Legislate against creationists

Galvasean

stereoroid wrote:

I don't know if this is a "troll" post or not, but it's the kind of thing you'd ask if you wanted to get "intolerant atheist" reactions you could point to. So I'm glad to see there haven't been any of those in this thread. Free speech is free speech, and I'd have no more right to ban the Bible than a Bible-thumper would have to ban the Harry Potter books.

What I do see, however, is theists stepping over the "free speech" line in to real-world discrimination. In the UK, for example, some clergy are opposing the govt's new non-discriminatory rules on adoption, saying (in effect) "we reserve the right to discriminate against gays, because the Bible authors didn't like them"). That's not "free speech" any more, it's real-world discrimination.

That brings to mind a case in America where a kid wore a T-shirt to school saying something along the lines of, "Gays are evil, Islam is stupid, God is great". After people complained about it the school (reluctantly) allowed him to wear the shirt because to stop him would 'violate his religious freedom and freedom of speech'. Yet, the US constitution clearly states that in both cases you may do as you wish so long as you are not inciting hatred. I think branding two broad groups of people as evil and stupid respectively counts as inciting hatred. Its weird how 'religious freedom' seems to be the one get out clause for everything. I don't mean to go on a Dawkins style rant here (too late says you), but why is it that if someone says something you don't agree with whether it be political or institutional you have every right to argue with and/or criticize their point, but once they use their religious beliefs as a shield they suddenly become impervious to correction?

Esmereldina

Galvasean wrote:

Its weird how 'religious freedom' seems to be the one get out clause for everything. I don't mean to go on a Dawkins style rant here (too late says you), but why is it that if someone says something you don't agree with whether it be political or institutional you have every right to argue with and/or criticize their point, but once they use their religious beliefs as a shield they suddenly become impervious to correction?

Well, (unfortunately if you like...) we do live in a world where the majority of people belong to an organised religion. We atheists and non religious people are in the minority. Religion also happens to be something to which people who believe in it have a very strong personal and cultural attachment, so they get very upset when people offend it. And basically, this majority is in charge... so life's not fair

dan719

Are they really in charge though. Throughtout history an intelligentsia has always existed, a sub-culture of sorts. Since the majority of highly intelligent people are atheists(as documented by studies by Mensa among others) would posters not agree that those pushing the frontiersof human knowledge are in fact non-religeous. Decisions such as those by Harvard University to privately fund stem cell research ( as Bush has banned public funding) suggest the creationists have far less influence then they would like to believe.

Esmereldina

dan719 wrote:

Are they really in charge though. Throughtout history an intelligentsia has always existed, a sub-culture of sorts. Since the majority of highly intelligent people are atheists(as documented by studies by Mensa among others) would posters not agree that those pushing the frontiersof human knowledge are in fact non-religeous. Decisions such as those by Harvard University to privately fund stem cell research ( as Bush has banned public funding) suggest the creationists have far less influence then they would like to believe.

But politicians, who write constitutions and make laws, are in the main religious (or pretend to be and act accordingly). They have to be in order to appeal to a majority of the electorate. How many openly atheistic politicians do we have in Ireland, the UK or the US? You've given a great example of the influence of the 'non religious intelligentsia' in the funding of stem cell research, but I'd be sceptical about how much influence this so called intelligentsia really has in society, apart from in the case of a very rich east coast university deciding how to use its funding (though this is no small matter, I agree). I work in the humanities, and most of the ideas I've come across in university don't really have any influence on society at large

dan719

But surely such an inteliigentsia should be at the forefront of society, ahead of the zeitgeist as it were. Consider Darwin when he first proposed evolution and natural selection; the majority of society were outraged. Today most intelligent people except the theory(with some small modification). Radical ideas today become accepted in the future. In that way the intelligentsia have a great impact in society.

Esmereldina

dan719 wrote:

But surely such an inteliigentsia should be at the forefront of society, ahead of the zeitgeist as it were. Consider Darwin when he first proposed evolution and natural selection; the majority of society were outraged. Today most intelligent people except the theory(with some small modification). Radical ideas today become accepted in the future. In that way the intelligentsia have a great impact in society.

Pfft... always the science though isn't it? :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter

Esmereldina wrote:

Pfft... always the science though isn't it? :rolleyes:

Nope

Hobo Sapiens

PDN wrote:

I presume you mean enforced religion? Or are you seriously suggesting that a Scripture Union, for example, should not be permitted in a College?

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)


So, ban creationism, ban evolution theory, ban everything you disagree with?

Galvasean

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms,

Archaeopteryx lithographica disagrees.

Scofflaw

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)

Please do step over to the Creationism thread in the Christianity forum - where these claims have been repeatedly discussed. We try to keep other threads free of what is known to be an interminable subject...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Hobo wrote:

the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms

...or, if you have some free time, you could visit to the National Museum here in Dublin to see some of these "no transitional forms" in the glass display cases that fill the place.

Ekancone

MooseJam wrote:

yes I guess it's a bad idea, blame it on the creationist thread over in Christianity, It drives me to distraction but I can't stop going back

Dawkins generally refuses to participate in formal debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want. He argues that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."

Ekancone

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms

Irrelevent, you want proof of evolution, look no further than bacterial superbugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Zombrex

Hobo Sapiens wrote:

Evolution is a religion, as dogmatic as any. Its supporters are just as zealous and blind to reason as any theistic fundy.

(NB: the e. theory offers no explanation for the origin of life (how life somehow arises from inanimate matter; the fossil record to date show NO transitional forms, even though there ought to be millions of these according to the theory; random mutations - the theory's mechanism of evolution - are almost always negative, ie, they add no useful information and often cause adverse effects.)


So, ban creationism, ban evolution theory, ban everything you disagree with?

Nice to see JC has found the Atheists forum :rolleyes: