thousand years are but the same", and that science explaining evolution doesn't make the bible wrong. This is a pretty interesting read that shows the correlation between the idea of creationism and the big bang + Evolution really tell the same story.
4.) that everyone descended from Adam and Eve, because God only made two people, when there is evidence to suggest that the "Adam and Eve" terms that we use should have actually been translated to "Man, and Woman." And that the bible actually talks about other people being around, and alive, when "Adam and Eve's" son Cain is cast out and Banished to the Land of Nod.

Just because I (and I think you, Kandrathe) realize that the bible was written by men, who may or may not have been divinely inspired, that this divine inspiration was probably not "God" speaking down to them as they penned the bible, and that several of the books of the bible are written some 2500 years after they are purported to happen (Genesis), and that the selection of books contained within the bible is but a pittance of the ancient texts that give perspective to that time frame, doesn't mean that there aren't a heap of people who think that we are wrong, and that the bible is meant to be taken literally, word for word.

The fact that The Kentucky House of Representatives - Is fighting - for - Creationism inclusion for the ACT, shows that yes, There are most definitely western religious people who wish to stand in the way of science fact. Yes. That's right. A governing body for a US State is fighting to not teach science, because it ignores religion. I even linked to multiple sources running the same news just to make sure that people didn't think I'm nuts.

The bigotry that I see is in when some people take wacko extremists - such as those who funded/promoted the film, or that wacko Kansas family, and paint the entire Christian world with them. They are useful idiots whose antics draw negative attention in the press and aid the anti-religion crowd make their point. Just as Islamic terrorists do not represent the typical Muslim, nor make Islam an evil and violent religion.

Well, I wont argue with that. The problem and the main reason that I got into this thread is that, like you pointed out, there are willfully ignorant people out there who are doing the same thing to Islam.

The biggest problem with Religion, is that it places people into a hierarchy, and that you are meant to believe that which the clerical order above you in the hierarchy tells you is fact. This leads to woefully problematic cases, where people of faith end up believing things, or not following things, based on the use of Proof Texting, to make a point.

It is the biggest reason that I don't "call myself" a Christian. I believe in "God" on some level of my being, but I don't believe a lot of the man interjected doctrine that has shaped the belief structure. Because I'm fairly inquisitive, and not a complete idiot, I'm able to read, and examine things, and make informed decisions. The majority of a population doesn't want it to be that... "difficult" or "time consuming", and they take their lead from the pulpit and denomational / Religious leaders, because those men are supposedly the ones who "know".

My personal mantra is that "Religion" is what happens when Faith meets Politics. I'm not interested in someone telling me what they think I shoudl think that the bible means, or what god means. I'm interested in reading. I've read the bible. I've read the Genesis book I linked earlier, I've read essays, all in an effort to try and personally define my faith in something that I can't even say for sure that I experienced "for real".

[FireIceTalon]

Yeah, you don't understand them. They have no interest in tearing down science. They have an interest in preserving their belief system against a minority of science revering folks who are calling them irrational idiots - a small minority are Christian fundamentalists and/or believe in biblical inerrancy and/or papal infallibility. The vast majority just try to find a path of coexistence -- with both extremes yelling that coexistence is not possible -- you must choose a side.

The bigotry that I see is in when some people take wacko extremists - such as those who funded/promoted the film, or that wacko Kansas family, and paint the entire Christian world with them. They are useful idiots whose antics draw negative attention in the press and aid the anti-religion crowd make their point. Just as Islamic terrorists do not represent the typical Muslim, nor make Islam an evil and violent religion.

No man, a lot of them definitely do want to tear down science just for the fact it has essentially disproved their faith as being fact, and now they feel threatened.

The funny thing is, nowhere in science does it say they cannot have their faith or believe in a deity? As I said in my other post, many scientists themselves are religious, but they know better than to try and push faith as a science, because it isn't one. Evolution is indeed fact, and has disproved YEC Idealism countless times, no matter how much supporters of science may be in the minority - that is irrelevant. But that doesn't mean people can't believe in God. I find most scientists to be tolerant and non-disparaging towards religious people (sure, you have exceptions like Richard Dawkins), but Creationists tend to be very dogmatic toward science.

