Continuation of the Dawkins-bashing thread
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:00
#1
M. Spector
Continuation of the Dawkins-bashing thread
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:00
#2
M. Spector
quote:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001964]O... posted by cueball:[/url]
[b]I didn't say that he did not believe in creationism.[/b]
Well, then I wonder what the point of your little anecdote was?
Remember, it was in the context of being asked whether you think most Muslims believe in creationism. Your response was:
quote:
I have no idea. I have never had a discussion with any Muslim people about creationism. I just spent the better part of last week drinking in Halifax with a medical resident who is a Muslim from Kashmir, and the topic never came up once. But as a "resident" Doctor in western medicine, [b]I highly doubt that he found his religious beliefs in conflict[/b] with the biological science he has been taught. (your emphasis added later)
So you highly doubt that his biological science knowledge conflicts with his Muslim religious belief. Since one of the cornerstones of western medicine is the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is obviously incompatible with a belief in creationism. Nevertheless, you "highly doubt" that his religious beliefs conflicted with his biological science.
And now you are trying to make us believe that you were NOT trying to say this person doesn't believe in creationism? Now you're just being dishonest.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:08
#3
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]So you highly doubt that his biological science knowledge conflicts with his Muslim religious belief. Since one of the cornerstones of western medicine is the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is obviously incompatible with a belief in creationism. Nevertheless, you "highly doubt" that his religious beliefs conflicted with his biological science.And now you are trying to make us believe that you were NOT trying to say this person doesn't believe in creationism? Now you're just being dishonest.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ][/b]
I thought Cue was trying to keep things on topic while you keep dancing.
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:22
#4
M. Spector
The "topic" evolved into a debate with cueball over whether "most devout muslims believe in creationism". Cueball's anecdote was clearly aimed at establishing that his friend the medical resident was a Muslim who didn't believe in creationism - at least cueball highly doubted it, because after all, he's a doctor, educated in western "biological science."
Then when I demonstrated that his assumption was bullshit, he tried to pretend that he wasn't saying his medical friend didn't believe in creation. Which makes his anecdote completely off-topic.
So who's the one straying from the topic here?
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:26
#5
M. Spector
quote:
A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
Earlier this month Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution.In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April.
"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."
Professor David Read, vice-president and biological sciences secretary of the Royal Society, said that they felt it was essential to address the issue now: "We have asked Steve Jones to deliver his lecture on creationism and evolution because there continues to be controversy over how evolution and other aspects of science are taught in some UK schools, colleges and universities. Our education system should provide access to the knowledge and understanding gained through the scientific method of experiment and observation, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, and should withstand attempts to withhold or misrepresent this knowledge in order to promote particular beliefs, religious or otherwise."
Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.
The leaflets are produced by the Al-Nasr Trust, a Slough-based charity set up in 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of Islam. The passage quoted from the Qur'an states: "And God has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. God creates what he wills for verily God has power over all things."
A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who did not want to be named, said that the Qur'an was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin suggests. "There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It's only a theory. Man is the wonder of God's creation."
He did not feel that a belief in evolution was necessary to study medicine although he added that, if writing about it was necessary for passing an exam, he would do so. "We want to become doctors and dentists, we want to pass our exams." He added that God had not created mankind literally in six days. "It's not six earth days," he said, it could refer to several thousands of years but it had been an act of creation and not evolution.
At another London campus some students have been failed because they have presented creationism as fact. They have been told by their examiners that, while they are entitled to explain both sides of the debate, they cannot present the Bible or Qur'an as scientifically factual if they want to pass exams.
David Rosevear of the Portsmouth-based Creation Science Movement, which supports the idea of creationism, said that there was an increasing interest in the subject among students. "I've got no problem with an all-powerful God producing everything in six days," he said. He said it was an early example of the six-day week. Students taking exams on the subject should not be dogmatic one way or the other. "I tell them - answer the question, it's no good saying it [creationism] is a fact any more than saying evolution is a fact."
A former lecturer in organic chemistry at Portsmouth polytechnic (now university) and ICI research scientist, Dr Rosevear said he had been invited to expound his theories at many colleges and had addressed the Cafe Scientifique, a student science society, at St Andrews university, Fife. "The students clearly came expecting to have a laugh but they found there was much more to it. Our attitude is - teach evolution but mention creationism and let students decide for themselves."
