The dumbing down of America continues...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wow Shawnski...that was good.

There are posters on here, and then there are posters.

What's that slurping sound? Oh, it's just Azure doing some work on Shawnski!

It was a great post if you like flippant drivebys. I did like the step toward consciousness and how it plays into the mix. That is an excellent point that could be discussed, but does depart from the originla topic (which Shawnski berated the other posters for at the start of his post). The scenario of seeing the life leave his father was touching, and should bring something to the discussion, but the rest of the short cutting remarks not dealing with the original context of the thread at that time is going to make that be lost, I'm sure (ironic since Shawnski has started to jump on some of us for doing similar things). I wish he was going to stick around to elaborate on this particular subject, I think it would indeed be enlightening.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by driveway

What you have done here is called an "appeal to authority" and it is a logical fallacy. It is exactly the same thing as saying "it says so in the bible, so it must be true." Just because the OED says something, does not make it so.

If OED says something about the correct definition of English words and their appropriate use, it sure as hell does. According to your "logic", the most exhaustive repository of English words and their definitions cannot be consulted for the purpose of this discussion, yet you have no problem claiming a broad definition of the term "creationist" without any third-party support whatsoever. Thanks, but I will stick to my "logical fallicies".

Originally Posted by driveway

Also, the OED offers two definitions of creationism, the first of which (The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born) has nothing to do with being opposed to evolution.

It has nothing at all to do with the present discussion, which is why this meaning of the word "creationism" is distinguished from the latter gloss. The existence of the soul has not yet entered the debate here, so I fail to see how your response is relevant.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What's that slurping sound? Oh, it's just Azure doing some work on Shawnski!

Should I go back and quote your posts that do the exact same thing?

He made some great points. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean you have to call it a drive by post.

Of course, you have a habit of doing that with everything you disagree with, so your response isn't really surprising.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ Oh, I agree with most of what Shawnksi said, but his delivery was weak. You applaud him for his "great post", but it was extremely glib and off point. For example:

"Flashpoint: "For example - in Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars."
Many can't in Calgary either. Drive Deerfoot lately?"

Not a very accurate post based on the subject matter. Funny, yes, but glib and innacurate to the topic, which he chastizes the others for in his post, which ironically he was off the mark there as well.

"Last time I checked, this was a tiny thread about a televangelist."

Never was a mention of a televangelist in the topic. It was about the creation of a museum focused on creationism and the support of that belief. That didn't stop you from slobbering all over his inaccurate post. So yeah, there are posters on here, and then there are "posters".

[MarchHare]

Burninator: "how come no one has committed anything terrible in the name of atheism?"
Hitler perhaps? To say "no one" is a generalization that will fail as most generalizations do.

Hitler's crimes weren't committed in the name of atheism. If anything, he had a very distorted Christian view.

For a really fun game, guess who made the following quotations, Hitler or Jerry Falwell:

From here: http://nom-de-grr.livejournal.com/51142.html

1. My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

2. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for.

3. Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.

4. I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!

5. Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

6. We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

7. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. . .we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess.

8. This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our people. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our people and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our people.

9. Remain strong in your faith, as you were in former years. In this faith, in its close-knit unity our people to-day goes straight forward on its way and no power on earth will avail to stop it.

10. We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today .

Answer: bolded quotes are Falwell, unbolded are Hitler.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Why is it that so many religious people do get into positions of power? Lack of criminal record, respected by peers for being a "good" person, community service, dedication to their moral beliefs?

Why is it that there are therefore a shortfall in that same position of power from atheists/agnostics? Where is the disconnect?

Not sure what you are getting at there. I would suggest that there are many non-religious politicians. They have to keep thier position secret, because it is political suicide to admit you are a humanist/atheist/agnostic. I'm sure a great many politicians are not truly religious at all, but pay lip service to it to get elected. It is absurd to think that only religious people can be moral.