If they want religion to be taught in schools, fine, but keep it in a religion or philosophy class. It has absolutely no business in a science class of any sort, ID will never, ever be accepted as a science, and if it is, I would say we as a society are in very big trouble.

[Taem]

Religion and Marxism are not compatible, but that isn't to say that Communism and religion are not

Did you even read what I wrote, or read the links? I'm saying that ALL RELIGION'S have their history based on myth and lies and I CAN PROVE IT! Now you want to say you believe in a "higher" power not associated with a written set of rules in a bible, then that's grand. That is called a philosophy, not a religion. To say you believe in a higher power, that you are spiritual does not make you religious! Get it? Alcoholics Anonymous has a non-denominational philosophy for teaching about spirituality; so does the philosophy version (not the religious version) of Buddhism. I know of groups who meet regularly and are open to all forms of prayer and consider themselves to be nondenominational, but spiritual. I'll say it again because it's worth saying: Religions are cults by their very nature as defined by what the dictionary says a cult is. They are not a belief systems more than sets of rules cultures used for control. The philosophy behind the religion can still be gleamed without the religion.

---

*Snip*

I'd just like to add to what Shoju wrote by saying these idiots who claim Creationism as a reality must have never actually read Genesis, because there are two completely separate accounts for how the Earth was created in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. No offense, but it's so obvious, how can anyone claim it as fact when there are two completely different versions of how the Earth was supposedly created? (I'm not at home to quote myself right now, but if you don't believe me, check out my document and look at the Genesis contradiction) If on the other hand the "belief system" is merely to say, "hey, we think a higher power created us, but have no facts to back that up," then that is a matter of opinion and has no basis or merit calling itself a science whatsoever!

[eppie]

a small minority are Christian fundamentalists and/or believe in biblical inerrancy and/or papal infallibility.

I see, and all those belonging to that small majority want to be the next republican presidential candidate?

No seriously, to me the threat against world peace is much stronger from the US than it is from Islamic countries. Mainly of course because most Islamic countries are poor as dirt, and the US has such a huge army.

When, in the near future, we will get new crises....a bit worse than the one we are in today.....eg. because of scarcity of food and drinking water, wars will break out. And what always happens in wars is that people will fraternize with what they see slightly as their own. So people what happens now in muslim countries (everybody hates the US and becomes more extreme in their religion) will also happen in the US.
With a bit misfortune in 50 years science books are burned and we all have to become christian and if we don't want to be burned alive.

[shoju]

I'm in the process of reading what you linked, and while it is a very interesting read, the idea that you can "Prove it" beyond a shadow of a doubt is a very bold step to make. You have some interesting food for thought, and you have good points, but I think that you are still a ways off from being able to "prove" that all religion is based on lies and myth.

There are several other notable contradictions that can be sited in the bible. The problem that exists, is that the bible is a collection of written texts, and journals, attributed to multiple authors. Of course there are contradictions.

I'm not saying that they are right, and that you are wrong, but I'm saying that your desire to be right is pushing you past a rational point, and into more shaky ground.

[FireIceTalon]

Did you even read what I wrote, or read the links? I'm saying that ALL RELIGION'S have their history based on myth and lies and I CAN PROVE IT! Now you want to say you believe in a "higher" power not associated with a written set of rules in a bible, then that's grand. That is called a philosophy, not a religion. To say you believe in a higher power, that you are spiritual does not make you religious! Get it? Alcoholics Anonymous has a non-denominational philosophy for teaching about spirituality; so does the philosophy version (not the religious version) of Buddhism. I know of groups who meet regularly and are open to all forms of prayer and consider themselves to be nondenominational, but spiritual. I'll say it again because it's worth saying: Religions are cults by their very nature as defined by what the dictionary says a cult is. They are not a belief systems more than sets of rules cultures used for control. The philosophy behind the religion can still be gleamed without the religion.

Point taken, good sir. I browsed through a couple of your links but they are quite long for me to really read in depth and comment on at this time, but I will look them over in more depth later.

I see what you are saying. You feel that society should be guided by ethics, philosophy, reason, and science rather than the literal texts of any given religion - and I would agree to an extent. But even philosophy, reason, and ethics can be grounded in Idealism (just like religion). What is ethical for the ruling class is not ethical for the Proletarian. What is reasonable for the ruling class is not reasonable for the Proletarian, not materially anyway, no matter how much they may feel the status-quo is the 'natural order' of things. To put it simply I am all for ethics, reason, philosophy, and science as being the foundations for running society - so long as they are materially grounded in the class interests of Proletarian Internationalism.

