US ambassador killed over a film

[eppie]

2nd, is the nightmare of the extreme left getting that power, or enough to frighten the people into choosing the theocracy.

Are you talking globally now and you mean in some other country?

The chance of the US becoming a bastion of the extreme left in the near future is 0.

[kandrathe]

Are you talking globally now and you mean in some other country? The chance of the US becoming a bastion of the extreme left in the near future is 0.

This is not an issue with being a majority -- in these cases it is always a minority of extremists who attempt to take advantage in leveraging a weakness in the system to wrest power from the apathetic (non-voting) majority.

[shoju]

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

No, I'm sorry, I really do. I can keep linking stuff, but in your desire to want to prove me wrong, you are just going to keep on going through and finding your own reasons why you can't look at it objectively. The Ads, or One of the polls that they used in an article with over 70 citations points at something that you just don't agree with, and as such, the whole thing is a sham, because you don't want it to.

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.

70+ sources, and you found one that you don't like. SHOCKER!

Would you like to look up my whois report? I'm sure you'll find all types of interesting things. A site about Ninjas, a site about me, a site for a comic book and gaming company, a site for a local church, an online surplus site, a forum community for an online RPG, a site for a local Independant politician, a site for a former Republican candidate for US House of Rep, a site for a Hard Line Democrat Lawyer who works Trial Law, a site that is going to be going up in a few days, all about a comical card game based on Cock Fighting, as well as others.

A whois report is a pretty terrible judge of what someone or something stands for really. Even if it is held under a "company name" that isn't going to give you a great outlook on much of anything. Cyber Squatting, Companies who purchase Domain Names and hold them, Companies who have a contract with another company to handle their online identity, Companies who actively engage in actions that lead to confusing whois reports, (I was formerly employed by a man who used questionable ethics to make a profit, and did so in part by obfuscating his whois data.) and a host of other problems lead to some great discussions about Whois reports.

Here you go, I'm sure this makes for a fun whois report.

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

Really? Are we going to get that petty? Isn't it pretty obvious that I'm speaking of Young Earth Creationists. I was pretty sure by this point in the post, that I had used the proper noun enough that we were able to move past this !#)%*(& grammar, and understand that Young Earth Creationist = Them.

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.

And if it falls under "the umbrella" of Young Earth Creationist, then I'm sorry, their views stand directly in defiance of observed science. Of course their views are going to vary. They aren't robots, they are human beings. But, If they fit the definition of a Young Earth Creationist (And I'm not talking Old Earth Creationists, or Divine Directed Evolutionists, I'm talking about YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS They oppose science.

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.

And at 33, I find myself in a similar position as yourself. I'm not tearing down their beliefs. I'm not telling them that they are idiots. I'm not screaming in their faces. I'm simply responding to a thread on the Lurker Lounge, to you, not them, that you are in fact, incorrect in your assertions.

YOU SAID That they don't oppose Science. I refuted your point.

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.

Rationalizing why they do it, doesn't make the point change. They are a group of people who stand in defiance of science, and want religion taught in its place. They are a governing body in the United States of America that does, EXACTLY what you said people didn't.

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

Why? Because I'm critical of it? I'm critical of Islam as well. But I'm not running off at the mouth spewing hate at any of them. I'm critical of their practices. I'm critical of the man interjected BS that they pass off as doctrine. I'm critical of the whack jobs that are just as extremist as those in other religions. I hold Christianity to no higher, and no lower of a standard than I would any other religion. It sounds to me, like you don't like the fact that I'm critical of your beliefs.

I'm sorry that I offended you. That doesn't mean that I'm attacking you.

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.

No, I'm not confusing it with an organization. I don't remember anywhere in any of the translations of the bible where Jesus, God, the Disciples, or the Apostles were told they needed religion. They were told they needed Faith.

Religion
re·li·gion | [ri-lij-uhn] | noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

These definitions speak volumes to both of our ideas about the word "Religion". Religion as a term can be both the beliefs, and the institution itself. You could also go on about the societal connotation that the word Religion has taken on as well.

Show me a church that doesn't have a hierarchy. Show me an independent church that doesn't have Elders / Deacons / a board with some other name, or one that doesn't give the Pastor the authority over things. Show me a church where there is no hierarchy, even at an independent level. I'm sure they are out there, and I wont dismiss the notion that they aren't. But they are not the majority. The majority of churches are a hierarchical structured organization. I would categorize a Christian Church that gives its "power" to its followers as "doing it right", by the standards and practices that they strive to believe and follow. The idea for those churches would be taken from the new testament, and the decree from Jesus for his followers to come together and worship. Not that the church itself was supposed to be an institution.

