Local Baptist Church Spreading Anti-Evolution Junk Mail

Tomk1

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I have the God Delusion on tape, we could hook it up to 800w loud speakers and play it from 9:30 until 2pm on a Sunday in the suburbs.

That should do it

But then they would get a 1000W loud speaker

Just create a mag "Atheist today" and hand it to them as they come to your door?

Hivemind187

Tomk1 wrote: »

But then they would get a 1000W loud speaker

Just create a mag "Atheist today" and hand it to them as they come to your door?

Dig a pit, fill it with hungry Lions and when they fall in - tell them it's a living metaphor to test their faith.

jtsuited

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Dig a pit, fill it with hungry Lions and when they fall in - tell them it's a living metaphor to test their faith.

best retaliation suggestion yet.

barfizz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Understanding the basics of evolution doesn't require understanding of anything more than mutation and natural selection. Neither are very tricky concepts. I agree with what you're saying about the framework, but what I'm saying is that it is quite practical for any person to immerse themselves to the degree required to understand the basic. But for whatever reason, be it social prejudice against science as being boring or nerdy, be it the CSI/Heroes take on the core principles, the mainstream media dumbing-down of science into weekly miracles or just the general aloofness of the scientific community, it just doesn't happen.



I'm aware of that. Is this actually reflective of their capacity to understand evolution? I seriously doubt it. I don't think that you're giving the average person enough credit. They're far cleverer than they let on. They just don't care about science unless it's giving them a new version of the iPhone. I reckon that apathy is as much the fault of the scientific community as it is anyone else's.

Guys i appreciate your frustration at some peoples understanding (of evolution) , but I would suggest that you are pushing the exceptions (lack of understanding) that you have encountered into the region of the norm, many people may not be able to express their understanding of evolution in a clear manner but i believe that they have a basic and adequate knowledge of the process. Most people ( the majority in Europe) laugh at the concept of creationism so don’t lose heart.

barfizz

Back to the original point, am i allowed to scream at these people when they call and complain that they are oppressing me, scaring me and leaving me in a state of shock coz they are telling me if I don’t do what they tell me that I am going to burn!!!
Isn’t that called intimidating and threatening behaviour ???

robindch

barfizz wrote: »

Isn’t that called intimidating and threatening behaviour ???

As Asiaprod says, just give it back to them. Tell 'em that in your religion, all christians are going to burn in hell, screaming for all eternity from inside a lake of burning sulfur for the crime of not believing that such a threat exists.

Then ask them to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He's offering a beer volcano for all eternity, you know!

Zamboni

I got so fed up with the gits from the local church putting there crap leaflet in my postbox, I actually chased them once. But it turned out it was just a nice old man.
I couldn't say anything bad to him, he would have had a heart attack!
I'd make a crap atheist soldier :pac:

Mitch Connor

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't think it is really. There's a lot of reasons why people are hesitant to try to understand science, but evolution is a really simple theory. I think a general lack of interest or even plain laziness are much stronger influences there. And it's not really the public's fault either.

the basics are fairly easy to understand, but I am having a hard time understanding the science behind it, to be honest. Currently trying to read the Blind Watchmaker and while i get that it is mutations being carried through generations through natural selection that 'cause' evolution I still don't understandwhy it actually works - if the end result of an evolutionary trend is the eye, where did it start and how did it actually evolve? dawkins consistently speaks of design in the process but he either hasn't explained where the design comes from or i'm simply not smart enough to have understood when he did. At the moment, while he paints a convincing picture of evolution and how it happens, I don't get where evolution can't be the answer HOW god created everything.

Zamboni

Mitch Connor wrote: »

At the moment, while he paints a convincing picture of evolution and how it happens, I don't get where evolution can't be the answer HOW god created everything.

Even if there was a god who used evolution as his Black & Decker tool for creating everything, how do you explain his origins?
Even if evolution was proved conclusivley wrong, that still does not provide evidence of a supernatural power.

PDN

eoin5 wrote: »

I got one of these too, its pretty bad that a congregations money gets spent on junk like that. They should make at least an equal contribution (over what they might usually give) to a good charity like the childrens hospital up the road for their self indulgent crusade.