As discussed earlier in ths thread, there is a demonstrated inverse relationship between education/IQ and religious belief. Where is your disconnect?

100 years ago perhaps 1% of Canadians would have described themselves as non-religious. Today, between 10-20%. I think you can see where this trend is headed. Europe is already over 50% in some countries.

16% world wide.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Even in the US, those of "no religion" have grown from 8.4% in 1990 to 15% in 2001, with a numerical growth of 105.7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...us_affiliation

What place for God in Europe?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0222/p01s04-woeu.html

Today, just 21 percent of Europeans say religion is "very important" to them, according to the most recent European Values Study, which tracks attitudes in 32 European countries. A survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that nearly three times as many Americans, 59 percent, called their faith "very important."


Although a Gallup poll found last year that 44 percent of Americans say they attend a place of worship once a week, the average figure in Europe is only 15 percent, although the picture varies widely across the Continent.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/can_rel2.htm

In Canada those with no religious affiliation has gone from 12.6% in 1991 to 16.5% in 2001.

[Azure]

There is an acting Senator...Democrat....in the US who has said he is an atheist.

Political suicide? Hardly.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is an acting Senator...Democrat....in the US who has said he is an atheist.

Political suicide? Hardly.

Nice try. There is ONE openly nontheistic member of congress in the US (just came out). Do you think he will get re-elected now?

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/petestark.php

The American Humanist Association today applauded Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) for his historic decision to come out as the first openly nontheistic member of Congress. "Pete Stark joins the company of millions of other nontheistic Americans, including humanists, many of whom have long kept their views secret for fear of discrimination in their communities," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "With Stark's courageous public announcement of his nontheism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long."

"Nontheistic Americans, including humanists, are the group most likely to be discriminated against for their convictions," said Fred Edwords, director of communications for the American Humanist Association. "Recent polls show that fewer than 50 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist presidential candidate, even if that candidate is well qualified. The fact that Pete Stark's public avowal of nontheism is controversial reinforces this point. Americans still feel it's acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups. "

Few politicians have openly acknowledged holding nontheistic worldviews, and no president or member of Congress has been among them.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/pres...kfactsheet.php

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is an acting Senator...Democrat....in the US who has said he is an atheist.

Political suicide? Hardly.

The next election will decide that, not the last one. The guy just "came out". Pretty ballsy move, even for a California representative.

[Azure]

Well your article has nothing to do with that.

He is Democrat, so he WILL appeal to the democrat base. Are you trying to tell me even the Democrats wouldn't vote in someone who has no religious ties?

Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason why he could not be re-elected. Its not discrimination, just people voting in what they believe in.

Americans were worried about JFK being Catholic too. So it works both ways.

If he runs on a good platform, he could be re-elected.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The next election will decide that, not the last one. The guy just "came out". Pretty ballsy move, even for a California representative.

Was there an uproar? Specifically from the people he represents?

Good on him...religious views mean nothing to me. And nobody should let that factor into who they elect. Even though they all will, on both sides of the issue.

[photon]

Photon: "Science makes no claims that it comprehends the universe; quite the opposite, science has demonstrated time and again it will change everything when presented with new evidence."
So hypothetically, they could end up coming complete circle and agreeing with one or more religions on one or more aspects?

Sure, why not? Science, unlike religious dogma, does not presuppose the truth. And it doesn't pick which truths to believe. It only claims that a specific theory or law or whatever best describes the observable universe as we know it.

Stormchaser: "Simply put. If you are to belive any of the Bibles miracles, you will have to accept that it took a miracle to make it happen."
Wouldn't the same be said about the odds that some particles came together and formed life?

There's a difference between miracles and probability.. the probability that particles come together and form life has to take into account the huge number of planets, stars, galaxies (and even maybe universes) all running the "experiment" in parallel. But I don't think that's what SC was saying, I just think he meant if you accept the level of miracle of a global flood being caused, it's easy to accept the miracle of all the worlds' species fitting on the ark.

Why is it that so many religious people do get into positions of power? Lack of criminal record, respected by peers for being a "good" person, community service, dedication to their moral beliefs?

Why is it that there are therefore a shortfall in that same position of power from atheists/agnostics? Where is the disconnect?

Well I wouldn't agree with the premise that there are fewer atheists in positions of power than in the general population, that's the kind of thing that would need some stats to show. And even if there were, given the high number of religious people overall, and given positions of power in a democracy are glorified popularity contests, it's wouldn't be surprising at all. Religious people distrust atheists (what was that one poll, that people in the US are more likely to want a female, Arab, or homosexual president than an atheist president?).

I also wouldn't agree that a religious person has the things you list in excess of a nonreligious person. The idea that a religious community is "better" is false. Studies show theistic countries are worse off in many metrics used to measure quality of life, including homicide, suicide, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy, etc...

Why is it that it appears "liberal" people seem to have the most problems with allowing teachings of religions and beliefs, yet they believe that people should have an open mindedness to gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, etc which are considered thinking out of the box situations?

Examples of "liberal" people allowing the teachings of religions and beliefs? Or examples beyond the normal expected separation of church and state?

Consciousness.

This one floors me the most.

At what level are we truly conscious, and why? Are amoebas? Viruses? Trees and other plants? How do they attain this level of comprehension?

And what happens if the body itself dies? Does that conscious live on? How do we know it doesn't? What do we know about it?

Awesome topic!

Part of the requirements of consciousness would probably be the ability to sense your environment in some way (can you be self-aware if you have no way to distinguish yourself from something that's not yourself?), and the ability to process that information. So something like a virus has no senses and doesn't react to it's environment.. if it's even alive is in question, it's more like a large self-replicating collection of molecules than a life form.

if one considers the consciousness your soul. That one, I think I have a hard time understanding, and I can't find any science that helps explain any of it. Did cognizance start in that swampy pond millions of years ago? Or did it kick in somewhere along the line? Why? How? And to what level? What about plants? How do they fit in?

That's a great question, one that hasn't been answered yet. And what do you (we) even mean by consciousness? Is it self-awareness? The body can live without the higher level brain functions, so the self-aware part of our brain can be gone while the body remains alive, no need to invoke a non-physical soul to understand that.

And is consciousness even what we think it is? Is our ability to think decide and act part of it? Maybe not, when you decide to move your arm up, by the time you've formed the thought "move arm up" in your conscious mind, the impulses have already left your brain and are en route to your arm! Or another example is when you hear someone talk, it makes sense. But when they start speaking, the syllables are at first meaningless until more are added and the full words and meaning come out. But that's not we experience in our mind, it's like our conscious understanding of what we hear happens after we hear it, not before it, like the understanding is actually not conscious.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm

Lots of research is finding that much of "consciousness" is an illusion, we think we're fully aware of our surroundings, but we're not. We think we're making conscious decisions, but we don't (advertising is a huge example of that).

Consciousness might just be something that we evolved over time that gives an advantage. Some think that consciousness is even just a byproduct of other evolutionary steps, things like language, narration, and even the ability to throw accurately without having to do the calculus.

Interesting stuff though, do a search for "the hard problem". I love reading research about the mind the brain.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Red squares? Gold stars! Well done Daradon.

Sorry for the late post. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm on here a lot, then gone for a while. But did I get DFF and Lanny to agree on something?

Thanks for your kudos guys. I'm really sad and fearful about how fundamentalism and political movements on both sides have truly confused the definition of 'faith'.

I'm a faithful person and a spiritual person.

I don't debate that the world is round, the sky is blue, or that the earth is more than 6500 years old.

^^^ Way to round out my argument Photon. I Would have done the same, but one fish at a time, as we have seen on this board...