My problem with this hierarchy within the church is founded in the New Testament of the Bible. Within the hierarchy of the church, I see interesting comparisons to be made with the Pharisees and Sadducees of the original ruling body of the Isrealite's Church. It is plainly obvious that there are politics in play within the organized Christian Churches and Denominations. I could go on about them, but I don't think it would matter to you.

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.

I'm not trying to rip away someone's "Crutch" as you call it. I have no problem with people who are willing to put forth the time and the effort to have FAITH There is a huge difference between putting your faith in God, and putting your faith in the Church, or what the Church tells you what they believe that you should believe.

And this is really the heart of it all. You see me point my finger at "The Christian Church" and you think that I'm trying to tear away people's faith. That's not my goal. My goal, is to get people to actually READ and THINK for themselves. But I'm also not going to sugar coat it.

If you tell me that the Christian Church doesn't have Extremists, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

If you tell me that the Christian Church doesn't have a subset of believers who are Young Earth Creationists who oppose the teaching of science. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

If you tell me that the Christian Church's Denominations don't engage in the practice of Proof Texting scripture as a way of setting Doctrine. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

At times, I don't think that the "Church Folk" are able to see the hypocrisy. When I say this though, I'm not speaking about the obvious hypocrisies. I'm not talking about the guy who is a "stand up guy" in the church, but an alcoholic wife beater at home. I'm speaking about what I feel is a hypocrisy based on what they have chosen to believe. I alluded to it in another thread, and I hate to bring it up now, because I don't want this thread to veer anymore off track.

But here is my example. For the love of the Lounge, lets understand that this is put forth here as an example of my issue, and that IN THIS THREAD it is meant as a method of explaining my previous paragraph. This is not the thread to continue this discussion.

Most Christians who oppose Gay Marriage do so based on 1 of 2 sets of text set forth in the bible.

1.) The first, being in Leviticus. The problem first and foremost, is that the original text, and even the original King James English Translation do not strictly speak to the idea of homosexuality, but over the years, it has morphed into that. Fine. Maybe that's what they were alluding to. I will admit that my Hebrew knowledge is not enough to strike against the literal text.

The problem comes in, with the New Testament. Jesus and Paul spend a large amount of time speaking to the fact that Jesus' birth, and eventual crucifiction represent a new convenant by God, with Man. The Old Laws are no longer binding for the followers of God, because of this. That is why Pork becomes OK (That's another topic), and various other old laws are no longer enforced.

The Laws of Leviticus were greatly misconstrued anyway, with such doozies as No Tattoos! (That's not what that was about, but that's a topic for another time). The real point is, that Leviticus, and Exodus are no longer binding to the Followers of God, because Jesus represents the new convenant between Man and God. Paul even speaks in multiple letters that he sent to the various areas in the New Testament of the "Curse of the Law".

2.) There are some translations of the Bible that have taken the words of Paul in the New Testament to speak against Homosexuality. The problem here, lies in the art of Proof Texting the words of Paul. As society has become more progressive, and extended our rationale into being more accepting of human beings having rights based on the fact that they are a human being, and not based on gender, race, etc... We have pried away Some of Paul's other "Important" words, such as in the first letter to the Corinthians, in which he said that Women are to be seen, and not heard in Church. They are to be silent and obedient.

I don't know about churches that you have attended but, in the churches I have grown up in, and the churches that I have visited, and studied, Women aren't forced to be quiet, silent, statues under the stares of men.

So then the question comes in, Why is it ok for The Christian Church to redact, retract, not follow, move beyond, understand that it was a culture and time point, when it comes to women, but hold so steadfast on his other teachings, that may or may not have been translated appropriate?

This is my conundrum Kandrathe. This is why I bear issue with "Religion" or "The Church" as an institution or organization. This is the method of proof texting that I speak about. This is my frustration. These points, where the hierarchy has deemed that one thing is acceptable, while another isn't. This is the type of thinking that has led members of all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, included to Extremism, and persecution of human beings who believe differently than them. This is why I find Faith to be more important than Religion This is why I'm critical of Extremists no matter the religion. This is why I'm critical of fundamentalist views.

I'm sorry that my stance seems to offend you. I have made an error somewhere in my discussion that has caused you to think that because I'm critical of the institution and the organziation, as well as its fringe extremists, that I somehow am bigoted towards Christians. I'm not. I love having fantastic conversations with my Christian Friends about things like this. I love being able to sit down and challenge them, and have them challenge me, and search for the reasons.

There are things that I hold as truth. I've given my reasons, I've given links. I've done all that I can. Somewhere, I missed a point that gave you reason to think I hate or am bigoted against Christians. I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.