A congregation is simply a group of people who agree to meet together and pool their resources to create certain effects.

If these people want to use their money to spread this stuff around then they are free to do so. Vegetarians, UFO enthusiasts, political parties, and atheists all have the same freedom - it's part of living in a reasonably free democratic society as opposed to living in North Korea or Iran.

I don't agree with what these people are pushing, but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots, I defend their right to do so as long as they do so in a way that is legal and avoids creating a nuisance (eg knocking on doors late at night, early in the morning, or when they have been specifically requested to stay away).

I get lots of stuff pushed through my letterbox that I don't agree with - and I put it in the bin without getting annoyed or wanting to retaliate. I don't see why people get so worked up.

Mitch Connor

Zamboni wrote: »

Even if there was a god who used evolution as his Black & Decker tool for creating everything, how do you explain his origins?
Even if evolution was proved conclusivley wrong, that still does not provide evidence of a supernatural power.

i don't have an explanation for the origins of God, if there is a God. (Could be a 'her' you sexist beast:p) However, just because I, or someone else doesn't have an explanation for the origin of God, it doesn't mean there isn't one. Such an argument would, I suppose, be labeled an Argument of Incredulity by Dawkins.

I would believe in the theory of evolution, i do believe it is how life has evolved to what it is now in its various forms (as opposed to created in 6 days as a creationist would argue), but evolution does not discount the possibility of a God from what i can tell from my understanding of it at the moment (very basic understanding, underpinned by about a quarter of The Blind Watchmaker at this point - not claiming to have great knowledge on the subject, quite the opposite). Maybe, hopefully, with more reading it will become clearer where design comes into evolution without a designer.

DarkJager

Just do what I do...throw every single thing with any reference to religion straight in the bin when it comes through your door. As for that DVD, you should break it into pieces and post it back to them if they've supplied an address.

Dades

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I would believe in the theory of evolution, i do believe it is how life has evolved to what it is now in its various forms (as opposed to created in 6 days as a creationist would argue), but evolution does not discount the possibility of a God from what i can tell from my understanding of it at the moment (very basic understanding, underpinned by about a quarter of The Blind Watchmaker at this point - not claiming to have great knowledge on the subject, quite the opposite). Maybe, hopefully, with more reading it will become clearer where design comes into evolution without a designer.

I can't imagine in what context Dawkins was referring to design - but you must have misinterpreted it. The very underpinning of natural selection it that is happens randomly with no guiding hand whatsoever; i.e. the antithesis of design.

Maybe you should get a Reader's Digest explanation before slogging on with the Blind Watchmaker? There might be something in this thread, or maybe someone can point you toward a nice concise explanation.

Mitch Connor

Dades wrote: »

I can't imagine in what context Dawkins was referring to design - but you must have misinterpreted it. The very underpinning of natural selection it that is happens randomly with no guiding hand whatsoever; i.e. the antithesis of design.

Maybe you should get a Reader's Digest explanation before slogging on with the Blind Watchmaker? There might be something in this thread, or maybe someone can point you toward a nice concise explanation.

He talks about design with regards complexity.

You could have the pieces required to make a plane, but throwing them randomly together would be highly unlikely to create something that flies. A mountain on the other hand is basically a collection of rocks and the order in which they have been put together is of little importance - one mountain is much like another and Mount Blanc (his example) would probably still be called mount blanc regardless of how it is put together.

As for randomly with no guiding hand at all - that is completely opposite of my understanding. From what i have read (and thought i understood) so far is that evolution is very much NON-Random - The mutations themselves are random, but those mutated genes being carried on is not; it is natural selection, natural selection being the guiding hand.

pH

PDN wrote: »

I don't agree with what these people are pushing, but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots, I defend their right to do so as long as they do so in a way that is legal and avoids creating a nuisance (eg knocking on doors late at night, early in the morning, or when they have been specifically requested to stay away).

And it's appreciated when you & other narrow minded bigots do so.

Thanks.

Dades

pH wrote: »

I don't agree with what these people are pushing, but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots, I defend their right to do so as long as they do so in a way that is legal and avoids creating a nuisance (eg knocking on doors late at night, early in the morning, or when they have been specifically requested to stay away).

pH wrote:

And it's appreciated when you & other narrow minded bigots do so.

Can we put away the handbags, ladies?

TIA

Dades

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The mutations themselves are random, but those mutated genes being carried on is not; it is natural selection, natural selection being the guiding hand.

The very term 'natural', means that it happens naturally; i.e. in nature, without intervention! Rainwater naturally fills a hole in the ground, but we'd never suggest in this situation that nature was a 'guiding hand', because we know it's just physics in action.

Similarly, that mutations that offer some sort of advantage to their carriers have a better chance of survival, does not suggest the guiding hand of a designer - it's just biology in action.

Mitch Connor

i'm gonna have to start this book again....

ChocolateSauce

I've never had anything like that...but I have a skeptical inquirer sticker on my door which proclaims "I doubt it!"

Though that might be a magnet come to think of it!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

A congregation is simply a group of people who agree to meet together and pool their resources to create certain effects.

If these people want to use their money to spread this stuff around then they are free to do so. Vegetarians, UFO enthusiasts, political parties, and atheists all have the same freedom - it's part of living in a reasonably free democratic society as opposed to living in North Korea or Iran.

I don't agree with what these people are pushing, but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots, I defend their right to do so as long as they do so in a way that is legal and avoids creating a nuisance (eg knocking on doors late at night, early in the morning, or when they have been specifically requested to stay away).

I get lots of stuff pushed through my letterbox that I don't agree with - and I put it in the bin without getting annoyed or wanting to retaliate. I don't see why people get so worked up.

I do. How we treat disease is based on our understanding of evolution. Science shouldn't have to waste time fighting a propaganda battle. It should be used to help sick people and better humanity.

What these people are doing means that Science has to waste time countering this propaganda.

If someone was posting DVDs and leaflets saying climate change wasn't happening based on sloppy scientific understanding, I'd have a problem with that too.

Would you?

Tim Robbins

jtsuited wrote: »

I have just received through my door a DVD, and 2 flyers from a local Baptist Church (River Valley Baptist Church, Leixlip).

What about starting a campaign where everyone who believes in evolution sends this Church a one pager telling them why they believe in it.

Letter writing worked very well for Amnesty International.

The contact details for Riverview Baptist Church (I presume this is one) are here:

http://www.biblebc.com/ChurchInfo/OtherChurches/other_churches_of_like_faith.htm

The contact email is: bobzemeski@post1.com

Perhaps we could invite him for online discussion about his views on evolution?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I do. How we treat disease is based on our understanding of evolution. Science shouldn't have to waste time fighting a propaganda battle. It should be used to help sick people and better humanity.

And the reason why you and I agree that science should be used to help sick people and better humanity is because we live in a society where free interchange of ideas is permitted. In societies where no such interchange occurs then science is frequently viewed as a tool for killing others more efficiently and for increasing the wealth and power of the ruling elite.

The downside of such free interchange of ideas is that you also get bizarre ideas propagated.

If someone was posting DVDs and leaflets saying climate change wasn't happening based on sloppy scientific understanding, I'd have a problem with that too.

Would you?

I'd disagree with them - but I'll defend their right to believe what they want and to promote their muddle-headed ideas. Unless they are actually being hateful or actively harming others.

I certainly won't get all annoyed just because someone promotes something I don't agree with. Now that would make me a narrow minded bigot.

eoin5

PDN wrote: »

A congregation is simply a group of people who agree to meet together and pool their resources to create certain effects.

If these people want to use their money to spread this stuff around then they are free to do so. Vegetarians, UFO enthusiasts, political parties, and atheists all have the same freedom - it's part of living in a reasonably free democratic society as opposed to living in North Korea or Iran.

I don't agree with what these people are pushing, but, as with veggies, atheists & other crackpots, I defend their right to do so as long as they do so in a way that is legal and avoids creating a nuisance (eg knocking on doors late at night, early in the morning, or when they have been specifically requested to stay away).

I get lots of stuff pushed through my letterbox that I don't agree with - and I put it in the bin without getting annoyed or wanting to retaliate. I don't see why people get so worked up.

I'm not saying they should be made do or not do anything, what I'm saying is that a religion who supposedly believes in generosity and compassion willfully wastes loads of money pumping petulant tirades into letterboxes instead of helping the people who need it is doing something wrong.

