If you are a creationist, you are a fucking idiot

[RainDog]

video proof at link...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/21/creationists-respond-to-lawrence-krauss-teach-evolution-in-religion-class/

...Calvin Smith said Creation Ministries International agreed that teaching lies to children was a form of abuse. Atheists, however, embraced a way of thinking that “can’t define truth” because they don’t believe in God. Without God, there could be no absolute moral truth, Smith alleged.

“If you say societies as a whole determine morality, then I guess we could say Hitler was right, couldn’t we?”

Smith also said that logic and materialism were incompatible.

“Atheists like Lawrence believe our existence is totally materialistic and want to use logic to show how creationism doesn’t make sense,” he explained. “But logic isn’t made of matter. You can’t buy a pound of logic down at the store, Lawrence. Where does an unchanging, universal, non-materialistic entity like logic come from in an evolutionary, constantly-changing, materialist universe?” Without God, Krauss had no way to explain morality, logic or science itself, Smith said. The theory of evolution was merely the basis of “atheism, irrationality, and nihilism.”

If you are a creationist, you need to find a religion that doesn't require you to be a dumbass in order to believe in god.

[COLGATE4]

1. I'll have Blue Cheese dressing with

Calvin's word salad, please.

[LisaLynne]

25. Seriously!

I read that over and over again trying to make sense of it. Then I realized I was an idiot for wasting my time.

[RagAss]

32. Thanks .....I thought I had sudden onset dementia halfway through that slop.

[LisaLynne]

35. It may induce it! Be careful!

[RagAss]

38. ...

[RainDog]

49. LOL exactly

logic can't be weighed so it cannot apply to science.

yeah, this is the level of dumbass who thinks he's making a valid argument.

[COLGATE4]

64. That's five minutes of our lives

that we'll never get back.

[LondonReign2]

2. Did those quotes come from Graham4Amercia?

[dionysus]

77. lol

[upaloopa]

3. religious folks are running out of old myths to

use to restrain the faithful. After the country doesn't go down the tubes with a couple hundred thousand gay marriages it's going to be hard to hold people in line.

[sarcasmo]

93. +1

[hobbit709]

4. That level of STOOPID should be immediately and excruciatingly painful.

[REP]

105. It is ... but to the wrong people

[mindwalker_i]

5. Rec for the title alone

If one doesn't believe in God, one has to come up with their own sense of morality, rather than take it as is. It requires thought. The problem with taking it unaltered from "God," is that the chrch is then the only source of information on it, and they can alter it for their own purposes. One then resigns their sentience to that organization.

[RainDog]

17. We have a well developed system of morality

that stems from tens of thousands of years of living together in communities.

for instance - if someone is a greedy bastard and is willing to let others starve so that that person can hoard - our morality long determined such people should be removed from the protection of the community.

community was necessary to survive - unlike the bullshit myths about the self-made person, etc. etc.

so, being a greedy asshole meant you were left to die.

Rightwing Christians have so perverted morality and truth that they teach people should be left to starve if they are disabled, for instance, or not receive care for their problems, etc.

Sharing and fairness are part of the morality of every primate species.

Maybe that's what the creationists don't like - nature indicates how perverted their sense of right and wrong has become since they started voting for Republicans.

[RagAss]

33. Yes. Religion perverts the natural state of man.

[RainDog]

43. humans, I take it you mean by that?

some people are able to use religion effectively in their lives - and, while I have my own pov, if someone chooses to believe whatever, as long as they don't try to inflict harmful beliefs on others - live and let live.

sometimes I question why people would continue to provide material support for some religious institutions - because, at the institutional level, they exhibit sexist and homophobic belief systems that they are determined to continue, despite evidence of the harm of those beliefs.

overall, I think religion has been more hurtful to women than to men, however. I really think religion has distorted perceptions of females and has been one of the chief drivers of sexism for thousands of years.

[Scootaloo]

52. Bingo

We're born with a sense of ethics. Basic concepts of right and wrong, interaction with other human beings, etc. This is just evolution, stuff we get as a package deal from being a communal primate. Of course we develop and extend these ethics as we (and our societies) grow, but they always have the same common foundations, the world over.

Morality however is different from ethics. Morality is a learned trait and, in my experience tends to act as clauses and exceptions to ethical behavior. Since violating ethical behavior actually causes stress and angst, some other system has to be developed to subvert, to undermine our inborn sense of ethics. More often than not that new base, the installed system, is religion, which co-opts certain ethical principles, manioulating them into a sort of Orwellian double-speak - "Thou shalt not kill... except those guys over there, kill them lots."

[ladyVet]

67. I agree.

When this whole "you can't be a moral person without Gawd" thing comes up, I often ask how people think humanity managed to get along for hundreds of thousands of years without him, or his minions.

Never get a good answer.

[Jackpine Radical]

78. I think you could argue that religion is part of our "natural state."

There are no known societies without some form of religion. Even Neanderthalensis buried their dead with ceremonies implying a belief in--something--.

[RainDog]

112. Yes. We have always tried to explain our world

We, by nature of our mode of survival, attempt to find patterns (i.e. meaning, in more abstract terms) in our environment.

We don't know if burials from previous iterations of primates indicates a belief system in some abstraction. Maybe earlier hominids viewed death as passage from one place to another and made provisions for those making the passage - but this does not automatically imply that any supernatural entities were involved... it could have been viewed as a "village" made up of dead ancestors.

A lot of early religion was ancestor "worship" - i.e. a continuation of the human relationships in this world, with those ancestors continuing to exist in another form that communicated through other means.

It's hard to lose someone you love. It's comforting to continue a relationship in other forms. Since we're all the stuff of matter, we can create all sorts of scenarios to describe our continued relationships with those who have gone before, but none of them need necessarily include entities that did not exist in our known, physical world at some point.

to me, religion is often like ancestor worship that has been expanded and abstracted to the point that the origin is no longer recognizable.

[RagAss]

126. There is a major difference between spirituality and religion.

The former is a naturally occurring state of consciousness. The latter is a dogmatic perversion of that state for the material gain of a few.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. Yes. Our evolutionary history includes many millenia spent in small groups.

