Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 166 of 188 (375854)
01-10-2007 11:30 AM


Post Mortem
Well, once again we maddening, infuriating, lying, dishonest evolutionists have forced a creationist from the field of battle. He was apparently appalled by our dastardly use of facts and rational argument in defense of reality.
I'll repeat my earlier conclusions regarding the thread's topic, which highlights the term "cult". I don't believe creationism is a cult. But the title also uses the term (removing the highlighting of "cult") "cultural movement". Is creationism a cultural movement?
I don't believe so. Creationism quite obviously originated in evangelical Christianity's concern about the potential negative effect of the teaching evolution on their children's faith. But creationism has become a strong religious force within our culture, and creationist views are now strongly reflected in that culture, with roughly half of Americans believing the earth is only 6000 years old.
Clearly creationism is so powerful that it has strongly influenced our culture, which is already predominantly Christian in background if not observance. This cultural quality appears to be a passive force. I think that many people who reply in polls that they believe the world is 6000 years old do so just because they're ignorant of science and that's what they were taught in Sunday school, and not out of any strong religious convictions. When push comes to shove at open school board meetings, these same people are either not present or not vocal and are probably open to hearing scientific information.
But such is not the case for evangelical Christians. If evangelical Christians were evenly distributed across the country they would not form a majority in any community, but the US has a large and growing Bible belt where such evangelical beliefs dominate, and the concentration gives them great political power because their elected representatives speak for them at both the state and federal level. For example, consider senator Rick Santorum's and representive Mark Souder's spirited defense of IDist Richard Sternberg's misbehavior as editor of a science journal.
And so creationists represent a strong anti-science force both within our culture and in our political establishment. At a religious level it has an almost cult-like influence on people that enables them to believe irrational things, at a cultural level it influences what is taught in public schools, and at a political level the laws of our nation can actually be influenced so as to favor creationism. Because science and technology are key elements in maintaining our status as an influential and affluent nation, and because creationism is anti-science, it is a force that we cannot and must not ignore.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 167 of 188 (375925)
01-10-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by TheMystic
01-10-2007 8:44 AM


objective v. subjective
Whoah, wait, I just brought up their site and am reminded they do the same thing, trying to bill themselves as some objective arbiters of what they actually consider a non-controversy.
at the end of the day, people have to recognize that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective," and objectively there are such things as "right" and "wrong." objectively, one side wins.
sorry if this is news to you. but objectively creationism has lost. they have lost the battle scientifically, and they have lost the battle legally. an objective arbiter points out when one side is, in fact, wrong.
i'm sorry that the facts come down agreeing with one side over the other. but that's what "objective" means. if you were looking for some place where all beliefs, including wrong ones, are weighted equally, the word you should have looked for was "subjective."
If evolution is so settled and no rational person could dispute it, then there is no point in discussing it
you're right. there is no point. why do you?
and the use of 'forum' is disingenuous.
no, because people who think like you do exist. the forum exists because the discussion exists -- even if one side is, in fact, wrong.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by TheMystic, posted 01-10-2007 8:44 AM TheMystic has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 168 of 188 (375986)
01-10-2007 6:02 PM