You must also consider that the philosophical content of each religion also greatly differs from one another if I am understanding you right, and these are a big part of their corresponding cultures (some more then others ofc). If one person believes in the philosophical principles of Christianity, and another in the philosophies of Buddhism, are not both individuals entitled to those personal beliefs (as long as they don't mix them with politics and science - social or hard sciences) regardless of what type of society we live in? This was the point I was trying to make about "religion" being compatible within Communist society.

I'm not sure all religion is based on "lies" per se (though it certainly can and has been manipulated to be so through groups that have ideological agendas, but science too has also been manipulated to manifest ideological agenda to create forms of pseudo science - Hitler and his eugenic Nazi "scientists" to justify their Social Darwinist philosophy being a perfect example), but it IS certainly based on faith and superstition, at best. My main problem with religion is that it relies entirely on these things and cannot be scientifically tested to find empirical conclusions. Science can, and has been wrong - many times, but that is the beauty of science - it is self correcting. Even when science is wrong, it makes progress because we are a step closer to finding an empirical answer. We re-examine the material evidence/facts, formulate another hypothesis, run another test and then go from there. If we are right, we have a legitimate theory, if not, we start over again and repeat. With religion, it is impossible, everything is just a guess and it wants to oversimplify the history of humanity and our world in general by being correct right off the bat without considering any of the material evidence - It is the work of God, and thats it. Completely ridiculous. The burden of proof isn't on science or Atheists to prove that a deity doesn't exist or that the earth is x amount of years old, the burden of proof is on the person of faith to prove that a deity DOES exist and that the earth is the age they claim it to be, or that it was created by deity regardless of age.

[Ashock]

How many people were killed in that Catholic protest? How violent was that protest? You don't see a difference between a protest and mass violence?

Yes. because everyone that was there was involved in the assault right? Every single person there was storming the place, and blowing people up right? Again, you want to lump everyone into your hate bubble.

I am unhappy about a lot of things in this world, but I don't go around shooting people, burning property and inciting others to do the same. If I come over and tell you that your grandpa is a moron and in retaliation you come over to my grandfather and shoot him in the face, do you think that those are equivalent actions?

Again. You are trying to lump everyone in with the extremists, and when someone points out when you are wrong, that there are extremists everywhere, in every religion, you just shut your eyes, and plug your ears, and scream

NANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANNANAN I"M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG NANANANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANANA! Like a 2 year old.

Did you BOTHER to read what I posted previously? From someone who isn't part of the media, who actually took the time to talk to people? No? Right... Because you're too busy telling everyone how right you are, that you don't want to possibly read something that could prove you are wrong.


No. I wouldn't expect that would be right. But, I would expect, that if I did in fact insult your family, you and I would probably have words. When amplified, to something that offends a culture, I would expect it to end up in a protest.

The extremists, would go to your grandpa's neighbors house, and kill all of them, while they forced your grandpa to watch, and said "Tell your grandson to stop being offensive, or we'll keep killing people you know."

Which... is pretty much what happened. And like I, and Kevin have alluded to before, The Muslim world is going through a MASSIVE change. The place where this took happen is just rife with tension over a civil war. The same came be said for the protests that took place in Egypt. But you want to discount that ifnormation, because it speaks to the larger picture, and puts holes in your "ISLAM IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!111!!!11!!!" ideology.

Muslims have been calling for death to Christians, killing foreigners, persecuting Christians for many years. Do we riot here or in Europe and attack their embassies? Do we call for DEATH TO IRAN, SYRIA, YEMEN on the streets, while buring their flags and killing their councilate workers?

And Christian Ministers have been fearmongering about muslims since who knows when. I remember as a kid, I was taught all the time: Catholics, Jews, Muslims, are all going to hell. Don't be friends with them. Don't listen to what they say about God. They are wrong. They are corrupted. They are twisted. They pray to idols, and believe in terrible things. You know why? Because even though they believed in the same God that I did, They didn't believe in all the finer details the same way I did, and you know what they say; The Devil is in the Details.