Even recent social psychological research suggests that we do best when we're in groups of about 150, small enough so that everyone knows each other.

[RainDog]

114. Dunbar's Number

His hypothesis is the increased size of our social networks was a driver of our greater cognitive abilities.

About a generation ago the anthropologist Robin Dunbar came up with an answer which has been broadly persuasive to many. Using comparative data from other primates, as well as human ethnographies, he posits that it was increased social complexity facilitated by language which entailed greater cognitive demands on our lineage. The basic intuition is obvious. Keeping track of interactions across a dyad, two individuals, is not particularly demanding. But a “three body” social problem is not just incrementally more complex. As band sizes scale up to a dozen individuals, and groups of bands include hundreds (clans?), individuals have to keep track of a maddeningly complex network of relations. Dunbar’s surveys suggest that the real social network of humans (e.g., non-famous people whose personal lives you have some familiarity with) does not go much beyond 200 individuals. This is Dunbar’s number.

…Dunbar actually describes a scale of numbers, delimiting ever-widening circles of connection. The innermost is a group of three to five, our very closest friends. Then there is a circle of 12 to 15, those whose death would be devastating to us. (This is also, Dunbar points out, the size of a jury.) Then comes 50, “the typical overnight camp size among traditional hunter-gatherers like the Australian Aboriginals or the San Bushmen of southern Africa,” Dunbar writes in his book How Many Friends Does One Person Need? Beyond 150 there are further rings: Fifteen hundred, for example, is the average tribe size in hunter-gatherer societies, the number of people who speak the same language or dialect. These numbers, which Dunbar has teased out of surveys and ethnographies, grow by a factor of roughly three. Why, he isn’t sure.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/the-social-web-and-dunbars-number/#.UhbYYGTTVnE

I don't know if this is chicken or egg. Since we did not evolve in nuclear units alone, we, as well as our primate relatives most closely related - i.e. chimps and bonobos - live in communities and, as far as I know, this cranial size issue has not related to their social structures.

I think improved diets would have more to do with cranial size. Group hunting could account for greater success in this activity - with Dunbar's number figuring in - and we have examples in modern day hunter/gatherers who hunt as a group (male, female, even nursing babies come along.) Since meat is high protein, developing a way to feed a community with such group effort would result in less effort expended on basic survival and more time for other pursuits, such as cave painting...

[surrealAmerican]

6. What an odd thing to say.

It's not as if you can "buy a pound of faith" at the store either. If he were consistent about it, his own beliefs would fail at his test too.

[RainDog]

7. LOL

someone alerted on this post and called it bigoted hate speech.

funny that the TRUTH is hate speech and bigoted to some people. Or, maybe the reality is that they're fucking liars. Who knows.

[LWolf]

8. While I agree,

I have a feeling that if I started a thread with an OP title "If you are a dlc/centrist/"new" dem/3rd way/neo-liberal, you are the fucking problem," I might have a bit of a problem myself.

Which is why, of course, I would never do that. Still, the hypocrisy of allowing selective criticisms of that nature irritate me.

There are the ignorant, there are those dedicated to ignorance, determined to protect it at all cost; there are the selectively blind and deaf, there are those whose thinking skills can't match my dog or cat, there are the fearful, the greedy, the cheerleaders, the sycophants, and the bullies...the poor idiots need less propaganda and more exposure to reality.

[RainDog]

13. This is a statement that reflects reality

creationism has no basis in reality.

if you insist on believing the earth was created 6000 years ago, more or less, you are a fucking idiot.

[LWolf]

20. Did I say anything at all about creationism?

My post was about you starting a thread with the words "if....you are a fucking idiot."

So you called me a fucking idiot.

[RainDog]

21. actually, no

I didn't call you a fucking idiot.

you were talking about political opinions here. I was taking note of the fact that the only reason creationism is a political issue is because our nation coddles the fucking idiots who promote the belief because those people are also voters.

our govt. coddles religious idiocy in order to pander to the lowest common denominator.

some Republicans no longer align with that party anymore because the could not, in good conscience, lie to people about this issue.

if someone wants to run as a Republican, they basically have to lie or be a fucking idiot, like Huckabee.

[LWolf]

27. It serves those in power

to keep the ignorant ignorant, and proud of it. They don't want to be questioned. They want to be followed, blindly.

This is true to some degree for all power holders. It's especially true of much of organized religion, to a more extreme degree. Maybe that's the "god" part of "god, guns, and gays." It allows them to foster anti-intellectual idiocy.

Political issues? They are far reaching.

I'm a middle school teacher. I have been told by previous administration not to teach "The Giver," which is part of our district's Language Arts adoption, because parents don't want their kids taught to question, and that's what the protagonist in the book does; questions authority.

I can not tell you how often the parents in my small rural community protest content in all classes and grades that they don't "believe in." It's a constant struggle to balance intellectual integrity and keep the stormtroopers out of the classroom. There's a reason for the idiocy. It's conditioned, from a very young age.

[RainDog]

30. oh, I totally can believe what you say about teaching

I grew up in the south and the stupid there is strong in regard to creationism. I remember sitting in science class wondering why my teacher tried to skip over certain parts of astronomy that talked about the freaking age of the universe. yeah, that happened.

after the Dover "intelligent design" case indicated that i.d. is creationism with two words, the fucking idiots will no doubt try to find some other way to pretend they're not simply engaging in the equivalent of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.

the problem with biblical literalism is that the text itself denies any claim that it is literal by the contradictions within its own narratives. I have seen some amazing contortions from people to allow them to continue to claim they are literalists, when the reality is that they are brainwashed and unwilling to admit it.

The Giver is a great y/a book. But when you have people challenging Harry Potter because it glorifies evil witchcraft... you just have to wonder about some people.

...and, in fact, at least one sociologist did wonder about such people. I have the old article in a box in analog form, so I can't link to it, but one sociologist studied fundamentalist white kids and black kids in a mill town in NC. The fundamentalist white kids were somewhat stunted in their creativity because of the narrow minded view that literalism was truth and that's all their children should know. On the other hand, the black kids used language with far more creativity and without the fear of punishment for being able to spin a good tale - something the white fundie kids were discouraged from doing unless a story reiterated the beliefs the fundies demanded their children believe, despite evidence.