[Azure]

I've often wondered if our access to information through the internet has stopped this 'dumbing down.' Since I didn't take ANY classes that had to do with evolution, everything I learned about it, and the science behind it, came from the internet.

Perhaps there is a connection between this ignorant viewpoint and the lack of information they have access too?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I've often wondered if our access to information through the internet has stopped this 'dumbing down.' Since I didn't take ANY classes that had to do with evolution, everything I learned about it, and the science behind it, came from the internet.

Perhaps there is a connection between this ignorant viewpoint and the lack of information they have access too?

I actually think that the internet has contributed to the dumbing down. Most people do not use the web for educational purposes, they use it for recreational purposes. There are tremendous stores of information that could educate, but the vast majority of traffic is for entertainment purposes. To add to this problem, people go where they get the meesgae they are looking for rather than reading conflicting views.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Someone (pages back) made a comment to the effect, "What if a parent wanted to teach there kid that the earth is the centre of the universe?". Well, there is an obscure organization called the Association for Biblical Astronomy who do believe in geocentricity based on a literal interpretation of the bible. There website, www.geocentricity.com is rather interesting. It also shows that even amongst the biblical literalists, there is some disagreement on just how literal things should be taken.

I will also point out that one of the more famous of the young-earth creationists, "Dr." Kent Hovind, has said that 'the jury is still out' on the question of geocentricity. He probably wishes that the jury was still out in his trial, or at least that they didn't sentence him to 10 years for tax evasion.

The big danger of young earth creationism is that it is, at root, anti-scientific. By that, I mean that all observations pass through the filter of biblical literacy. Any explanation that requires an old universe (that is, one that is more than 10000 years old) is rejected. Not based on scientific evidence, but based on the fact that it contradicts their literal translation of a book written thousands of years ago.

For example - we observe a galaxy roughly a billion light years away. A scientist would suggest that the universe is thus at least 1 billion years old. The young earth creationist will come up with a number of unproven (and unprovable) theories on how we can see the light from a billion light years away when it's only had 6000 years to get here. For instance:

- non-constant speed of light (c-decay)
- inaccurate measurement of distance
- when universe created, light was created 'en-route', as it were

Which begs the question - if we see a supernova from 50000 light years away, does that mean that the star never actually existed (since we are really only seeing the light-show)?

Fossil fuels? Really caused by the decay of plant and animal life killed by the great flood. Kind of puts in perspective just how packed the earth was with life before the flood happened. And lets not worry about where all the water for the flood came from (of course, it was a 'water canopy' above the earth) or where it went to. Instead, they doctor evidence of human remains in the bedrock for the Cretaceous period or human and dinosaur footprints together. Even many of the young-earth arguments are rejected by the young earth creationist group Answers In Genesis.

I do not have an issue with religious people, or with people of faith, or even with creationism. Just don't reject science, and then claim to be scientific.

As for the question of whether access to information via the internet has stopped this so-called 'dumbing down', I don't think so. The internet provides much information, but also an equal amount of disinformation. Someone who stumbles onto talkorigins.org will get one side of the story, while someone going to drdino.com will find out a completely different side.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Since I didn't take ANY classes that had to do with evolution, everything I learned about it, and the science behind it, came from the internet.

What exactly was taught in your science classes?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What exactly was taught in your science classes?

The same thing that was taught in every other science class?

I went the Physics route....and skipped Biology.

[Vulcan]

For personal referrence I'm the center of my universe. From there it goes out to my town, earth, etc. This doesn't jive with science though and if some people have trouble differentiating between the two, I may as well argue with a rock. I'ts hopeless if they can't tell the difference between allegorical stories, meant to give a lesson, with scientific fact. In a way these literal interpreters of the bible or any such book are the lost people because they've closed their minds to other possibilities.

edited to add that followers of science can fall into the same trap by ignoring the personal experience.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

The same thing that was taught in every other science class?

I went the Physics route....and skipped Biology.

You didn't take physics in elementary or junior high school.

The topic never came up?