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation]The Guardian[/url], Feb. 21, 2006
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:28
#6
Cueball
Let me know when you come up with some statistical evidence that "most devout Muslims" believe in creationism. In the meantime you can continue with your unscientific speculations and conjectures, targeting the Muslim minorities of the European societies.
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:31
#7
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]The "topic" evolved into a debate with cueball over whether "most devout muslims believe in creationism". Cueball's anecdote was clearly aimed at establishing that his friend the medical resident was a Muslim who didn't believe in creationism - at least cueball highly doubted it, because after all, he's a doctor, educated in western "biological science."Then when I demonstrated that his assumption was bullshit, he tried to pretend that he wasn't saying his medical friend didn't believe in creation. Which makes his anecdote completely off-topic.
So who's the one straying from the topic here?[/b]
Not at all. We did not discuss creation at all.
It indicates that I have made no detailed survey of Muslim opinion on this issue, so as to be able to answer Reminds question. Nor has Dawkins. Dawkins has an anecdote, that is all.
It is interesting though, that in the many hundreds of conversations I have had with Muslim people, this topic has never come up, at all [i]ever[/i]. That would indicate to me that they don't find this issue particularly important, or interesting, however much Professor Dawkins and his ilk like to make out that this point of contention is politically and ethically important to "most devout Muslim" people.
It would seem that Muslims, like most sensible people don't spend a whole hell of a lot of time trying to convince people about the merits of intelligent design. My friend the resident doctor, one whose studies would indicate an interest in these types of issues would be the most likely candidate to enter into such a discussion, but he alas also demurred from conforming to western stereotypes, and preconceptions.
That said, I have discussed some scientific issues with Muslims before, and in general they seemed to preference the views of the scientific establishment, in regards to the "Big Bang" for example, and like most religious people, seemed perfectly willing to have a fluid interpretation of the Qu'ran, and avoid "literal" interpretations. You on the other hand are the one who seems to insist that any belief in Islam necessarily requires complete and total acceptance of an explicit, dogmatic literalist interpretation of a religiou view based in the Qu'ran.
It is absurd of course that a non-Muslim such as yourself would assert that such an interpration be given the highest profile, when Muslim people have shown time and time again that they can take a flexible approach to their beliefs. Muslim people, even extremely fundamentalist ones, can not agree on the specific interpretations of the Qu'ran. You and Dawkins can do better however, and have the exact intended meaning of every stanza of the Qu'ran nailed down pat, I see.
It is you who are obsessionally charging these windmills... oh sorry... I mean "giants".
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:32
#8
quote:
A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong.
You may recall that in the last thread I asked you if the self-styled "Darwinists" were winning. Apparently not. When you allow the other side to frame the debate, you've already handed them a weapon they can use against you.
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:38
#9
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]It is you who are obsessionally charging these windmills... oh sorry... I mean "giants".
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
"are"? Sneaky.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:38
#10
remind
quote:
There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality.[b] They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument.[/b] And [b]irrationality [/b]is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:46
#11
M. Spector
[url=http://www.harunyahya.com/incompatible01.php]Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an[/url]
[url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html]Cre... Science and Faith in Schools[/url] (2004)
----------
quote:
After it was reported that a publicly-funded Christian school in Gateshead had been teaching creationism, Blair was asked in parliament whether he was "happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools". Blair (always the consummate politician) avoided a direct answer, but defended the school in question and said "in the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children." Shall we also, in the name of "diversity", subsidise schools teaching that the moon is made of green cheese?Of course, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish Britons can rightly complain that the state has long funded Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. But the proper remedy is not to extend state patronage from Christianity to other superstitions; rather, it is to implement a complete separation of church from state, and more generally to insist that taxpayer-funded institutions have no business propagating dogmas unsupported by evidence.
Moreover, segregating children of Muslim parents from children of Christian parents for separate indoctrination is woefully misguided. Instead, why not bring together students of both backgrounds in a high-school history class to examine the historical evidence bearing on the composition of the New Testament and the Qur'an?