I think I'm just going to politely bow out of the conversation now. I've said all that I can, and at this point, I feel like I'm going to be talking in circles.

[kandrathe]

No, I'm sorry, I really do. I can keep linking stuff, but in your desire to want to prove me wrong, you are just going to keep on going through and finding your own reasons why you can't look at it objectively. The Ads, or One of the polls that they used in an article with over 70 citations points at something that you just don't agree with, and as such, the whole thing is a sham, because you don't want it to.

No, what I'm saying is that I know religious people of many faiths, and Christianity in particular very well. Even then, mostly, even the most ardent literalist isn't against most science or the scientific method. They are against some specific science that contradicts their beliefs. For those that are strict adherents to the literal truth of their book (Koran, or Bible, or Torah), i.e. the fundamentalists, they don't even go there - in their view they don't even bother to make up stuff, they just defer to it being a mystery.

70+ sources, and you found one that you don't like. SHOCKER!

No, I investigate the wiki articles sources -- Here is a link to that particular question in better context -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republ...onism.aspx

What is more interesting is how there has been very little movement over 26 years. By extrapolation then, this "Them" of Young Earth Creationists turns out to be between 43% and 47% of Americans who chose option 3 of the three choices. So let me ask you... Did the moon 1) coalesce from solar debris with the earth, 2) result from a large body impact to the earth, or 3) fly by and get captured by the earths gravitation? Does it describe the complexity of the possible cosmological explanations? Not even close. What would a phone survey of 1500 people reveal to you?

How would you square it with this poll question? http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranor...-some.aspx

I objected to the notion that a single Gallup poll question can be used to explain peoples complexity of positions on the topic of science and creation. I do data research and analysis. I create surveys, and understand their VAST limitations. Usually, the answers just lead to more, and better questions.

A whois report is a pretty terrible judge of what someone or something stands for really...

That is your opinion. When I see the root domain like that, I get suspicious.

Young Earth Creationist = Them. ... And if it falls under "the umbrella" of Young Earth Creationist, then I'm sorry, their views stand directly in defiance of observed science. Of course their views are going to vary. They aren't robots, they are human beings. But, If they fit the definition of a Young Earth Creationist (And I'm not talking Old Earth Creationists, or Divine Directed Evolutionists, I'm talking about YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS They oppose science.

Ok. Are you trying to convince me that 43% and 47% of Americans are actively opposed to science?

YOU SAID That they don't oppose Science. I refuted your point.

I don't see it that way. I think your brush is way too broad, which is what I attempted to make clear originally.

Rationalizing why they do it, doesn't make the point change.

I'm not rationalizing why they do it... I'm saying Kentucky isn't Manhattan. I'm sure I could find a municipality in California that has legalized nudity. What's it got to do with the price of tea in China?

Here is the State of Kentucky DOE science curriculum requirements -- http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instruct...l/Science/

How are they anti-science?

... I'm critical of their practices. I'm critical of the man interjected BS that they pass off as doctrine. I'm critical of the whack jobs that are just as extremist as those in other religions. ...

These are your opinions and prejudices. I'm not just talking about just your words. Around this place, you'd think any non-atheist is a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, idiot. Your invective just adds to the cacophony of prejudice and over generalization.

If you tell me that the Christian Church doesn't have a subset of believers who are Young Earth Creationists who oppose the teaching of science. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

There was a subset of the Christian Church that believed Aliens were coming back for them, and that in order to evacuate the planet to board the space ship trailing the comet Hale-Bop they need to all commit ritual suicide. I'm sure there are a subset of the 43-47% of Americans you call YEC who are real activist troublemakers, especially when it comes to text books and evolution, but it doesn't mean the vast preponderance of Christians are anti-science.

In fact, according to this poll, http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...-religion/

Over 50% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. Probably not (openly at least) those in the fields of evolutionary biology.

If you tell me that the Christian Church's Denominations don't engage in the practice of Proof Texting scripture as a way of setting Doctrine. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

As evidenced weekly on the Lounge, we all can be guilty of taking things out of context, such as that question within the Gallup poll.

But here is my example.

Yes, that is far too complex a topic to get into in this thread. Suffice it to say, I understand it. My example is more basic to the obscenity of conspicuous wealth, and the lack of charity. To the fundamental calling of "Christians" to follow in his example. I would say it's the rare Christian who is "Christian" in deed and creed.

This is the method of proof texting that I speak about. This is my frustration.

Which is not that common in my experience, but then again, I'm in the ivory tower of higher ed. That kind of intellectual dishonesty, poor sourcing, and out of context interpretation just doesn't fly in any discipline. Which is why, perhaps, I've landed here. I'm more comfortable where people deal in lucid, rational discussions.