[LWolf]

42. That sounds like an interesting article.

Not surprising, though.

Those of us who work in riskier communities walk a fine line when it comes to what we talk about or present. It's no picnic to have a parent trying to get you fired, and the board of education is elected by the community. While we don't get fired without authentic cause, (at least, that's been true before the movement to use test scores to fire teachers,) too many complaints in a file will limit a career.

I'm pretty good at presenting information without stepping on the hot buttons too obviously. While I get occasional complaints, they aren't frequent and they usually don't go beyond me. I don't teach science. The most common complaints I get deal with 2 things:

1. The state standard about teaching students to recognize bias. While I've never used an actual media personality, we do talk about media bias and what form it might take. This gets a negative response from parents now and then. A few years back, I had a girl stand up in class and yell at me: "Glen Beck always tells the TRUTH!" Then her mother spent a week in the class observing to make sure I wasn't brainwashing her daughter.

2. The rise of Islam...also a state standard. You can imagine.

One of the local churches makes sure parents don't allow their kids to read Harry Potter; Potter is mild compared to what newer YA books are presenting. I guess vampires and werewolfs and incestual demon-hunters are okay, as long as it's not witchcraft or magic.

It's really the fundie churches and the reliance on right-wing media that keeps parents, and therefore their kids, ignorant and narrow-minded. I've been told by a parent that he could do his own research, but he trusts Beck and doesn't have the time.

[RainDog]

44. Yeah, it was a great article

that's why I remember it all these years later - it really, really drove home a... reality I knew growing up about the negative impact of fundamentalism on kids. It's like someone who refuses to feed a kid's... mind... and insisting they grow up on bread and water.

You would probably get in big trouble for Persepolis, but I loved that graphic novel - by an Iranian female. She thinks God and Karl Marx might be the same thing... because, before the overthrow of the Shah, the two biggest factions vying for power were the Islamists and the Communists. LOLOL.

Yeah, I know a little about recent y/a fiction. I have an MLS, did some work on kiddie lit, sold and sell books... and I'm pretty tired of all the vampires and all that, but it sells/gets read. Have you ever read Un Lun Dun, by China Mieville? It's similar to Gaiman's Neverwhere, but geared to y/a. I don't know if it would be too... adult for y/a, but another great book is The Madonnas of Echo Park. Illegal immigrants in Los Angeles trying to assimilate.

you've probably seen this video, but it's short and a really great example of bias. you could do a similar thing and get some of those parents all over your back! lol. It makes me want to cry to hear what the kids say - and how they react, psychologically, to being subject to prejudice.

[LWolf]

45. That's a great video; I've loved it for years.

I'm familiar with both Mieville and Gaiman.

I spent some time this week with my principal, a former lit teacher, discussion appropriate selections for an advanced group. Happily, he agrees that we tell parents that "advanced" reading sometimes comes with more mature material, and simply require a permission slip, rather than censor our selections.

That's because one of the characters in one of the books is gay. Gay characters can be dicey in middle school.

[RainDog]

48. Will Grayson, Will Grayson?

Perks of Being a Wallflower?

Chelsea Whistle is an interesting memoir - again, don't know if it would be considered too mature for your readers, tho.

edit to add - Dream of Perpetual Motion is also great because it's steampunk, and recent scifi by an African-American guy who writes excellent prose.

[Bake]

39. One can believe in a Creator without believing the Earth is 6,000 years old.

In fact, one can believe in the Bible without ascribing it the traits of a history book or a science text.

But that's too complicated for some people.

Properly understood, there is no conflict whatsoever between science and faith, and it is not necessary to disparage entire groups of people as the OP did.

Meanwhile, I'm just wondering what triggered the Big Bang ... or other things that faith can address, like why are we here?

Cheers,

Bake

[RainDog]

46. that's not the same thing as creationism

Creationism is a belief system that makes claims that are demonstrably scientifically invalid.

Evolution makes no claim about first causes. However, if you want to back into that argument about triggered... what triggered the trigger?

You still end up with the same "problem" in regard to science with this question, however, because it is a question that cannot be answered within a science environment.

And, yes, I know people can and do read the bible and select things that they like and ignore things they don't like - in fact, everyone does this, even the so-called literalists. i.e. why don't they give away everything they own and minister to the poor and sick, as the apostles did, who, otherwise, are lauded... except when they do something that actually requires personal sacrifice for belief. why do women cut their hair? why do literalists claim Jesus fulfilled the law, then use that same law to justify discrimination against others?

We all engage in magical thinking of some form or another. some of it is more harmful than other parts of it - and such thinking doesn't require doctrine to occur, it's just easier if doctrine provides a justification and an agreement with others to validate that someone isn't crazy.

[RainDog]

50. you think creationists should not be vilified?

I do.

They are harmful to people - I agree with Krauss that certain religious beliefs are abusive and children, sadly, are not protected from that abuse.

Creationism is part and parcel of an entire culture that luxuriates in homophobia, sexism, and anti-intellectualism. The mindset is toxic. This sort of religious belief is authoritarian and hateful to the core.

Sinclair Lewis pegged fundamentalists as the group in the U.S. that would be the basis for fascism, if it were to take hold here - because of their belief system. That's because fundamentalism was a reactionary response to what you claim is your Christianity - in other words - you are the enemy of fundamentalist christians, as much as any atheist - the express purpose of fundamentalism was to oppose liberalism - ergo - fundamentalism is a rejection of those very ideas that are the basis for liberal thought across a spectrum of ideas, including political.

Someone who insists the earth is 6000 years old, despite EVERY branch of science that has been able to positively demonstrate this is false - what would you call such a person, other than an idiot or a dumbass? If someone has not been exposed to this science, sure, you could say they're uninformed, but, honestly, how is it possible to attend school and not learn about the basics of every branch of science?

So, you don't like what I said here - well, I don't like religion that wears ignorance like a medal or sign of worth - that's pathetic.

[Bake]

92. Sure, I think anyone who believes, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary,

that the Earth is 6,000 years old is mistaken. Even willfully ignorant. I think we all know that.