The extreme example of the government's cavalier attitude towards truth and evidence was, of course, the selling of the war in Iraq. Rather than dispassionately using intelligence information to help evaluate policy options, Bush and Blair's operatives pressured their intelligence agencies to find "evidence" - exaggerated, tendentiously interpreted, or simply fraudulent - supporting a predetermined policy. The result is the mess we're now in. Globally, the Iraq war has helped recruit a new generation of militants for al-Qaida; in the Middle East, it has strengthened Iran. All of this could easily have been predicted before the war. And of course it was: not only by leftists, but also by those few conservatives who had not succumbed to the hubris of overestimating their own power.
The bottom line is that all of us - conservative and liberal, believer and atheist - live in the same real world, whether we like it or not. Public policy must be based on the best available evidence about that world. In a free society each person has the right to believe whatever nonsense he wishes, but the rest of us should pay attention only to those opinions that are based on evidence.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/28/takingevidenceseriou... Guardian[/url], Feb. 28, 2008
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:48
#12
It would seem, logically, that those who are having a problem with argument are those who try to set evolutionary theory above any discussion, and who alert the mainstream press when their views are challenged.
quote:
...They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. (Professor Jones)
In fact evolutionary theory has never stopped evolving, way past Darwin's initial hypotheses.
So, there may be something afoot in the charge of creationism - a Western fabrication - against Muslims in a society where Xtian privileges remain firmly ensconced, including in education.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:54
#13
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b][url=http://www.harunyahya.com/incompatible01.php]Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an[/url] [/b]
Any evidence on hand that this topic is of interest to "most devout Muslims"?
Tue, 2008-08-12 17:59
#14
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Let me know when you come up with some statistical evidence that "most devout Muslims" believe in creationism.[/b]
You have seized on this non-issue, of course, because you want to divert attention from the real issue: whether publicly-funded schools should soft-pedal Darwinism in order to avoid offending religious sensibilities.
Where's [b]your[/b] statistical evidence? Oh, that's right - you don't have any. Who needs evidence to back up one's opinions?
What's a "devout" Muslim, anyway? One who adheres to the teachings of the Qur'an? The Qur'an promotes creationism. Does somebody need to do a survey of Muslim opinion to establish what devout Muslims believe?
I maintain that anyone who doesn't believe in the six-day creation myth cannot be a devout Muslim or a devout Christian or a devout Jew.
So we can argue about what devout means, but statistical surveys aren't going to resolve this non-issue of yours.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:02
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Any evidence on hand that this topic is of interest to "most devout Muslims"?[/b]
Well, a superficial google yields [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/aug/15/highereducation.students...
quote:
Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism.
Those are students. Add older people and then restrict the group to the devout and 51+ % starts to seem pretty plausible.
But I thought the issue was whether Dawkins was a racist tool of imperialism.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:03
#16
Cueball
quote:
Of course, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish Britons can rightly complain that the state has long funded Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. But the proper remedy is not to extend state patronage from Christianity to other superstitions; rather, it is to implement a complete separation of church from state, and more generally to insist that taxpayer-funded institutions have no business propagating dogmas unsupported by evidence.
How interesting that the call for the removal of creationist ideas from schooling suddenly gets traction in the public sphere when non-white non-Christians start asserting rights equal to white Christians under Multicultural policies, which Dawkins now finds "fanatical."
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:04
#17
RevolutionPlease
Goiing back to the original thread, Stargazer called it when she said snuckles? does this all the time.
Oldgoat was hopiing the thread drift would continue but it didn't.
What a waste of bandwidth.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:07
#18
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]Goiing back to the original thread, Stargazer called it when she said snuckles? does this all the time.Oldgoat was hopiing the thread drift would continue but it didn't.
What a waste of bandwidth.[/b]
Well, it is that. But it's important for "the left" to at least attempt to hold to some kind of intellectual honesty and rigour. Else, all is lost.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:18
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]How interesting that the call for the removal of creationist ideas from schooling suddenly gets traction in the public sphere when non-white non-Christians start asserting rights equal to white Christians under Multicultural policies, which Dawkins now finds "fanatical."[/b]
When white people want to teach creationism in school, Dawkins finds that "fanatical" as well.