[DeeBye]

In fact, according to this poll, http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...-religion/

Over 50% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.

That statistic is a bit disingenuous - 33% say they believe in God, and 18% "say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power". I'm not sure how you can just add those two percentages together and call it a day. In fact, I'm not sure how you even equate "believing in God" (with a capital "G") to "believing in a universal spirit or higher". The former suggests a definite religious opinion, while the latter shows a more scientific opinion. One can't disprove that a "universal spirit or higher" exists, and the universe is (essentially) limitless - so there is a really good probability that something akin to a "god" (with a lower-case "g") is out there.

I'm also not sure how you can square away the fact that (from that poll) 48% of scientists say they have a religious affiliation, but only 33% of them believe in God. 15% of scientists must be what, Jedi?

[shoju]

In fact, according to this poll, http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...-religion/

Over 50% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.

That statistic is a bit disingenuous - 33% say they believe in God, and 18% "say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power". I'm not sure how you can just add those two percentages together and call it a day. In fact, I'm not sure how you even equate "believing in God" (with a capital "G") to "believing in a universal spirit or higher". The former suggests a definite religious opinion, while the latter shows a more scientific opinion. One can't disprove that a "universal spirit or higher" exists, and the universe is (essentially) limitless - so there is a really good probability that something akin to a "god" (with a lower-case "g") is out there.

I'm also not sure how you can square away the fact that (from that poll) 48% of scientists say they have a religious affiliation, but only 33% of them believe in God. 15% of scientists must be what, Jedi?

Because his poll is infallable

[kandrathe]

That statistic is a bit disingenuous -

Like I said, polls often just lead to more and better questions. You often feel like going back to that same group again and again. Pretty soon, it's not a poll, it's an interview. But, that is a nit in the larger point I was making -- the vast preponderance of Christians are in favor of science.

Because his poll is infallable.

Do you want to throw mud at http://pewresearch.org/ ?? Or, are you saying that polls are inaccurate in general?

[shoju]

Because his poll is infallable.

Do you want to throw mud at http://pewresearch.org/ ?? Or, are you saying that polls are inaccurate in general?

I'm questioning your tactics, as deebye pointed out, it's not over 50%.

No, what I'm saying is that I know religious people of many faiths, and Christianity in particular very well. Even then, mostly, even the most ardent literalist isn't against most science or the scientific method. They are against some specific science that contradicts their beliefs. For those that are strict adherents to the literal truth of their book (Koran, or Bible, or Torah), i.e. the fundamentalists, they don't even go there - in their view they don't even bother to make up stuff, they just defer to it being a mystery.

First, I know plenty of people from Plenty of faiths as well, you don't have the corner market on that.

Second, You are making the case that it's somehow "ok" to be against certain fields of science but not others? That, this somehow makes the view acceptable? That saying "Well, some science is ok, but this science over here? Yeah, that's not true. It's a lie, I don't want our children to be taught that."

Somehow, that makes it ok? Somehow, just saying that some science is a joke is fine....

No, I investigate the wiki articles sources -- Here is a link to that particular question in better context -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republ...onism.aspx

Wait... I guess I'm confused on what citation you are complaining about then. I'm referencing citation [8], in the following blurb.

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].

Citation 8, a Gallup poll... I'm confused. I thought you didn't like that poll? Or did we look at two different things here?

I objected to the notion that a single Gallup poll question can be used to explain peoples complexity of positions on the topic of science and creation. I do data research and analysis. I create surveys, and understand their VAST limitations. Usually, the answers just lead to more, and better questions.

Now, I think I understand. But it isn't one single question. That article on the Gallup pages points to at least a half a dozen question asked by Gallup with 11 samples over 30 years, with 10 of those samples coming in the past 20 years, 6 of them in the past 10 years.

A whois report is a pretty terrible judge of what someone or something stands for really...

That is your opinion. When I see the root domain like that, I get suspicious.

And I'm trying to tell you that you are getting suspicious over a record that holds very little water. The world of owning domain names, and websites, is far more dirty than that. It really is based off of many more factors than that. Probably half of my clients don't want to bother with owning the domain, because they don't want to have to "bother with it". They would rather pay me for the services, and through contract maintain the connection with their online identity, while the other half are more interested in holding onto the domain, and dealing with it.

Ok. Are you trying to convince me that 43% and 47% of Americans are actively opposed to science?

I'm saying that the numbers in that poll would suggest that 43% to 47% of americans on average hold a view that they believe the Science of Evolution is wrong, and that they oppose it.