I just don't see the need for an OP to pronounce them "fucking dumbasses."

We all know that. And it tends to offend people that I don't think you intended to offend.

Bake

[RainDog]

95. thank you for suggesting self censorship

to appease the religious sensibilities of unnamed, unstated others.

this is exactly the sort of thing I abhor about religious people who want to inflict their sensibilities upon others. anyone here who dislikes the title is welcome to hide the thread. anyone who dislikes my presence here is welcome to ignore me on this forum so they do not see my posts.

the intent is humor - but it's angry humor. When you read the OP, the guy's words are garbled stupidity. "You" is not necessarily a direct or specific address and is often used in general terms. someone can choose to be offended if that person likes, or they can choose to read the post in the context of the quoted words. immediately after the title I noted my thread title had "evidence' in the words of the person I quoted.

people post things here all the time and I don't see the need for their choice of words, their subject matter, etc.

unless I want to directly engage with the ideas behind the words - I live and let live and let others here express themselves as they see fit. I disagree, in extremis, with some things posted here, and, for the most part, I don't bother to say a word because I, nor you, are the police of others' thoughts or expressions.

there are some people here who make it their task to go around making accusations about people. one in particular is widely regarded as a troll by others I know here for her attempts to police others' expressions - but she's doing it, so she claims, for others' benefit. in reality, she is engaging in the sort of mean girl crap that I have known all my life as a female who was not interested in appeasing the thought police. the funny thing is the sexist assumption that I am male that has led to some of the most prejudicial and judgmental thinking among a few females here.

since you do not see the need to pronounce someone like the guy quoted in the OP as a fucking dumbass, then I would suggest you not do so.

since I choose to use those words to express my view of the guy quoted in the OP, I see no reason why you should tell me to make the same choice you do.

[Bake]

97. Oh, I'm not suggesting self-censorship at all

Except to the extent that common decency and propriety would suggest. But far be it from me to impose those upon you.

Yes, creationists, as you define them, are willfully ignorant (and I, by the way, am not one of them). But there are a lot of good, liberal Democrats who happen to also be religious people, and I think it's counterproductive for you to go out of your way to offend them.

But self-censorship? I'd never suggest that.

Bake

[RainDog]

98. LOL

Oh, I'm not suggesting self-censorship at all...Except to the extent that common decency and propriety would suggest.

This is hysterically funny because you are not willing to OWN that you are engaging in the very sort of judgmental bullshit I mentioned, to which you responded. Your choice of descriptors is, yes, the very definition of an attempt to censor by shame.

Do you not see that you are doing this?

Again, this is SO TYPICAL of religious people I have known. You won't own your petty judgements. This is one of the big reasons I detest so many people who claim the mantle of religion.... the dishonesty.

If there are good, liberal Democrats who also happen to be religious people who are offended by what I wrote - that's something they can deal with in their own minds. As I noted, they can hide the thread or ignore me.

We don't all share the same sense of humor or the same experiences in life.

And, with this, I'm done with someone who cannot even own up to what they are doing.

[Bake]

104. I don't think I referred to anyone ANYWHERE as a "fucking (anything)."

So I reject your attribution that I'm doing the same thing ...

Cheers,

Bake

[RainDog]

111. you do not understand what I wrote

what I was saying is that you are attempting to coerce others to behave the way you would, to have the sense of humor you do, to express themselves in ways you prefer to see.

you then frame this as "common decency, etc. etc." which are terms to indicate your disapproval.

I don't care if you disapprove.

The PURPOSE of the title was to humorously, i.e. BEYOND common "decency" - which is what humor often is - talk about beliefs from the guy in the OP that are so idiotic it's beyond belief that someone thinks this constitutes a coherent argument.

I am saying - I don't need or want your approval or disapproval.

go live your life and I'll live mine.

[RainDog]

58. and in reply to your questions

Meanwhile, I'm just wondering what triggered the Big Bang ... or other things that faith can address, like why are we here?

Faith actually cannot address what triggered the big bang because the big bang is a scientific theory about the origin of matter. Religion has nothing worthwhile to say about the formation of matter.

If you want to frame the question of existence within religion, you are more than free to do so. however, it is not necessary nor even worthwhile for some people to do so because any answer will be unsupportable. That's what faith is - belief in things unseen.

Why are we here? This is a question that science has answered, repeatedly.

We are here because of the long, long expanse of time during which chemical elements, then compounds, formed. These compounds created new substances by their combinations. Because of the random interaction of compounds, more complex organisms were formed. Mutation, a natural and randomly occurring event, contributed to the development of variation. Symbiosis, or the coming together of two distinctly different entities for the benefit of both, is the basis for sexual reproduction, in basic terms. Sexual reproduction greatly increases the chance of survival in any particular environment because of the likelihood of greater variation that randomly increases survival depending upon random natural events within which an organism may live out its life span.

The meaning of life is life. The goal of life is life.

If you want to assign an egocentric view of why life exists, then religion can provide a way to proffer that egocentric question within a frame that provides meaning outside of the idea that we exist to live and to promote the well being of the planet we inhabit for the sake of future generations of our and others' offspring. But it's not necessary to align with that egocentric view in order to have a meaningful life.

Not all religions have this egocentric pov, however, that asks "why are we here."

Some people, in fact, think that this egocentric religious orientation is part of the problem, not the solution, in our current society.

Faith can answer questions - but those answers cannot be verified within reality. Faith is outside of reality as it is understood. Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist philosopher, noted that faith is insanity, at its core, because it exists outside of reality. As long as someone does not hurt anyone else by their participation in this unreality, what harm does it do? None, until it tries to claim it is a universal truth or that someone's faith allows her or him to dictate the terms of someone else's life.

A belief in god, it seems to me, offers solace for those who are afraid of not being. The desire to live is strong - until it's not. Just as we offer beliefs in benevolent bearded grandpas that leave presents under trees, stories of an anthropomorphic god and life after death in this one provide pleasure and comfort to some people. For others, this idea is too small minded.