A Detailed Post Mortem of TheMystic
Despite TheMystic's claim of an education in physics, chemistry and so forth, he declared his anti-science bias right at the outset when he said, "I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'." I found TheMystic's contributions to be incredibly error-filled and full of ad hominem, so I thought a summary in order. I'm primarily doing this to make clear that despite his claims to the contrary, he knew little of evolution, was strongly anti-science, and more than gave as good as he got when it came to personal criticism.
Here I enumerate the many errors, anti-science statements, and expressions of ignorance presented by TheMystic:
  1. He rejects the scientific method. (Message 9)
  2. Questions replication as an effective form of validation. (Message 14)
  3. Somehow links the scientific method to ruling out the existence of God. (Message 16)
  4. Claims the scientific method isn't really how useful things have been invented or discovered. (Message 16)
  5. Asks if there's really any such thing as the scientific method. (Message 23)
  6. Responds to a question of how he would use his method to study disease with a non sequitur about making people sick on purpose. (Message 33)
  7. Believes the Scopes trial supported the existence of God (Message 34)
  8. "No, my point is that there is no such thing as the 'scientific method'." (Message 39)
  9. "If you're going to dispute me, please argue from outside of science, since science is the question here (to me - I don't believe in it)." (Message 39)
  10. "If we have to argue whether creationism is science we at best waste our time because science, as I'm vainly trying to demonstrate, has no hard definition." (Message 49)
  11. When informed that science is a consensus activity, he somehow misconstrues consensus as universal agreement. (Message 67)
  12. In a significant non sequitur, says that most smart people throughout time have not accepted evolution, which is true but irrelevant since the theory was only developed about a century and a half ago. (Message 69)
  13. Indicates no understanding that reliable interpretation of evidence requires a consensus. (Message 69)
  14. "I thoroughly reject the notion that I must be able to prove something in order to hold it as true." (Message 72)
  15. And now, from Home Improvement we have, "Same with evolution, from a very wide angle point of view: random mutations and natural selection - a couple of sentences are supposed to explain the fantastic complexity of life? I don't think so, Tim." (Message 82)
  16. Accuses scientists of making up family tree charts, claims fossils have no relationship among them, says evolution hasn't been tested, the mechanism of evolution violates the principles of statistics, calls evolution a quaint idea, equates it to perpetual motion machines, and calls it a bizarre chapter in history, all with no substantiation or evidence whatsoever. (Message 85)
  17. "Yes, I do periodically follow some new development in evolution, and there's some very interesting discoveries, but nothing to suggest that anybody has really discovered any mechanism where species can evolve in the grand scale that Darwin proposed...What is lacking is any serious explanation of how species can evolve from each other, not to mention repeatable experimental proof that they do indeed evolve (save me the bacteria resistance)..." (Message 85)
  18. Says, "I don't think I said I was conservative christian, did I?" (Message 95), just after saying, "I came to evolution from a strict religious upbringing," (Message 85) and having entered the thread as an admitted creationist. Can you say disingenuous?
  19. While conceding they may be more scientific now, says that 30 years ago family tree charts were "wild-assed guesses." (Message 96)
  20. "I didn't say I rejected the age-of-the-earth evidence, though I do think a lot of it is bogus, profoundly prejudiced by a need to find enough time span to numb the imagination." (Message 97)
  21. Somehow views concern about melting icecaps as inconsistent with acceptance of long timeframes. (Message 97)
  22. Describes evolution incorrectly as having a direction toward greater complexity. (Message 99) Does so again in Message 118.
  23. Displays an unawareness of the principle of tentativity, and an inability to see the distinction between science itself and technology, which is only the application of science. (paragraph 1, Message 107)
  24. Once again displays his ignorance of evolution by referring to it as a "vaguely defined theory." (paragraph 4, Message 107)
  25. Expresses the belief that only those who have done the experiments themselves are qualified to talk about something. (paragraph 4, Message 107)
  26. Confuses education about science with indoctrination in a religion. (msg=-110)
  27. Demonstrates a complete ignorance of the evidence for evolution by saying, "I think the onus is on the evolutionist to prove his case." (Message 112) Seems not to understand that sufficient evidence for evolution was uncovered over a hundred years ago.
  28. Demonstrates even greater ignorance of evolution, seeming to believe that turning cats into dogs is a view somehow consistent with evolution. (Message 112) Requests that we not comment on his ignorance.
  29. Calls nonsense and a sweeping generalization the statement that, "Creationists avoid the halls of science as if they were the inner regions of hell." (Message 113)