I don't see it that way. I think your brush is way too broad, which is what I attempted to make clear originally.

Fine, let me refine my brush for you.

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.

They oppose something rooted in SCIENCE, and want it to be REPLACED with RELIGION.

For God's sake man, are you this petty about word choice with everyone? Do I really have to put Science of Evolution every time? Can you not follow a conversation and context clues? Or are you just doing it to be petty, because I said they oppose Science, and by that extension, they must oppose everything about Science.

Which, for the record, not even Extremists do. If Extremists opposed all things of Science nature, they would be far less dangerous, because they would be trying to have their revolutions, and their monstrous acts with giant slabs of wood that they found while walking around.

I'm not rationalizing why they do it... I'm saying Kentucky isn't Manhattan. I'm sure I could find a municipality in California that has legalized nudity. What's it got to do with the price of tea in China?

Yes. You did try and rationalize it.

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, it's the home of the creation museum, and if you don't like it, you should probably avoid it, and well look at that state over there! They have a high rate of another religious demoniation! And, well, they were elected by the creationist electorate, so you know, whatever.

You are trying to rationalize why Kentucky is the way it is. You don't have to find a place that has legalized nudity. We can just look at the number of cities (Columbus Ohio, right down I-71 from me being one) that have legalized the right for women to go topless. That's.... not really the same thing.

Here is the State of Kentucky DOE science curriculum requirements -- http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instruct...l/Science/

How are they anti-science?

Did I say DOE? /goes back and checks my post.

NO. I said Kentucky House of Representatives, that is actively working to change things.

These are your opinions and prejudices. I'm not just talking about just your words. Around this place, you'd think any non-atheist is a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, idiot. Your invective just adds to the cacophony of prejudice and over generalization.

Wait... I consider myself a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing idiot? Have you not been reading the words that I have been writing? I said that I believe in god. You just don't like that I'm critical of the Christian Churches, and because I'm critical of them, I must be lumped in with the likes of Taem and FiT? Really?

There was a subset of the Christian Church that believed Aliens were coming back for them, and that in order to evacuate the planet to board the space ship trailing the comet Hale-Bop they need to all commit ritual suicide. I'm sure there are a subset of the 43-47% of Americans you call YEC who are real activist troublemakers, especially when it comes to text books and evolution, but it doesn't mean the vast preponderance of Christians are anti-science.

I never spoke about that in absolutes either.

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.

So I can stand back and say "You know what? I was wrong. They aren't the majority. But I would say that they are a scarily large minority".

Yes, that is far too complex a topic to get into in this thread. Suffice it to say, I understand it. My example is more basic to the obscenity of conspicuous wealth, and the lack of charity. To the fundamental calling of "Christians" to follow in his example. I would say it's the rare Christian who is "Christian" in deed and creed.

I would agree, when using the doctrine of the prominent Christian Churches of today's society. If I had a larger "mouthpiece" to reach more people about religion, I would definitely be looking to challenge them. to get them to read the bible. To get them to really look at the ideas presented and misrepresented.

Which is not that common in my experience, but then again, I'm in the ivory tower of higher ed. That kind of intellectual dishonesty, poor sourcing, and out of context interpretation just doesn't fly in any discipline. Which is why, perhaps, I've landed here. I'm more comfortable where people deal in lucid, rational discussions.

You should visit more churches. The unfortunate reality, is that it is a problem in churches, where people go to "be taught". I'm not saying that it's every church. I don't know if I would say it's even a majority of churches. But I would say in heavily conservative areas (say..... the midwest "bible belt") it is a problem.

[kandrathe]

Because his poll is infallable.

Do you want to throw mud at http://pewresearch.org/ ?? Or, are you saying that polls are inaccurate in general?

I'm questioning your tactics, as deebye pointed out, it's not over 50%.

Is 33+18 > 50? Ergo, have some religious belief. My tactic is to be factually accurate with supporting data.

Second, You are making the case that it's somehow "ok" to be against certain fields of science but not others? That, this somehow makes the view acceptable? That saying "Well, some science is ok, but this science over here? Yeah, that's not true. It's a lie, I don't want our children to be taught that."

Somehow, that makes it ok? Somehow, just saying that some science is a joke is fine....

Are you putting words in my mouth? You cited a reference to "between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States share the beliefs of young Earth creationism". Then claimed they are anti-science. 1) I've tried to show how your source is flawed, 2) drawing that conclusion from that poll (question) is tenuous, and 3) other polls refute your claims. "The partisan differences, meanwhile, are slight. About three-quarters of Democrats (74%) say scientists contribute a lot, compared with 66% of Republicans and 69% of independents. Three quarters (75%) of those who say humans have evolved– either through natural processes or guided by a supreme being – say scientists contribute a lot, compared with 63% of those who say humans have not evolved." -- http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...cientists/

So, from that, 63% of even those who don't believe in evolution think "scientists contribute a lot" -- which I would read as not anti-science.