For others, just the knowledge that we are all part of an infinitely recycling and recombining existence that has gone on for billions of years is enough. This is the "miracle." The facts are enough for awe and humility. For some, it's enough to know we are the stuff of stars - the stuff of eternity, in human terms, which is really no different than the idea of an "infinite" universe.

Faith is not necessary for many people to address the questions you ask. I would posit that, until someone understands the rational explanations for these questions, tho, faith is built upon delusion.

Some people find faith oppressive because it does not require any proof to validate claims.

[Marr]

66. If your argument is that the Bible is a collection of Bronze Age stories, that's fine.

But if you're claiming it's anything more than that, then I have trouble buying the argument that it just has be "properly understood". I could just as easily say that Clifford the Big Red Dog reveals the word of god-- you just have to interpret it the way I do.

[cleanhippie]

68. A couple of questions.

When you say there is no conflict between science and faith, what do you mean by that? Science is based on observation, repeatable testing, facts.... Faith is based on whatever one chooses to believe.


And regarding the Big Bang, why we are here, or any other question we humans may have about our existence, how exactly does faith address these issues in a coherent manner that meshes with reality?

[RainDog]

24. and, fwiw

the reason I posted this with this headline is because, if someone had alerted (which, unsurprisingly, someone did - and I have a good idea who did it, but don't know/don't care, ultimately because that person is a liar) I knew that the statement was factual.

it wasn't an opinion, calling someone a label - creationists label themselves and their own words label them as fucking idiots.

[RainDog]

34. and, fwiw, the person who alerted on this tried to get me banned from DU

which is why I think the person who alerted on this is the same lying asshole who tried to get me banned from DU when she lied about something I had said by selectively quoting a statement.

so, just to say, the person who did this alert seems to be a troll - or stalker.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

TOS Violation: Bigoted Hate Speech. The OP's subject line is as broad brushed and as hateful as some creationists hate speech.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 21, 2013, 04:00 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The only TOS violation is this alert. 'Bigoted against creationists' is one of the most moronic reasons for alert I've seen so far.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Zenger?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm tired of coddling creationist morons. Anyone who preaches this backward thinking crap earns the strongest rebuttal imaginable. Even here.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: RainDog was starting a thread. He wasn't attacking a particular DUer. So what if it's broad brushed?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Wrong forum, RainDog. Also, there are probably some creationist Dems here and we are supposed to refrain from calling our fellow Dems names.

[RainDog]

53. and, fwiw... lol

Juror #2 - Zenger?

Thank you.

Truth is a defense against charges of libel

[cleanhippie]

69. I've got a good idea who may have been the alerted too!

That language is very familiar. Glad reason prevailed on the jury.

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...

Sid

[longship]

10. What? No Crocoduck argument?

Isn't that the classic Creationist, knock-down, drag out argument? Why aren't there crocoducks?

See! Creationism is true!

Then there's the atheist nightmare...

DUN DUN DUNNNN!

...that's right! It's... DUN DUN DUNNNN!... The BANANA!

When they do this, they've already lost. Too bad so many people actually believe that this is a cogent argument. Oh boy! We're in deep shit.

On edit: as Rebecca Watson aptly pointed out on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe on Ray Comfort's observation that the banana is shaped for easy insertion... "Sometimes a banana is just a banana."

[RainDog]

14. LOL

It's really astonishing that our govt. will allow schools to be certified that teach children to be fucking idiots.

But the reality is that HUNDREDS of VOUCHER SCHOOLS teach creationism.

I guess our govt. is on board with teaching people to be fucking idiots because the fucking idiot brigade votes. sad.

[longship]

22. See my edit.

Wish the Google would find the episode where the Skeptical Rogues utterly take down Ray Comfort's silly, silly argument. However, it goes back a few years.

Here's a link to the Web site -- one of the best podcasts on the planet; they haven't missed a week in years and years.
Skeptics Guide to the Universe

They are the best of the best. I sometimes go back to their early days and listen to them all again.

Witty, but weighty. Good shit! They didn't even miss a week when one of the Rogues passed away suddenly, Perry DeAngeles.

This is what new media is about.

[Ohio Joe]

11. Amen

Or something like that

K&R

[RainDog]

23. preach it, brother

if god exists, god doesn't require you to be a dumbass to believe in god, at least that's how I see it.

[Bake]

40. I would go so far as to say that God gave people brains/minds because he/she expects us to USE THEM.

Thinking is not only allowed, it is required.

Bake

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. And if you are George Bush's prostitute

you are fucking an idiot.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. LOL

[RadiationTherapy]

15. Debate Krauss. Debate Dawkins. Debate Dennett, or Harris, or any other prominent "new atheists"

I dare ya. Don't forget to pop it up on youtube, Mr. Smith.

[NightWatcher]

18. Funny how Stupid is a prerequisite for religious

I know some relatively intelligent people who got degrees in school, but as soon as they start to talk religion, they have to talk from a place of gleeful willful ignorance, and they're happy to do it.

Sorry if religious people here are offended by what I said.

[hrmjustin]

26. I like to0 think I am somewhat intelligent.

[Bake]

41. You're not sorry, and if that's supposed to be an apology, it's a totally "Republican" apology

"Sorry if you were offended."

Just sayin'.

Bake

[cleanhippie]

70. Yeah, he shouldn't have offered that apology at all.

For the truth needs no apology.

[Bake]

90. Soe people just like to be insulting "in the name of truth."

People can disagree without being disagreeable. Just sayin'.

Bake

[2ndAmForComputers]

108. Sometimes you can't tell the truth without insulting somebody.

Actually, scratch that "sometimes." It should read "most of the time."

[etherealtruth]

19. Yes

If you are a creationist, you are a fucking idiot

[struggle4progress]

28. Not too many creationists at DU, I'd guess

[wryter2000]

101. You'd guess right

Not even religions DUers are creationists.

[2ndAmForComputers]

109. Creationists may be fucking idiots

but they know when to keep their mouth shut to preserve the existence of their account. Mostly.

Just saying.

[TBF]

29. I'm surrounded by this in Texas -

And the good parts I have seen are the number of hours these folks will put into community service etc ... (if they would vote more compassionately I'd be even more impressed but I will give them credit where due).