  30. Claims to have read a lot of Talk.Origins. Obviously reading for understanding, or even remembering, is not his forte. (Message 117)
  31. Calls the statement that the Bible is not scientifically accurate a "wild generalization." (Message 121)
  32. Argues that because Newton was a creationist, the modern evangelical movement can not be considered anti-science. (Message 125)
  33. "I'm a conservative politically, so I don't believe in government schools." (Message 133) I had no idea conservatives didn't believe in public schools!
  34. Confuses modern tolerance of irrational religious beliefs with persecution of ancient Christians. (Message 140)
  35. Seems still not to understand the manner in which he earlier mischaracterized evolution. (paragraph 3, Message 159)
And here I enumerate the many content-free accusations of TheMystic:
  1. He questions Jon's qualifications to comment. (Message 9)
  2. Argues that the scientific method is invalid because it doesn't check itself. (Message 14)
  3. Accuses jar of using a fantasy definition of science that ignores the real world. (Message 25)
  4. "Those who try to find flaws in the design of life only embarrass themselves with their lack of design savvy (I'm an engineer)." (Message 32)
    PS: Interestingly, when rejection of a personal God among scientists is broken down by discipline, engineers measure lowest, biologists highest. When doctors are included, they measure pretty low, too.
  5. Implies that we're not interested in truth because we've been indoctrinated into the scientific method.
  6. "So to the original point of the thread, if creationism is a cult, science is every bit as much so." (Message 39)
  7. "It's enough to make one swear off science altogether, as many a young student has done when first asked to leave their reason at the door of the evolution class." (Message 59)
  8. "You're only confirming my opinion that evolution is just a mind game for the elect, an excercise in finding clever ways to defend the absurd. So the wheels start to sink in the mud in a familiar way: The evolutionist is not interested in my line of study and the evolutionist lost my interest and respect a long time ago." (Message 62)
  9. Accuses Phat of bluster: "...and no amount of bluster can hide that lack." (Message 85)
  10. Accuses John of not being a thinking person: "Not that I didn't think it possible that I might meet a thinking person on the other side, I have before, with whom we might mutually clarify our thinking on these matters. But it ain't you, dude!" (Message 101)
  11. Takes note of my pig-headed arrogance and accuses evolutionists of holding masturbation orgies: "If this kind of pig headed arrogance is at the top I guess there's not much hope for the rest of the forum, is there? You, at least, have obviously not given any thought to a word I said. That's your prerogative of course, but I think it pretty disingenuous to call EvC a forum if it's just a place for evolutionists to masturbate together." (Message 104)
  12. Shades of Randman: "You guys are congenitally unable to be honest about the quality of evidence for evolution."
  13. Instead of responding to Crash, questions his credentials. (Message 120)
  14. Tells me I may not be thinking very hard, or at all. (paragraph 1, Message 125) Questions my ability to think at the conclusion.
  15. Dismisses a lengthy argument as a "silly thing to say." (Message 125)
  16. Dismisses an argument from Phat as something "you're going to have to think a little more seriously about," but offers no evidence or argument other than "it's a whole lot more complicated than that." (Message 128)
  17. I have no idea why he thought this response made any sense, and so I'll just present it without comment: "Oh, that's too funny. So it's not christianity that's the problem, it's FUNDAMENTALIST. 'course it wasn't *real* science anyway. This is entertaining, guys, you live in an interesting world!" (Message 132)
  18. Responds to a lengthy information-filled post with, "I'm getting a little dizzy between "the definition of science changes" and "Ali-somebody destroyed Arab science in AD 1100)" and resisting the urge to just bust out laughing at the insanity of it all." (Message 141)
  19. "You are so cocky that you can't conceive of an honest disagreement to your enlightened mind." (Message 145)
  20. Dismisses a lengthy argument from me as nonsense, and perplexingly accuses me of not defending the argument despite that he had never engaged the it. Somehow equates Tyson's talk with a religion. (paragraph 2, Message 145)
  21. "So maybe you're just saying all this to impress your friends on this site, but you're only showing me that you're a sloppy thinker." (Message 159)
  22. Equates pointing out his errors and ignorance with intolerance: "In my opinion, your intolerant attitude is the dangerous one." (Message 159)
  23. Equates the treatment of him during the thread to bigotry: "You'd think I was trying to walk into a whites only restaurant - you simply can't get past whatever stereotypes somebody has drilled into your head." (Message 164)
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 6:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 172 by Jon, posted 01-11-2007 5:31 AM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 169 of 188 (375992)
01-10-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
01-10-2007 6:02 PM