Wait... I guess I'm confused on what citation you are complaining about then.

I'm pointing to the entire wiki article, and it's poor references. The poll data has been cherry picked. The article is therefore unreliable, as is the malformation of your quote based on the malformed and poor understanding of the poll data.

A whois report is a pretty terrible judge of what someone or something stands for really...

That is your opinion. When I see the root domain like that, I get suspicious.

Ok, another issue with Wiki - reference #8 - the link was changed 9/19/2012. I'm talking about the link that is no longer there, and it went to a "polling" url that was clearly political and supported a progressive pov. I found the Gallup link separately, and it's coincidently the one that is now Ref#8.

I'm saying that the numbers in that poll would suggest that 43% to 47% of americans on average hold a view that they believe the Science of Evolution is wrong, and that they oppose it.

Having a belief is not the same thing as actively opposing it. We can even be just opposed to something and do nothing about it. If we are opposed to something, and let our voting guide decisions, is this not the democratic process?

Fine, let me refine my brush for you... They oppose something rooted in SCIENCE, and want it to be REPLACED with RELIGION.

But, again, you leap from THEY (American who deny evolution) to THEY (the ones who actively oppose "many claims and theories in the fields of {long list of sciences}" -- I'm telling you that it is fallacious to draw that inference without any evidence that THEY = THEY.

How many of our 43% to 47% even know what dendrochronology is about?

For God's sake man, are you this petty about word choice with everyone? Do I really have to put Science of Evolution every time? Can you not follow a conversation and context clues? Or are you just doing it to be petty, because I said they oppose Science, and by that extension, they must oppose everything about Science.

I'm not being petty -- you are trying to over extend your claim. I'm showing you where I think you are wrong.

Yes. You did try and rationalize it.

No, I didn't. I said "So what." There are a bunch of people that believe many things that we don't believe, which is why we have local laws, and state laws. And, courts, if we believe our rights are being trampled upon. So what if there are a bunch of elected representatives who are trying to legalize mandatory hop scotch on Wednesday afternoon in Hooserville. If some unconstitutional law actually does make it into law, we have the courts to protect us. I don't live in Kentucky. I don't care what happens there. Do you live in Kentucky?

That's.... not really the same thing.

Not equal. Congruent? Is it a belief system, does it challenge others belief systems, and should we care? I don't live in Ohio either. I'll let them choose how they want to live.

NO. I said Kentucky House of Representatives, that is actively working to change things.

Ergo, the government of Kentucky. But, they haven't changed anything. http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievoluti...cky-006540 --- so, really, it's political smoke to rally the electorate, right. The Kentucky legislature is Democrat controlled. You cite what a cadre of the already 35% minority of Republicans are trying to do... Not. Gonna. Happen.

... because I'm critical of them, I must be lumped in with the likes of Taem and FiT? Really?

Your invective adds to the cacophony of anti-religious prejudice and over generalization of who and what they are. You are mis-characterizing and overgeneralizing in this discussion. I really think you are, and I've attempted to show you how you are doing so.

I never spoke about that in absolutes either.

You stated, after drawing a circle around 43% to 47% of the American population that "Yes. They do oppose science. " -- seems pretty absolute to me.

So I can stand back and say "You know what? I was wrong. They aren't the majority. But I would say that they are a scarily large minority".

Oh, scary? How are they scary?

You should visit more churches. The unfortunate reality, is that it is a problem in churches, where people go to "be taught". I'm not saying that it's every church. I don't know if I would say it's even a majority of churches. But I would say in heavily conservative areas (say..... the midwest "bible belt") it is a problem.

I've only attended the ones here, and where my Mom lives (formerly rural Arkansas, now in rural Texas). Up here in Minnesota, there are far more people who don't walk their talk. Down there in Arkansas and Texas, it's not just a faith/belief system -- it's cultural, and inculcated into the culture. But, they walk their talk better.

[Jester]

That's the image of scientists vs. the base rates. Whatever we interpret the "universal spirit" category to mean, it's clear that scientists have overwhelmingly higher rates of non-belief than the general public - either 83% to 33%, or 95% to 51%.

If you look closer into the survey, the number of scientists who side with religious doctrine on questions of science is vanishingly small - 97% say that evolution is true (51% general public), and 87% say it happened with no intervention of any kind from anything (26% general public). The number of Evangelical Protestants drops from well over a quarter of the population (28% general public) to a mere 4%. Interestingly, both Jewish and "other religion" categories go up substantially.