But this is futile....
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:23
#20
Cueball
Is it?
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Those are students. Add older people and then restrict the group to the devout and 51+ % starts to seem pretty plausible.
But I thought the issue was whether Dawkins was a racist tool of imperialism.[/b]
You should be careful with that survey. To be clear more than 50% of all Christians believe in "creationism" or "Intelligent Design", while 33% of all Muslims prefer straight up creationism. The survey makes a distinction between the two ID and straight creationism.
quote:
Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism. Nearly a third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion favoured intelligent design. Women were more likely to choose spiritual explanations: less than half chose evolution, with 14% preferring creationism and 22% intelligent design.
In other words:
Muslims -- Intelligent Design 0% (apparently)
Muslims -- Creationism 33%
Christians -- Intelligent Design 25%
Christians -- Creationism 33%
Unless there is a missing number here, more that 58% of all Christians support god based theories of evolution, while only 33% of Muslims support similar theories, but support Creationism, not ID, when they do prefer a non-scientific explanation.
Aside from your conjecture hypothesizing new unresearched numbers, the evidence is clear. In fact "most devout Muslims" students do not adhere to either ID or creationism, but prefer the scientific explanation of evolution by a wopping 2 to 1 margin. On the other hand, most Christians oppose evolutionary theories. Dawkins singles out Muslims, when in fact it is the Christian majority that favours non-scientific theories of creation of the species, while only a minority of Muslims support non-scientific theories.
Dawkins is full of shit, and is a bad scientist who lets his prejudice guide his beliefs as the actual data shows.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:26
#21
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Well, it is that. But it's important for "the left" to at least attempt to hold to some kind of intellectual honesty and rigour. Else, all is lost.[/b]
Fine point Rosa and I'll take it as genuine from you.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:32
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:How interesting that the call for the removal of creationist ideas from schooling suddenly gets traction in the public sphere when non-white non-Christians start asserting rights equal to white Christians under Multicultural policies, which Dawkins now finds "fanatical."
So lets see:
1) No one has been a more vocal opponent of the Church of England schools and the Roman Catholic schools in the UK than Richard Dawkins for at least 40 years.
2) No one has been a more vocal opponent of the teaching of creationism in public funded schools in the UK, which basically started under Tony Blair at Christian schools, than Richard Dawkins. (although contrary to your completely uninformed opinion the opposition to such schools was as strong from the beginning when it was only Christian creationism as it is now with the discussion of Islamic creationism. The call for the removal of creationist ideas has been going on since the first schools started teaching that garbage.)
Yes, you are right Richard Dawkins just hates brown people.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:36
#23
Cueball
Hates brown people? I don't know about that, but his science sucks, and this would not be the first time that some charltan had the bright idea of latching his pseudo-scientific star to prejudiced popular beliefs.
Given that only 33 pecent of Muslims students support non-scientific theories of evolution, while more that 58 percent of Christian students do, one would think that Dawkins would be applauding the introduction of such open-minded people to the student body of British schools.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:37
#24
I noticed the "intelligent design" oddity, too. The article is not clearly written and I don't know what to make of this.
But "those who say they are Christians" in Britain will be a minority of the population - unusually devout and probably evangelicals or fundamentalists. It would be ludicrous to think that the views of this group reflect those of the majority of the population in Britain.
So the survey was of "muslim students" (not "devout muslims") and "devout Christians" (rather than the white majority) and doesn't have the implications you attribute to it.
However, I have no doubt that the devout of both faiths are likely to believe in creationism. And it's entirely possible that Christians for historical/cultural reasons have become sensitized (and obsessed) with this issue in a way muslims have not.
Nonetheless, I don't think there is any reason to believe - and I think there is every reason to doubt - that Dawkins bears some particular animus towards muslims.
But now I'm going to bed [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:41
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:Dawkins singles out Muslims, when in fact it is the Christian majority that favours non-scientific theories of creation of the species, while only a minority of Muslims support non-scientific theories.
Dawkins doesn't single out Muslims. As has been pointed out to you several dozen times by many people, Dawkins actually has always concentrated his criticism against Christianity and Judaism and not Islam. Any normal human being would be able to understand this, but apparently you have shit for brains.