Re: A Detailed Post Mortem of TheMystic
23 insults and I was only the focus of one of them?
Clearly, I didn't try hard enough. I pledge to rectify this situation with all haste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 01-10-2007 6:02 PM Percy has not replied

  
John Cramer
Junior Member (Idle past 6287 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-11-2007


Message 170 of 188 (376106)
01-11-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
01-08-2007 9:56 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
Most of you pathetic people have nothing to do with whats real in life anymore. For this, I see no pity for you. You are all losers, and deserve the fate you will become of. For none are true, none can be relied upon. I only seek this as a venture to be able to reveal what is really true, what is really real, the destruction of all thats great and pure and happy. The destruction of Christianity.......and the promotion of Darwin's theory of Evolution. The survival of the fittest. Those who are weak, deserve no life, those who are the strongest should be allowed to overtake. Compassion is overrated, for the animals that we are, and will become. Only you have the power to destroy what is really true, that which is really in fact fake. Christianity is a facade of reality.
Let the games begin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 9:56 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by AdminPhat, posted 01-11-2007 1:01 AM John Cramer has not replied
 Message 173 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 7:59 AM John Cramer has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 188 (376107)
01-11-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by John Cramer
01-11-2007 12:47 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
This is no game. You need to read the Forum Guidelines before I ban you for being disruptive. (1 day suspension)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by John Cramer, posted 01-11-2007 12:47 AM John Cramer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 10:44 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 188 (376130)
01-11-2007 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
01-10-2007 6:02 PM


Re: A Detailed Post Mortem of TheMystic
Ah yes... I surely am going to miss that guy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 01-10-2007 6:02 PM Percy has not replied

  
duf31
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 188 (376142)
01-11-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by John Cramer
01-11-2007 12:47 AM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
The destruction of Christianity.......
Having just listened to Sam Harris's presentation in the Beyond Belief seminars (great stuff there BTW Percy, and thanks for the links), I have to concede that the fundies just might have a teeny little point here.
And if Harris can gratuitiously extrapolate from the undoubted danger posed by fundamnetalists to all non-materialistic belief systems, aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by John Cramer, posted 01-11-2007 12:47 AM John Cramer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 9:36 AM duf31 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 174 of 188 (376155)
01-11-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by duf31
01-11-2007 7:59 AM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
duf31 writes:
The destruction of Christianity.......
Having just listened to Sam Harris's presentation in the Beyond Belief seminars (great stuff there BTW Percy, and thanks for the links), I have to concede that the fundies just might have a teeny little point here.
Except that the destruction of Christianity is not a goal. What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith. Science, like plumbing and cooking, is not an issue of faith. Fundamentalists should not be lobbying school boards for science class time for their religious views on origins, and their attempts to dress up their views as science and treat science like a marketing campaign is becoming increasingly obnoxious, not to mention increasingly contrary to the traditional Christian principles we in western world hold so dear.
Aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists?
Either this is really deep or really misstated. What is the threat of Sam Harris types to science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 7:59 AM duf31 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 10:36 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 177 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 11:42 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 188 (376177)
01-11-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
01-11-2007 9:36 AM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
Aren't the fundamentalists equally justified in extrapolating the threat posed by the Sam Harrises of this world to all scientists?
Likely just misreading.
What I believe was being said was Sam Harris = Scientist
Sam Harris = Threat
All Scientists = Threat.
Percy writes:
What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith.
I think that really is it in a nutshell. But I also think that there is an even greater problem.
The folk we are addressing as a Culture of Ignorance react the same way to issues beyond science. They oppose the general concept of "Knowledge" and believe that access to knowledge must be limited and filtered.
I tried to address this sometime ago in a thread Message 1.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 9:36 AM Percy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 188 (376180)
01-11-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminPhat
01-11-2007 1:01 AM