-Jester

[eppie]

In fact, according to this poll, http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...-religion/

Over 50% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.

That statistic is a bit disingenuous - 33% say they believe in God, and 18% "say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power". I'm not sure how you can just add those two percentages together and call it a day. In fact, I'm not sure how you even equate "believing in God" (with a capital "G") to "believing in a universal spirit or higher". The former suggests a definite religious opinion, while the latter shows a more scientific opinion. One can't disprove that a "universal spirit or higher" exists, and the universe is (essentially) limitless - so there is a really good probability that something akin to a "god" (with a lower-case "g") is out there.

I'm also not sure how you can square away the fact that (from that poll) 48% of scientists say they have a religious affiliation, but only 33% of them believe in God. 15% of scientists must be what, Jedi?

And who do you call scientists? Only natural scientists or do you also consider university staff working in things like economy, law, languages etc. scientists.
Most chemists, physicists, biologist can rightly not combine their work with religion.

[Taem]

Religion
re·li·gion | [ri-lij-uhn] | noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

These definitions speak volumes to both of our ideas about the word "Religion". Religion as a term can be both the beliefs, and the institution itself. You could also go on about the societal connotation that the word Religion has taken on as well.

One small nit here; definition #2 is really the only one that's understood by the majority of people. You have the Christian Faith, which is a Religion. Within that religion, you have many, many offshoots: EXAMPLE . But each one of those offshoots are not considered a separate Religion unto their own as your definition there would have you believe (except by definition #2's standards). When people aren't sure what they are but believe in a higher power, they call themselves SPIRITUAL. When people have "faith" in a religious institution, such as Christianity, but don't necessarily adhear to all it's standards (full biblical compliance), then they say they believe in the PHILOSOPHY of the religion, but not the religion itself. In the greater context of how our personal definitions of spirituality has changed as a society since the 1900th century, it is clear that any Religion is meant as an founding institution or even culture, such as Jewish, Muslim, and even Christian. Offshoots of these "cores" are not separate religions unto themselves, but offshoots. Believing in the idea of the Hebrew deity known as Jehovah but not the bible would be believing in the philosophy of the bible. And believing in nothing in the bible, but believing in a higher power would be being spiritual. You can continue to use the word "religion" as per it's dictionary definition if you choose, or you can choose to use the standard most people I know use today - the one I just laid out. Ultimately, it does not matter, but for discussions sake, knowing what people are talking about can make a world of difference, and take it from me, trying to explain to someone you believe in the philosophy of a religion, but not the religion itself to someone who can't understand anything but black and white can be incredibly frustrating.

[kandrathe]

Most chemists, physicists, biologist can rightly not combine their work with religion.

How about Francis Collins? Or, Microbiologist, Alister McGrath at Oxford -- now also Professor of Theology, Ministry and Education. Or, Bob White, Geophysicist.

R.J Berry - recent former professor of genetics at University College London?

Ian Hutchinson - MIT Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Alcator C-Mod Tokamak Plasma Confinement Experiment Co-Principal

[DeeBye]

Most chemists, physicists, biologist can rightly not combine their work with religion.

How about Francis Collins? Or, Microbiologist, Alister McGrath at Oxford -- now also Professor of Theology, Ministry and Education. Or, Bob White, Geophysicist.

R.J Berry?

Four scientists that claim creationism and evolution can co-exist isn't evidence that creationism and evolution can co-exist. Theistic evolution isn't even in the discussion, because it just shoe-horns religion into science without anything to back it up. The problem is that some people in government use scientists like this to say that "scientists disagree on the evolution versus creationism debate" and then use that claim to pursue their own religious agenda to insert the teaching of creationism as "science" in schools.

edit: you added another scientist while I typed up this reply, bravo!

[kandrathe]

Four scientists that claim creationism and evolution can co-exist isn't evidence that creationism and evolution can co-exist.

No, no. I was just challenging the eppie assertion that scientists "can't rightly combine their work with religion" -- These are just some of the most reknowned who do -- and speak about doing exactly that. Given enough time, I could look up many many more... And, they were all "hard" scientists -- not the soft squishy type he was implying they might be... You are free to argue with these professors views. They seem fully capable of defending themselves without my aid.

[Jester]

No, no. I was just challenging the eppie assertion that scientists "can't rightly combine their work with religion" -- These are just some of the most reknowned who do -- and speak about doing exactly that. Given enough time, I could look up many many more... And, they were all "hard" scientists -- not the soft squishy type he was implying they might be... You are free to argue with these professors views. They seem fully capable of defending themselves without my aid.