It would be so much better for everyone if they'd take a more figurative approach, emphasize the "we are the church", and continue to be a resource for the community.

Dismissing science is not going to work for them in the long run ...

[RainDog]

55. Fundamentalism in Texas is harmful to the entire nation

because of the influence Texas has on textbook selection for schools.

it really annoys me when someone says "teach both." This is also an ignorant statement, but it's sort of the cop out for those who don't want to completely side with the idiots but want to maintain their private belief.

I think, if someone dismisses science, they should walk the walk and not just talk the talk - i.e. let them forgo the benefits of science in their lives.

Faith healing vs. biological science for medicine - well, if someone denies the underpinning of all biological science, someone should stick to faith healing or snake handling for their health care.

[TBF]

61. Agreed -

I think the way to tackle this is that public schools should be very strongly take the position that it is science only in the classroom. There are plenty of books that can be used other than creationist stories. They can keep their fairy tales for their religious schools. And I would add that public funds should not be going to their private religious facilities - including tax breaks. The Joel Osteens of the world are the biggest recipients of this type of welfare and I'm tired of it. If they have charitable arms set up to run soup kitchens, take supplies to Haiti, etc ... they can continue to function as non-profits. That's it.

[tularetom]

31. Why do you have to be a fucking idiot to be a cartoon.....oops, never mind

I gotta start reading these post titles closer.

[RainDog]

36. Teaching creationism is a form of child abuse

so states theoretical physicist Krauss

[RainDog]

37. The purpose of education is to overcome ignorance

not validate it. - Krauss

The same should go for DU. If you want to validate ignorance here - you're part of the problem.

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. WTF? Major word salad.

:

[ZombieHorde]

51. Even if there was a god, there still wouldn't be an "absolute moral truth." nt

[RainDog]

54. the reality is fucking idiots don't care

they pull this stuff out of their asses to justify their intransigence in the face of facts.

cause, you know, logic isn't a brick. or something. therefore it's not a tool for scientists. because, yeah, that's how fucking idiots form arguments.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. So essentially, the guy is arguing against using rational thought for, basically, anything.

sure. why not.

[RainDog]

60. watch it

you may be engaging in bigoted hate speech to note the irrational nature of such beliefs.

be sure you don't say that you think religions are superstitions, either, cause that pov is also bigoted hate speech, even tho most all religious belief is grounded in superstition based upon cultural teaching. and make sure you don't say that religions that persecute females and homosexuals are not worthy of respect because that might also be bigoted hate speech.

and make sure you don't know that it is irrational to make claims that are demonstrably false because that, too, is bigoted hate speech against irrational thought.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. not to mention, bashing "fucking idiots".

Fucking idiots deserve respect, not scorn!

[exboyfil]

57. Funny he brought up Hitler

“If you say societies as a whole determine morality, then I guess we could say Hitler was right, couldn’t we?”

A quote from the good book: "...and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them." Deut. 7:2

The means and efficiency may have been different, but the goal was the same (extermination of a whole tribe(s) of people by another tribe).

If I was arguing against atheists, I don't think I would bring up Hitler.

[RainDog]

59. He probably knows more Ricky Hitlers than scientists do

(Ricky Hitler, fwiw, is a reference to a guy affiliated with a group of neonazis on the show Breaking Bad.)

I agree with you that the OT god is a nasty piece of work. But if you consider the mentality of those during which this concept of god was formed, it makes sense - i.e. god seems to be a reflection of a particular culture, not a universal of justice, etc.

Fundies take delight in the idea of the end of the world, too. All their enemies are gonna get it, all right (oh, and sadly, because they didn't accept jayzus as their lord and savior, but, oh well.)

Death cults have been popular throughout history.

[1awake]

62. hmm.. okay, but do you think I"m a fucking idiot for believing in a God?

Which I do, mind you I don't believe in the 6000 year BS calculations though lol. Please don't think I'm trying to set you up or trying to argue. I'm just interested.

[RainDog]

63. This post is about creationism

which is based upon rank stupidity.

this post is about the absolutely true reality that claims made my creationists are no different than someone claiming Athena sprouted from the head of Zeus. for reals.

I don't care what you believe about god unless you try to tell me or others that your god belief has the right to dictate how others should live or believe.

sometimes, however, I am snarky about belief because of my personal, negative and coercive experience with certain believers. this snark is a reaction to having grown up with people who were very dogmatic and, frankly, nasty to people - who justified bad actions because of their belief. I try to remain within boundaries to address the particulars that I find offensive - offensive to humanity, not just personally - but I don't always do that. Since religion has been such a force of oppression for many people across time, sometimes my focus is on that to the exclusion of the things that others find within religion that is good for them.

I have reasons for doubting belief. Also - my reality is that removing myself from those people who were the basis of my negative experience of religion was the best thing that happened to me up until that time and doing so changed my life for the better. My entire life changed for the better when I was able to get away from religious coercion. Because of those negative experiences, I don't find comfort in belief. I don't like religion, in general, but I recognize that others do. I try to respect that, but don't feel it is out of place to have an opinion that doubts those beliefs in, say, a forum like this one which discusses cultural issues.

at the same time, I love gospel music - old school stuff. Sister Rosetta, Jesus on the Mainline. And even older stuff - Mozart's Mass in C minor, or Gregorian chants. I love the emotion in the music - I just don't find that emotion in the belief systems. there are things about religion that I like - mostly from a distance at this point - even tho I don't find meaning or truth behind any of the claims made by the same beliefs beyond those universals like the golden rule.

so, all that to say that, no, I'm not going to make a claim that everyone/anyone who believes in god is a fucking idiot, tho I will make claims that religion is culturally bound.

[1awake]

72. Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

While I do believe in a God, my belief does not require you to believe in anything, nor does it make me think less of you as a human being. As far as creationism is concerned... All I know about them is the 6000 year thing, which was enough for me to not pay attention to them. Not sure I would use the same terms you used, but I can see where your terms could be considered highly accurate.

[cleanhippie]

71. It would likely depend on what attributes you have assigned your god.

If those attributes fall outside of the laws of physics, the natural laws of the universe, and the reality we actually inhabit...