Whether a majority or a minority of people of a particular faith believe in creationism or ID doesn't matter, neither are science and any religious groups trying to push it into school, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, should be criticized and that is exactly what Dawkins has done. He shouldn't appologize for trying to ensure that all children get a decent education, no matter how ignorant their parents are.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:46
#26
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]
However, I have no doubt that the devout of both faiths are likely to believe in creationism. And it's entirely possible that Christians for historical/cultural reasons have become sensitized (and obsessed) with this issue in a way muslims have not.[/b]
Absoltuely true. And anyone who has followed the debate in Islam knows that it has had little traction in Muslim intellectual circles until very recently, and much of this is apparently imported from the west. This debate has basically been a non-issue for Muslims.
However, here is Dawkins and his adherents pounding out page after page of support for dawkins false statements and wildly off the mark conjectures, when we can clearly see that only a minority of Muslims support non-scientific theories of evolution, unlike the Christian majority of the UK.
One really has to wonder why Dawkins, someone who poses himself as serious scholar and social critic, worthy of the title of "Chair of scientific Understanding" at Oxford, feels able to spout off about the views of Muslim people, such as he has, without apparently looking into the research.
Where did he get the idea that "most devout Muslims are creationists"?
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:46
#27
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Dawkins doesn't single out Muslims. As has been pointed out to you several dozen times by many people, Dawkins actually has always concentrated his criticism against Christianity and Judaism and not Islam. Any normal human being would be able to understand this, but apparently you have shit for brains.
Whether a majority or a minority of people of a particular faith believe in creationism or ID doesn't matter, neither are science and any religious groups trying to push it into school, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, should be criticized and that is exactly what Dawkins has done. He shouldn't appologize for trying to ensure that all children get a decent education, no matter how ignorant their parents are.[/b]
Insult Cueball all you want. Explain to me why this Islam issue is being so rigorously pursued?
Why is this relevant to progressive politics?
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:49
#28
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Dawkins doesn't single out Muslims. As has been pointed out to you several dozen times by many people, Dawkins actually has always concentrated his criticism against Christianity and Judaism and not Islam. Any normal human being would be able to understand this, but apparently you have shit for brains.
Whether a majority or a minority of people of a particular faith believe in creationism or ID doesn't matter, neither are science and any religious groups trying to push it into school, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, should be criticized and that is exactly what Dawkins has done. He shouldn't appologize for trying to ensure that all children get a decent education, no matter how ignorant their parents are.[/b]
He most certainly did here, and he did so, whith what appears not to be a patently false and ignorant statement about the beliefs of Muslim people, when our available survey shows quite conclusively that Dawkins was wrong in his assertion that "most devout muslims are creationist." They are not, by a 2 to 1 margin.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:50
#29
RevolutionPlease
I mean, really, if you want to worry about the religious ones in Canada, hint, there's quiite a few more Christian folk.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:50
#30
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Explain to me why this Islam issue is being so rigorously pursued?
Dawkins pursues Islam less rigorously than he pursues the other monotheistic religions. That is easily evident to anyone who has read his work.
quote:
Why is this relevant to progressive politics?
Why is keeping religion and creationism out of schools progressive politics? Why is evidence over religious dogma progressive politics? Why should progressives care if evidence is being overrun by conservative religious fundamentalists? No reason.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:52
#31
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Why is keeping religion and creationism out of schools progressive politics? Why is evidence over religious dogma progressive politics? Why should progressives care if evidence is being overrun by conservative religious fundamentalists? No reason.[/b]
You must have missed my post about staying on topic and trashing edit:the original article for the drivel it iis.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:53
#32
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
I mean, really, if you want to worry about the religious ones in Canada, hint, there's quiite a few more Christian folk.