The difference, between "Us" and "Them" as you like to call it, is that there society is still fundamentalist. Their "pastors" double as their politicial leaders. The religion, is still catching up with the times, because their fundamentalism has made them xenophobic and isolationist. They look at what we do, and they hate it, because it has broken from the tenants of their religion. The arab spring was the beginning of their cultural revolution. Things are changing for them.

But you can't be bothered to look at the big picture. The culture, the society, the "details". You want to paint everyone with broad strokes, because their fanatacists, zealots, and extremists do awful, terribly, mind blowingly catastrophic things.

Between 1,000, and 700 years ago, a similar war happened against the muslims. It was blessed by the pope himself. A few hundred years later, the protestant reformation began, and the catholic church as a whole began to wield less and less power in the world. If you look at history, and compare it to what has happened recently in the Muslim world, you could think that a very similar set of events are happening. The religion is morphing, and there are calls for more moderate views. There are actions taken against the moderates. Things are changing. But this time, instead of being in a technologically deficient society, it is happening in the digital age.

You are a lost cause.

No sir. I'm not a lost cause, just because I don't hold your bigoted beliefs to be my own. Your constant sticking with the same arguments, and your lack of desire to actually read what is put in front of you, and maintain your willfully ignorant stance in front of heaping evidence is ghastly. Your desire to be bigoted towards billions of people because of the actions of their extremists, without looking at the evidence that has been given to you that would explain the contrary is mind boggling.

I leave you with one final thought.

Mr. Ashock, the view that you have espoused in this thread is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...-mohammed/

Cartoons are totally equal to bombs and fires and murder. Yep.

We will burn churches, because no one will say anything, because they are afraid.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, you don't understand them. They have no interest in tearing down science.

No, I don't think you understand them.

Fine. You win the banana war. You have no idea -- REALLY!!!

I also think you underestimate the number of ... I'm not so sure.

I'm a researcher. I rely on evidence, such as Pew who conduct polls that have credibility. I think the ARIS poll is the most credible -- http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/

EDIT: Here is some info from the link I just put in:

I'm sure I share some beliefs with YEC's too, like our favorite flavor of ice cream. Looking at the link takes me to a site that claims "An independent, nonpartisan resource on trends in American public opinion." Yet, is rife with Obama ads - and campaign links. Hmmm. Let's do a little whois checking...



It looks unreliable. And, the Wikipedia article is probably inaccurate then as well if it is sourced from this type of unreliable site.

Yes. They do oppose science.

THEY. The caricature of "they" you have painted to broadly describe THEM.

You can preserve your belief system, and not be a young earth creationist who thinks that:

You just add more description of THEM here -- whereas the people you are talking about are not monolithic, and have varied and complex beliefs. Each has an individual reason for justification for their belief systems, just as you do.

Just because I ...

Let's stop there. I'm a mostly a Christian -- probably because that's where I started due to my fortunes of birth. I know some people who are YEC -- which I'm not -- I know some people who are "Literal Biblical Inerrancy" folks -- which I'm not -- and I know how it all came together and how it was edited, and mistranslated. Which is why over the years I've studied Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. We have lively discussions about it, but I don't denigrate them for their view points. Nor would I assume Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism had nothing to offer me. I'm open to be enlightened from many sources -- and I try, the best I can, to glean what I can from all domains of knowledge. After 45+ years -- I think you begin to look for the "good" in things, because you are tired of tearing things down.

The fact that {more dubious sources} shows that yes, There are most definitely western religious people who wish to stand in the way of science fact. Yes. That's right. A governing body for a US State is fighting to not teach science, because it ignores religion. I even linked to multiple sources running the same news just to make sure that people didn't think I'm nuts.

There is a reason that Kentucky is the home of the Creation museum... If you don't like creationists, it seems to be the place to avoid. Just as there tends to be quite a bit of Mormonism in Utah. The Democrat governor is hugely into creationism... freely elected by the majority Creationist electorate.

Well, I wont argue with that. The problem and the main reason that I got into this thread is that, like you pointed out, there are willfully ignorant people out there who are doing the same thing to Islam.

And, I feel you are doing it to Christianity... Such as...

The biggest problem with Religion, is that it places people into a hierarchy, and that you are meant to believe that which the clerical order above you in the hierarchy tells you is fact. This leads to woefully problematic cases, where people of faith end up believing things, or not following things, based on the use of Proof Texting, to make a point.