John Cramer just another Liar for Jesus
AKA Casey Powell and JesusFighter

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminPhat, posted 01-11-2007 1:01 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
duf31
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 188 (376187)
01-11-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
01-11-2007 9:36 AM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
Either this is really deep or really misstated. What is the threat of Sam Harris types to science?
OK sorry about this. I meanst Christians not fundamentalists, and the threat is to Christianity, not science.
What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith.
As Krause said, its hard not to agree with much of what Harris says. But its also clear that he does not limit his objections to religion to those cases where it conflicts with science: or rather, he denies the possibility of anything that is not science, and therefore leaves no room for belief.
Some quotes:
"I'm very much a fan of construing the conflict between religion and science in zero-sum terms"
"I really think religion is leading us to the edge of something terrible"
(equating Catholic fath in transubstantiation to lunacy)
"If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or will be coming back to Earth to judge the living and the dead, these beliefs would be part of our scientific description of the Universe. These are claims about Physics, claims about Biology. The only reason that a person needs faith to accept these things is that the evidence for them is remarkably thin. So I really think that religion is the permission to one another to believe things strongly when reasons fail...."
(NB: I think he meant to say "when reason fails" here).
"There are some people who argue that there is no conflict betweem science and religion. Here is how the trick is done"
"The best in us does not require the worst in us. The love of other human beings does not need to be nurtured by delusion, and yet we are hearing continuously from every corner of our culture that delusion is all we have, that delusion deserves our respect, delusion is holy"
and later:
"How much more science does Francis Collins need to have on board before he doubts that Jesus is the Son of God and will return to save humanity?"
Not that I hold any brief for Collins, of course. But I do feel myself under threat from this statement, as I happen to be a scientist who also believes in Christ, although this belief isn't supported in any way by material evidence.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed his presentation as much as I enjoyed Weinberg's and Tyson's. But when even Weinberg feels compelled to say "I'm more sanguine than you about American religion" ... wow, there's a man with an agenda.
Edited by duf31, : Correct typo Carroll -> Collins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 9:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 1:29 PM duf31 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 178 of 188 (376230)
01-11-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by duf31
01-11-2007 11:42 AM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
According to a truthdig interview, Sam Harris is trying to persuade "the religious-minded people of the world into abandoning faith-based belief systems, which he argues could soon lead us to apocalypse." I think you have him sized up accurately.
But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.
Some scientists, like Lawrence Krauss who you mentioned, believe it is only a matter of education, and perhaps he is right. At least he has a proposed solution. Harris seems to be saying that it isn't just a matter of education, and this view must also be given credence, because, as he points out, a number of the men involved in 9/11 had college degrees.
Scientists would be content to leave religion alone if religion would leave them alone, but it doesn't, as the examples of creationism and 9/11 make clear. I fear that world fundamentalism may have wakened a sleeping giant, for secularism is marshaling its forces and becoming organized as never before. Scientists who can work in safety in their labs and travel safely to conferences and rely upon public education to do its job by providing a reliable stream of educated college freshmen could care less about religion (proportional to the level of their own personal religiosity, of course).
But scientists who find themselves confronted by an endless stream of freshman with no clue about the unifying principle behind all of biology, or who have to witness their country being drawn into pointless overseas adventures because of overreaction to religious terrorists, or who have to worry about being shot by fundamentalist extremists if they are doctors, can get sort of fed up after a while.
I'm sure there will be another significant confrontation in the courtroom between science and creationism sometime within the next 10 years, and I'm betting that this time it will be a doozy. The outcome that I think American evangelicals haven't anticipated is that the more successful the efforts of organizations like ICR and the Discovery Institute, the greater may be the eventual backlash. Potentially you could lose your voice in public education.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 11:42 AM duf31 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2007 2:36 PM Percy has replied
 Message 180 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 3:23 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 184 by Discreet Label, posted 01-12-2007 12:18 AM Percy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 188 (376243)
01-11-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
01-11-2007 1:29 PM


religious dogma vs religion in totality.
But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.
To narrow things down, later in Beyond Belief Sam clarifies his position as being anti-dogma not anti-religion. It's just that he concentrates on the dangers of dogmatic religion. If religion makes an empirical claim then it should be met with the same criticisms that any other dogma that makes claims. He points out that the empirical claims of nazism (or other dogmas) are handled differently than the empirical claims of religion.
Given the right culture, given the right authorities and the right time, the dogmatic claims of nazism becomes dangerous. Likewise, Harris says, with religious claims. At the moment the biggest threat says Harris is the empirical claims of Islam.
I'm fairly sure I've put Sam Harris' position correctly forward here. There was a long debate in one of the videos that Richard Dawkins gets involved in about dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 1:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by duf31, posted 01-11-2007 3:34 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
duf31
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 188 (376252)
01-11-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
01-11-2007 1:29 PM


Re: Not all anti-creationists are evolved equal
Hope you don't mind me quoting you out of sequence Percy:
When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.
You can say that again.
He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers
As any reasonable person would be. But he is equally opposed to those that do neither, and does not present any justification other than that they do not fit into his belief system and therefore should be locked up.
....which he argues could soon lead us to apocalypse
End-time prophets are everywhere! Perhaps atheism IS a religion after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 01-11-2007 1:29 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024