Check the archives and you will see that everyone who has spoke up on this thread has a long history of criticizing Christianity on babble - far more than any other religion.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:55
#33
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Why is keeping religion and creationism out of schools progressive politics? Why is evidence over religious dogma progressive politics? Why should progressives care if evidence is being overrun by conservative religious fundamentalists? No reason.[/b]
Dawkins is wrong on the facts. The source of anti-evolutionary ideas is not the Muslim student body, but the Christian one, despite the hype. Yes this all began with Dawkins going on about Islam in schools.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:55
#34
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Check the archives and you will see that everyone who has spoke up on this thread has a long history of criticizing Christianity on babble - far more than any other religion.[/b]
I just feel Islam-bashing isn't OK with the current right-wing blogosphere.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:55
#35
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:You must have missed my post about staying on topic and trashing edit:the original article for the drivel it iis.
Are you the moderator? No. And you only care about whether this thread is on topic when it suits your purpose.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:56
#36
Cueball
More than drivel. Apparently Dawkins statement about Muslims was outright disinformation.
Tue, 2008-08-12 18:58
#37
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:I just feel Islam-bashing isn't OK with the current right-wing blogosphere.
You have every right to feel whatever you want. You have no right to infringe on my right to free speech. This is not Islam-bashing. This is legitimate criticism of bringing religion into science classrooms and not one of the so-called "Islam-bashers" has cared what the religion in question was - we understand it is wrong regardless of the religion. It is your side which is treating groups differently based on their religious beliefs. Sorry that is wrong any way you look at it.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:00
#38
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]
Insult Cueball all you want. Explain to me why this Islam issue is being so rigorously pursued?[/b]
Because some people want to attack as "Islamophobic" and "racist" anyone who dares to raise a voice against the anti-scientific drivel of Islam (and Judaism and Christianity and all other religions which teach faith rather than science and experience).
quote:
[b]Why is this relevant to progressive politics?[/b]
It is vital. Anyone who lifts a hand against science in the name of some "God" or other, helps perpetuate keeping the people divided and ignorant. Progressive politics is impossible in such a dark medieval atmosphere.
You might as well ask why it's so "relevant to progressive politics" that there be an unquestioned right and adequate access to abortion for women.
Your question betrays a very odd notion of progressive politics. What exactly do you think it's about, anyway?
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:03
#39
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:It is vital. Anyone who lifts a hand against science in the name of some "God" or other, helps perpetuate keeping the people divided and ignorant. Progressive politics is impossible in such a dark medieval atmosphere.
Thank you.
It is beyond time for me to exit.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:06
#40
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It is vital. Anyone who lifts a hand against science in the name of some "God" or other, helps perpetuate keeping the people divided and ignorant. Progressive politics is impossible in such a dark medieval atmosphere.
You might as well ask why it's so "relevant to progressive politics" that there be an unquestioned right and adequate access to abortion for women.
Your question betrays a very odd notion of progressive politics. What exactly do you think it's about, anyway?[/b]
Progressive politics? You ask?
I wouldn't think it leads to multiple threads on a tabloid type article postd by "snuckles" hehe.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Perhaps, I should say more. This place isn't very good for people of oppression to feel welcome. Thiink about that....
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:08
#41
RevolutionPlease
Unionist, I wanted to add I'm with you on the atheist thing but I'll question Islam-bashing.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:09
#42
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It is vital. Anyone who lifts a hand against science in the name of some "God" or other, helps perpetuate keeping the people divided and ignorant. Progressive politics is impossible in such a dark medieval atmosphere.[/b]
The only person here who has lifted a hand against science here is Dawkins, and those of you who will go to any length to defend his spurious, unfounded and apparently prejudiced musings about things he has no scientific evidence to support.
Swakins says that "Most devout muslims are creationists". This is not the case. The facts are in. The case is closed.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:11
#43
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]This place isn't very good for people of oppression to feel welcome. Thiink about that....[/b]
No thanks, I've got more important issues to think about.
This place isn't for group therapy. If someone feels offended by hearing their religious dogmas criticized or ridiculed, they should probably spend a lot of time indoors.
People are free to believe and practise their faiths, but that's where it [b]ends[/b]. Welcome to the post-medieval era.
ETA:
quote:
[b]Unionist, I wanted to add I'm with you on the atheist thing but I'll question Islam-bashing. [/b]
I appreciate your support, but hear me clearly: To hell with Islam and its mongrel cousins. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the accomplices of imperialism, feudalism, slavery, and war. They help those who thrive by oppressed people hating each other. They turn the minds of searching, inquiring, rebelling people into shit.