[1awake]

73. Well of course they do... wouldn't be much of a God if they didn't. ;) n/t

[cleanhippie]

82. Then you may have answered your own question.

[1awake]

88. maybe lol. n/t

[Marr]

65. I'm an atheist, but I actually have to disagree with your title.

I've known a couple of very intelligent people who were creationists-- but it was an almost schizoid sort of thing.

One was even a biologist who'd done some fairly impressive work in his field. There's something weird and compartmentalized in the minds of these people. They hold these beliefs inside a little box in their minds, and it isn't allowed to interact with any other part. The man I just referred to-- the biologist-- his actual work was a proof of evolutionary processes (not intentionally, but they were inherent). But he just chose not to reconcile his work with his batshit "beliefs". If you tried to get him to engage on the topic logically, with data, he became visibly frustrated and waved the topic away. He did not want to analyze it.

I wish I understood it. I think it has to do with being taught these narratives at a very early age. They're just so baked into the brain's wiring that it's almost impossible to extricate them.

[grantcart]

74. I don't think that it has to do with being taugh narratives at an early age but rather

finding a comprehensive metaphysical formula at that time of adolescent development where metaphysical angst can wear on someone that has mild OCD compulsion to find a universal solution to the metaphysical world (and I put myself somewhere in that group).

A distinct creator/creation story releases pressure from a constant longing to have a wholistic understanding AND some identification to know where you fit in.

For some the idea of being an insignificant carbon entity in an expanding universe is an oppressive burden and a highly structured fable is a liberating event. There is evidence that it is an evolutionary trait, that those who are at peace with a metaphysical formula are more effective in biological competition.

And that is why we have Monty Python. To throw them off track and create a crack in metaphysical superstructure so they are less competitive!!

As for the title it is part of an ever growing DU tradition that you simply can't make a point about something if you don't insult someone.

[Adrahil]

83. It's called cognitive dissonance

That is, it's the ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time. But yes, it's very hard for people give up a life-long world view. It requires them to fundamentally restructure that world view, and that frightens them. They would have to give up on things which are emotionally important to them, and acknowledge that people they love and respect are just plain ole wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. My definition of an idiot is someone who either can't or won't think.

If you're so deep in denial that you toss out the entire edifice of the past 500 years of scientific understanding of the world, in favor of asinine assertions about the Earth being 6,000 years old...


Yeah, idiot.

[telclaven]

75. I scream (inside my head) at my coworkers almost daily

All are highly educated, some with advanced degrees. We do alot of statistics in this office, stupid people don't make it long here.

Of the nine of us, seven are ardent Creationists. One individual goes so far as to reject PHYSICS! His assertion is that the Sun glows and puts off heat because it's electric. He showed me a website dedicated to this 'electrical theory of the universe'.

There aren't enough bricks to hit myself in the head with to understand.

[NM_Birder]

80. Odd......

"stupid people don't make it long here" followed by claiming roughly 75% of the staff are creationists, and one doesn't even believe in physics.

Ask him,.... why didn't Jesus tell anybody the world wasn't flat, or exactly how did the American White Tail Deer swim the Atlantic Ocean and cross the European theatre just to get on a boat so it wouldn't drown in a flood ?

in what field are you crunching numbers ?

[telclaven]

81. It's very odd

We are the testing and evaluation end of a pretty extensive research and development effort. We do alot of user surveys, compile data, and write computer code.

I don't talk religion much with my cooworkers as we're all friends, but we definately see the world differently.

[Deep13]

76. There is no absolute moral truth. Deal with it. nt

[Arugula Latte]

84. Yep. Unless you are a child, there is no getting around that one.

[cleanhippie]

85. Yet we must not denigrate people's deeply held beliefs or risk being labeled a bigot.

We get told that here every single day.

Funny thing, people's deeply held beliefs, they are only absurd when they cross our own personal line of believability. We have "liberal" believers right here on DU who call creationists dumbasses, yet howl and cry bigotry and intolerance when their own beliefs come under scrutiny. The hypocrisy is amazing.

[Arugula Latte]

86. That's true. We can point out that the beliefs of Republicans are ridiculous and harmful

but anything labeled "faith" has a protective Mission Impossible security bubble around it.

[cleanhippie]

87. So true. What I find most amazing is that the Republican POV is grounded closer to reality

Than faith will ever be...

[Iggo]

91. How dare you bash fucking idiots!

[defacto7]

102. True! They should be respected for what they are!

Fucking idiots.

And respectable fucking idiots at that.

[OnionPatch]

94. What a load

I get so sick of hearing that we would have no morals without religion. We create our religions around our beliefs. Not the other way around. But try to tell them that.

[Vashta Nerada]

96. I recommended this thread for the title.

[RainDog]

113. thanks!

hope it made you laugh

[OneGrassRoot]

99. I always love your gentle way with words...

Love you, RainDog!



K&R

[RainDog]

100. love you, too

hey, it's good to know how to write a headline sometimes... LOL.

[defacto7]

103. It reminds me of a skit by Steve Martin

from way back where Steve talks about a great practical joke to play on your child... teach your kid from birth how to speak wrong. Then he imitates the kid when a teacher asks a question on the first day at school. It's hilarious.

I think this guy's parents played that practical joke on him.

[Initech]

106. Not only is this guy an idiot but a huge hypocrite at that.

[spin]

110. Remember the earliest stories in the Bible date from 3500 years ago. ...

Our scientific knowledge has greatly increased since that time but in 1500 years,if we continue to learn more, our views may be considered as backward or even more backward as we consider those of the people who wrote the Bible.

At that time science and religion may have discovered a common ground and most scientists may agree that there was a supreme intelligence behind the formation of the universe. On the other hand perhaps the idea of a supreme being will be totally disproved.

I can agree with the possibility of there being an intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe without believing the earth is 6000 years old or that it was created in six days that were twenty four hour long.

[The Straight Story]

115. So basically Obama is a fucking Idiot

“What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.”

[RainDog]

116. Obama is a politician

he gives himself an out with the "a day in the bible may not be a 24-hour day."

The coding in his language indicates he made this statement to reach out to fundamentalists to vote for him:

"My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true."