No credible scientist "combines" their work with religion. They do not mix. Those who maintain their religion while doing good science do so by either segregating their two classes of beliefs so thoroughly that they don't trouble one another, or by choosing religious beliefs so slippery and vague that they couldn't contradict anything at all.

You didn't list the big fish, though, which is Freeman Dyson.

-Jester

[eppie]

Four scientists that claim creationism and evolution can co-exist isn't evidence that creationism and evolution can co-exist.

No, no. I was just challenging the eppie assertion that scientists "can't rightly combine their work with religion" -- These are just some of the most reknowned who do -- and speak about doing exactly that. Given enough time, I could look up many many more... And, they were all "hard" scientists -- not the soft squishy type he was implying they might be... You are free to argue with these professors views. They seem fully capable of defending themselves without my aid.

That is why I said 'mostly' kandrathe. Anyway I don't want start writing a list of scientists who don't believ in God because I simply don't have the time for that. But true, there are religious people in the natural sciences. Mots of the time they are people who were brought up in strict religious families. And reaking away from that is very very difficult. That is why intelligent design is popular among these people......in their mind they know that what is written in the bible can't be true but they have to much 'god-fear'.....and being scientist they first try to support ID.
One of Holland most distinguished scientists of the last few years was also into this, but a few years ago he also saw it didn't hold.

[DeeBye]

No credible scientist "combines" their work with religion. They do not mix.

Indeed. It leads to stuff like this, which is absolute garbage.

[kandrathe]

And breaking away from that is very very difficult.

Wow. It's not like they need to be deprogrammed.

That is why intelligent design is popular among these people......in their mind they know that what is written in the bible can't be true but they have to much 'god-fear'.....and being scientist they first try to support ID. One of Holland most distinguished scientists of the last few years was also into this, but a few years ago he also saw it didn't hold.

Science never really works when you try to make it fit and fill in the gaps with God, rather than allowing the science to reveal what it can (given it's limitations).

Most lay people hardly understand the barest of concepts of our reality, let alone the vast mystery of what is our universe(s).

---

Indeed. It leads to stuff like this, which is absolute garbage.

You've gone right to the extreme -- formerly Bob Jones University press.

"A Beka Book is a publisher affiliated with Pensacola Christian College that produces K-12 curriculum materials that are used by Fundamentalist Conservative Christian schools and homeschooling families around the world. It is named after Rebekah Horton, wife of college president Arlin Horton. A Beka Book and BJU Press (formerly Bob Jones University Press) have been considered the two major publishers of Christian-based educational materials in America. A Beka Book is the largest Christian textbook publisher in the world." - wikipedia

Fundamentalist.

No credible scientist "combines" their work with religion. They do not mix.

I gave a few who are credible scientists (respected in their fields), and who also lecture on religious topics. So, yes, credible scientists do combine their work so far as it comes to their profession. I would say they don't point at experimental results and exclaim "there is God"... Which is a sure fire way to becoming not so credible, alienating them from the cadre of their peers who base their science on observable reality.

Those who maintain their religion while doing good science do so by either segregating their two classes of beliefs so thoroughly that they don't trouble one another, or by choosing religious beliefs so slippery and vague that they couldn't contradict anything at all.

This. But, anyone can have a belief system that posits the existence of polar bears, even if you have never seen one. I think it takes "slippery and vague" as you call it, to believe in something you cannot see, nor ever prove exists -- whether than be religion or cosmology, or quantum mechanics.

You didn't list the big fish, though, which is Freeman Dyson.

He is interesting philosophically, I like his ideas on metaphysics, but I'd say he's more agnostic.

[Taem]

Not sure where to post this, but it seems fitting for this topic considering how many of it's threads are going. Let me clarify right off the bat, this is not a bash against anything.

So anyways, my wife and I planned a family trip to Disneyworld and invited my mother and her husband, who usually comes with us on family trips. My mom suddenly became very excited at this prospect and said she couldn't wait to go so she could visit the HOLY LAND. I was like, what in the world is that? So I did some research. Forget Mickey Mouse; here is a picture of their mascot. Now I don't have to be ultra-Christian or completely Atheist find this offensive. Does anyone else here feel the commercialization of a religion (any religion) is just... wrong in some way? I personally find it a bit creepy. I never knew that place even existed before.

My mother and I have talked long talks about religion before, so I don't judge her and if this is something she is looking forward to, I won't be the one causing strife; I'm just glad she's happy and if this experience enriches her life, then that makes me a happy person for it. It still doesn't stop the place from being creepy.