No. A religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices" -- You are confusing it with an organization, like the Catholic or Baptist Church -- but even then, not all Christian denominations are hierarchical -- some are organized from the bottom up. Some are purely independent.

It is the biggest reason that I don't "call myself" a Christian. I believe in "God" on some level of my being, but I don't believe a lot of the man interjected doctrine that has shaped the belief structure. Because I'm fairly inquisitive, and not a complete idiot, I'm able to read, and examine things, and make informed decisions. The majority of a population doesn't want it to be that... "difficult" or "time consuming", and they take their lead from the pulpit and denominational / Religious leaders, because those men are supposedly the ones who "know".

When I was in my 20's I became very cynical and resentful of the hypocrisy I witnessed in so called "church folk", so I stopped and spent a lot of time ripping away people crutches. This one girl I knew was a "totally hoodwinked" and "brain washed" fundamentalist. I presented her with all the errors in her thinking and logic, and she too left it. Then she went to the total other extreme, and became very self destructive -- and it ruined her life. I wonder if maybe she would have been better with the crutch of her faith that I ripped away from her. I don't know. But, I won't ever do that to anyone ever again. I no longer believe that the truth always sets people free. Now I think some people may be better off with the boundaries. Now I just endeavor to help people lead happier lives.

[kandrathe]

With a bit misfortune in 50 years science books are burned and we all have to become christian and if we don't want to be burned alive.

Or, less time maybe depending on how many people are starving. But, I think you are right to worry. A Christian theocracy in America is one of the more likely "nightmare" dictatorship scenarios that are feasible if our republic disintegrates. 2nd, is the nightmare of the extreme left getting that power, or enough to frighten the people into choosing the theocracy.

[FireIceTalon]

With a bit misfortune in 50 years science books are burned and we all have to become christian and if we don't want to be burned alive.

Or, less time maybe depending on how many people are starving. But, I think you are right to worry. A Christian theocracy in America is one of the more likely "nightmare" dictatorship scenarios that are feasible if our republic disintegrates. 2nd, is the nightmare of the extreme left getting that power, or enough to frighten the people into choosing the theocracy.

By the extreme left, I assume you mean Communists.

Well, we seem to be going the other way, and having a Mussolini or Hitler part 2, where Social Darwinism is the ruling philosophy to justify neo-Corporate Fascism. No thanks. Seriously, I would rather die up to my knees in revolutionary bloodshed, garbed in clothing with sickles, hammers, and 5-pointed stars, and burning American flags before I EVER live under a Corporate Fascist dictatorship like Nazi Germany or Italy. OR a Christian theocracy. I'm not even fuckin' kidding, I'd rather be dead than live under either of those societies. But before I go, me and a few Commie buddies are gonna have some fun, and kill as many of those Fascist or Fundi bastards as we can, as if it were a sport, before they take us out.

[kandrathe]

By the extreme left, I assume you mean Communists.

Nope. I mean the people who want to form a left wing dictatorship. An attempt at egalitarian utopia by force -- if you doubt the validity of the state's position, there is the reeducation camp.

---

Cartoons are totally equal to bombs and fires and murder. Yep.

Do you think they will suspend their jihad against the US for a few days and refocus on French embassies?

[DeeBye]

I mean the people who want to form a left wing dictatorship.

Who are these people - and does anyone really take them seriously?

[FireIceTalon]

I see. Well, you would be talking about Stalinism (or Hoxhaism) then, which from the Marxist perspective, is actually very far to the right (even if it is still leftist on the traditional political scale). The radical left has its own political scale independent of the regular political scale, with Anarchists occupying the very far left; Stalinists to the farthest right and everything else in between somewhere. For most of us, being on the far right of this scale kind of defeats the purpose of being a radical Leftist to begin with, since it just leads to more of the same crap that we are trying to get rid of, or worse. I myself don't identify or label myself with any specific tendency but most would probably see my politics as closest to Left Communism - which is almost as close to the farthest left on the scale, stopping just a bit short of Anarchism. Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci probably have the most influence on my views, besides Marx/Engels.

Either way, a Fascist, Stalinist, or Christian Theocracy are all a most undesirable set of circumstances for any person who values democracy. Capitalism is also, though concedingly less so than the others.