However, if you listen to the video from Krauss, he talks about how SHAMEFUL it is that politicians in this nation have to pander to this level of stupidity that is utterly discredited by reality. Krauss doesn't think Rubio is a fucking idiot, either. He thinks he's a politician that has to gain votes from fucking idiots.

so, you can take from that what you will.

[The Straight Story]

117. Ok, I will re-phrase: Politicians are fucking idiots

For not having the guts to say what they mean and BS'ing people to pander. And the people who vote them, I guess, would be the same....

[RainDog]

119. Say what you'd like

I agree with Krauss that it's shameful that politicians have to pander to fucking idiots to win political office.

[The Straight Story]

120. On that we agree :) It is shameful too that we let them pander

But it is one of those "keep your powder dry" issues we come up against every damned election.

I personally don't think all creationists are idiots, even though I don't agree with them.

The problem comes in when you need votes and you know that if you go around calling a slew of the people you need to vote for you fucking idiots you might as well hang it up.

At least Obama used some tact and a little respect for people of other faiths/ideals. I don't expect people on the right to do so, but it is nice when we on the left don't demean others so much in our party like Jews for their creation beliefs.

[RainDog]

122. the title of this OP is within the context of the quotes in the OP

When you have a faction of religious believers in this nation who are wedded to dumbing down the population by forcing their beliefs on others - with the long, long, long history of attempts to do so, when you look at studies that indicate that nations who are not held hostage by such people have better outcomes for their citizens across a standard of measures (i.e. every other western democracy other than the U.S.)

and your argument is that you don't want to upset those who are creating this condition - well, the point, to me, is that such a position deserves to be challenged because of the harm it does to this nation.

according to your logic, if the Taliban were a voting faction in the U.S. that claimed women should be stoned to death for adultery, we should offer platitudes for the same in order to gain their votes, no matter the outcome of their influence upon this nation that those votes cost women.

so, if that's how you want to approach the world, you will.

I, on the other hand, align with those who want to move this nation beyond such worthless beliefs such as a literal biblical creation.

I'm not a politician and never aspire to be one and one reason is that I'm not willing to massage the egos of such people when their moral universe is comprised of the most egregious sexism, homophobia and anti-intellectualism.

if you want to play footsie with them, have at it.

[The Straight Story]

123. A well thought out post

And I don't think we disagree as much as it may seem.

There is a practical side to elections, a reality if you will, that needs to be addressed if we want our own people in power to advocate and bring about change.

The US is a nation slow to change (sadly) and insulting a slew of those whose votes you need will only slow the progress we want to achieve. And comparing stoning people to death to not calling people fucking idiots because they believe there was a larger force at work in our creation is not a one to one comparison (one is about an action, one is about a belief of a previous action).

Science could well tell us killing off those over 50 benefits the whole of humanity, it could be well researched and peer reviewed and accurate. But I doubt anyone would run on that and endorse that.

We are a big tent with many ideals and beliefs. We don't have to endorse the whole of a belief - it is kind of like DU and how we have some threads in GD about cats that are left because they do no harm, even though they are not about news.

If a politician is talking about making policy based on some beliefs of people? That is a different issue. Obama can believe anything he wants, I care more about his actions as my employee and getting him hired to do the job we need done (from health care to gay rights to many other issues).

The RW blasts immigrants, Muslims, etc and it is going to keep costing them elections over their hard stance and an ever shrinking tent. Calling a large section of our populace idiots won't do a damned thing to change their minds and will only serve to slow progress on the real issues (not sure why we care if people believe in creationism anyway, but some do).

[RainDog]

124. Your comparisons don't work

First, the reason to care if people believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago...or even 10,000, with humans in their present form, is that such beliefs are incompatible with the capacity to do work within biotech, for instance, which is one of the largest emerging fields for the future.

but you really want to claim that science doesn't matter for a nation in this time?

I remind you of one such fatal consequence - and this was the starvation of a large portion of the Russian population because of an ideologically-driven belief that plants would not compete for nutrients, etc. and agriculture was done in such a way that the result was massive crop failure. That's not even within a religious belief system - but I want to use this ideological-driven idiocy to demonstrate that religion, per se, is not the harm - it's the lies within a belief system that can and do create harm.

But, honestly, I am frankly stunned that you think basic science doesn't matter for a nation in the 21st century. Just boggles my mind.

But it reminds me of this quote: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

We see this within the creationist religions that have helped to promote genocide in Africa among homosexuals there. But, really, what does it matter to be able to use biological science to dispute the claims of religious believers that homosexuality is a sin, not an evolutionary and genetic issue, right?

How sad to insult people who promote mass murder because of their religion, right? We need those people at the voting booth! That's your basic argument. As I said - if you want to live your life that way, do so. If I want to create a post that laughs at the stupidity of someone claiming logic is not a brick, I will. Such statements need to be shown for what they are - which is stupidity.

If you want to deny someone political power - you discredit them. But you say it's more important to pretend they do not harm this nation. Again, we view this differently and, frankly, I would rather have someone on my side who gives a shit and knows about the ways to create a better world.

According to your logic, we should pretend climate change isn't a problem, either, because religious fundies dispute this.

What else are we supposed to give up on and shut our mouths about because it might offend such people? That women have the right to bodily sovereignty and that birth control is a something women should be denied because it is offensive to a religious group to allow women to choose not to be brood mares?

How far do you want to go with this?

If someone wants to present evidence for why literalism deserves respect or consideration, then please let them do so and we can debate the merits of the position.

To tell educated people to shut up because people want to deny the very science that makes their society functional - well, I think you have a real problem with your thought processes and I'm not looking forward to the new dark ages - but, hey, what the hell, right?

[RainDog]

118. Even Bush said he knew evolution was true once he was out of office

which, again, indicates how sad it is that politicians have to pander to fucking idiots to win office.

he offered this standard boilerplate political b.s. about god - but admitted he did not think the bible was literally true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3686695/Bible-probably-not-true-says-George-Bush.html

[livingwagenow]

121. Fuck yes! Religion is bullshit. knr nt

[idwiyo]

125. K&R