And if veggies are crackpots then what are most christians on good friday (or is it ash wednesday? or is it both?) ?

Rev Hellfire

eoin5 wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be made do or not do anything, what I'm saying is that a religion who supposedly believes in generosity and compassion willfully wastes loads of money pumping petulant tirades into letterboxes instead of helping the people who need it is doing something wrong.

You forget they're not doing this to spite you, rather they actually believe/hope they are helping you.
I'm with PDN, its nothing to be getting worked up about... Just put them in the bin along with the fliers from pizza companies, get rich schemes etc.
Because if thats all you've got be to worried about, then you're doing pretty good in the grand scheme of things.

PDN

eoin5 wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be made do or not do anything, what I'm saying is that a religion who supposedly believes in generosity and compassion willfully wastes loads of money pumping petulant tirades into letterboxes instead of helping the people who need it is doing something wrong.

By the same argument you can accuse those who spend money going to football matches, buying clothes, or eating in restaurants of doing something wrong.

Is it just churches that should spend 100% of their money on humanitarian projects? Do you apply this standard to other people as well?

And if veggies are crackpots then what are most christians on good friday (or is it ash wednesday? or is it both?) ?

I will cheerfully eat a sirloin steak on Ash Wednesday and on Good Friday. I don't care if others choose to be vegetarians on those days or all year round if they choose. If they choose to spend money trying to persuade me to do likewise then I will certainly view them as crackpots - but I'll view their efforts with humour rather than anger or annoyance.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Is it just churches that should spend 100% of their money on humanitarian projects?

It's certainly a good idea.

But from a figure you mentioned yourself, only around 5% goes on humanitarian projects, with the remaining 95% presumably going back into the religion itself.

These million-seater stadiums don't build themselves...

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And the reason why you and I agree that science should be used to help sick people and better humanity is because we live in a society where free interchange of ideas is permitted.

Speak for yourself. I believe human suffering is bad and if something can alleviate human suffering than it should alleviate it.

In societies where no such interchange occurs then science is frequently viewed as a tool for killing others more efficiently and for increasing the wealth and power of the ruling elite.

A play with words there PDN. There are limits on the what people are allowed to say. There are laws against inciting racial hatred for example.

I'd disagree with them - but I'll defend their right to believe what they want and to promote their muddle-headed ideas. Unless they are actually being hateful or actively harming others.

They are indirectly harming others. As I pointed out.

I certainly won't get all annoyed just because someone promotes something I don't agree with. Now that would make me a narrow minded bigot.

This is little sophistry trick you are employing. You are trying to insinuate that you are either a bigot if you oppose them or if you let them get on with it you are not. That's a false dichotomy.

Why speak as if it's a false dichotomy when it clearly isn't?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is little sophistry trick you are employing. You are trying to insinuate that you are either a bigot if you oppose them or if you let them get on with it you are not. That's a false dichotomy.

Why speak as if it's a false dichotomy when it clearly isn't?

Not at all. Stop making stuff up about me. I am insinuating no such thing.

You are free to oppose the Creationists' ideas and to refute them with ideas of your own. However, the tendency among posters in this thread to get angry at such junk mail does appear to me to betray a measure of bigotry.

I think many ideas are junk. I devote a large part of my time to encouraging people to think differently and to reject such junk ideas. However, I should be able to do so in a way that is good humored and good natured. Lots of people are going to hold opinions contrary to mine - and they will argue their case by various means. Hardly worth getting angry or annoyed about it.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly a good idea.

But from a figure you mentioned yourself, only around 5% goes on humanitarian projects, with the remaining 95% presumably going back into the religion itself.

These million-seater stadiums don't build themselves...

And, just as a matter on interest, what percentage of the turnover of Irish Skeptics was spent on humanitarian aid last year?

Not that you have to worry about million-seater stadia, of course.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

the tendency among posters in this thread to get angry at such junk mail does appear to me to betray a measure of bigotry.

Rather than assuming bigotry -- something you appear to see with distressing regularity in us atheists -- why not actually ask what's upsetting people about this?

Perhaps they're annoyed at creationists' dishonesty? And it's hardly bigotry to be irritated by that?