To suggest that "Islam" is inspiring people to fight back against imperialism is the most profound insult I can imagine to those people. We don't need Allah or God or any other invisible dictator to tell us that oppression is wrong and freedom is precious. Down with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The sooner they disappear from humanity's unconquerable spirit, the better.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:14
#44
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]And anyone who has followed the debate in Islam knows that it [i.e. creationism] has had little traction in Muslim intellectual circles until very recently, and much of this is apparently imported from the west. This debate has basically been a non-issue for Muslims.[/b]
Now suddenly the person who had "no idea" whether the majority of devout Muslims believed in creationism, since he has "never had a discussion with any Muslim people about creationism" turns out to be something of an expert on the subject, at least in his own mind. You see, he's been "following the debate" in Islam over creationism.
Is there nothing this person will not dissemble about?
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:16
#45
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]No thanks, I've got more important issues to think about.
This place isn't for group therapy. If someone feels offended by hearing their religious dogmas criticized or ridiculed, they should probably spend a lot of time indoors.
People are free to believe and practise their faiths, but that's where it [b]ends[/b]. Welcome to the post-medieval era.[/b]
The post medieval era, where the supposed "Chair of scientific understanding" of England most prestigious university can bandy about false facts, and be assured that a bunch of unthinking sychophants will jump to his defence world wide, and waste page after page of bandwidth defending outright untruths in the name of "critical thinking".
It is truly a joke. The most likely reason that people from other communities might not feel like posting here, is to avoid the snot nosed stupidities, such as those to be found on this and the previous threads about Dawkins silly anecdote.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:20
#46
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Why should progressives care if evidence is being overrun by conservative religious fundamentalists?[/b]
Some just prefer that rational thought in school be tossed out the window if it challenges the hocus-pocus ideas of an Oppressed Group™.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:20
#47
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
The most likely reason that people from other communities might not feel like posting here,...[/b]
I reject your notion that people of Muslim (or Jewish or Catholic) faith form any kind of "community", let alone what you superciliously qualify as "[b]other[/b] communities".
You seem to be unable to hit "Add Reply" without demonstrating yet another of the nefarious consequences of religion. Not just any religion - religion which now defines itself as "oppressed" and "anti-imperialist" to boot.
What a farce. "Other communities", indeed.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:22
#48
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I appreciate your support, but hear me clearly: To hell with Islam and its mongrel cousins. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the accomplices of imperialism, feudalism, slavery, and war. They help those who thrive by oppressed people hating each other. They turn the minds of searching, inquiring, rebelling people into shit.
To suggest that "Islam" is inspiring people to fight back against imperialism is the most profound insult I can imagine to those people. We don't need Allah or God or any other invisible dictator to tell us that oppression is wrong and freedom is precious. Down with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The sooner they disappear from humanity's unconquerable spirit, the better.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]
I'm sorry, your concern about reliigion iis duly noted. I'm wiith you.
However, considering the large majoriity of our folks are religious, what do we do?
Rise up against the Islams?
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:23
#49
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Now suddenly the person who had "no idea" whether the majority of devout Muslims believed in creationism, since he has "never had a discussion with any Muslim people about creationism" turns out to be something of an expert on the subject, at least in his own mind. You see, he's been "following the debate" in Islam over creationism.Is there nothing this person will not dissemble about?[/b]
Again, that devide between the two sides of your brain. The one that reads and the one that spouts off.
I have been saying on and on, over and over again that Muslims generally do not find this issue interesting. This is my personal experience. I have never had a discussion about it with a Musim person. I have read articles on the development of this debate in Islam, and the articles confirm my personal experience -- creationism v science is just not a big deal to most Muslim people.
Saying that the issue is a "non-issue" is not to say that there are not Muslim creationists. It is to say that it is generally low on the agenda of priorities as far as theological discussion goes.
Do you understand the difference?
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:24
#50
RevolutionPlease
Ii see now you start to adsd other religions to your hitlist.
Tue, 2008-08-12 19:28
#51
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]what do we do?Rise up against the Islams?[/b]
No one is arguing that Muslims (or any other religious adherents) can't believe in whatever they want. The point is, hocus-pocus does not belong in science classes.