School shootings blamed on Darwin

[Visplane Overflow]

Snarboo said:

I admit my examples were vague, but I know that evolution has had an impact on those fields of research. If I wasn't as tired I would try to find some example articles.

That's alright, there is no time pressure.

[GreyGhost]

Visplane Overflow said: (in various posts)
There's no need to go out of your way to piss Fundies off.

I also suggested that it's mostly used by people as a platform for establishing mental superiority over Religious folk.

God can do anything, anything at all.

Atheists are generally out to destroy religion.

There's this mentality among Darwinists that goes something like this : 'If you don't abhor God and religion - then you are the enemy, and you deserve whatever happens to you. If you don't invest everything you have into evolution, you're trying to keep people dumb, and you're worse than the enemy.'

Visplane Overflow also said: (not so long ago or in a galaxy far, far away)
I'm an Atheist, don't start thinking I'm some bible thumper.

Visplane Overflow said: (more recently)
I've heard that Atheists have a bad reputation, but this is just...typical...

I understood going into this thing that Atheists tend be...well, 'sensitive', but you guys are super-extra-tender...

It's unfortunate, but it brings with you the stereotype that Atheism is the religion of worshipping yourself instead of God - I know it can't be true of all Atheists, but from my experience, I have seen this to be applicable to nearly anyone here...

Why would Atheists continue to claim to be the 'good guys', trying to "take power back from something that doesn't really deserve it" when all they demonstrate to people is blind, insatiable hatred towards an entire (mostly harmless) group of people.

There is a prevailing attitude among Atheists that goes along the lines of 'Anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is not intelligent enough to understand my beliefs, and because they are lesser than I, I shall not attempt to engage them in rational discourse. Huzzah.'.

Visplane Overflow also said: (not for the first time)
I am an Atheist

I suspect you're either a nihilist or simply enjoy trolling this thread.

[Visplane Overflow]

GreyGhost said:

I suspect you're either a nihilist or simply enjoy trolling this thread.

I was making it exceptionally clear that I am not Christian, as being Christian and being in a discussion online completely eradicates any and all credibility you may have had no matter what you're trying to say. This is probably due to the aforementioned prejudice against Theists.

[jute]

Visplane Overflow said:

I am asking why anyone thinks it is appropriate to hate creationists for being creationist, as there is a lot of hate and anger directed at them, and indeed anyone that opposes the theory of evolution.

Who said they hated people who believe in creationism? Please feel free to start a new topic with a poll with the question "Do you hate people who believe in creationism?" and a simple yes/no choice. I am certain you will find that you are incorrect. Disagreeing with a belief, thinking it should not be taught in school, thinking it is not scientific, thinking it is ridiculous, etc. does not equal hating anyone who possesses that belief. This should be totally obvious.

[Visplane Overflow]

jute said:

Who said they hated people who believe in creationism? Please feel free to start a new topic with a poll with the question "Do you hate people who believe in creationism?" and a simple yes/no choice. I am certain you will find that you are incorrect. Disagreeing with a belief, thinking it should not be taught in school, thinking it is not scientific, thinking it is ridiculous, etc. does not equal hating anyone who possesses that belief. This should be totally obvious.

It's harder to see from your point of view then it is from a neutral one, so I don't blame you. If I started a poll with a yes or no question asking whether people hate Theists or creationists, I'm sure at least 85% would vote no. But that's because from that point, you can easily see that it's wrong to hate someone on that basis, however, I think it's much more difficult to catch yourself actually doing this, so those poll results would be meaningless. I think that you can biased against people without really realizing it.

Some examples of Atheist extremism :

"Since the kook said that 'We are not against science, we just have mercy for the animals', herd those goons into labs and perform experiments on them instead of on the animals. Wouldn't that solve the whole problem? No animals will be harmed, and this will be a good way to remove some anti-science goons from the gene pool. A whole new generation of lab rats will be born!"

Source: http://www.evolvedrational.com/2008/04/solution-anti-animal-testing-goons.html

This..speaks for itself : http://www.evolvedrational.com/2008/04/spineless-appeasers-or-closet-theistard.html

"So...you "respect my belief, or lack of any"? Well...that's very nice...but it is a red flag that screams out intellectual shallowness and lack of critical-thinking skills."

Source: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&p=1051976

This kind of behavior is everywhere, if you're willing to look.

[myk]

Visplane Overflow said:
I am asking why anyone thinks it is appropriate to hate creationists for being creationist,

Prejudice is pretty generic. Are you saying atheists have it against theists but theists don't have it against atheists?

Other than that, creationists are lambasted for what they do to upset others. If they try to impose changes to the school curriculum based on their beliefs or interfere with presumed medical needs, people react.

hate and anger directed at them, and indeed anyone that opposes the theory of evolution.

Hate and anger generally result in violence. I don't really see much physical violence in respect to the political dispute.

Not a lot of actual discussion takes place between the two camps,

As we established, creationist theory isn't really qualified to argue with science in a way scientists are interested. Also, publicly discussing one's religion in a critical sense is unusual.

I believe that this is because Atheists simply think themselves above anyone else.

Some atheists might, though I don't see why they should be subject to such an idea any more than religious people. One might argue that as they have no religion they see no bounds and they commit hubris, but one can equally argue that since religious people associate themselves to something divine, they're giving themselves an aura of superiority, imbued by that divinity they are supposedly linked to.

[Visplane Overflow]

myk said:

Prejudice is pretty generic. Are you saying atheists have it against theists but theists don't have it against atheists?

Some atheists might, though I don't see why they should be subject to such an idea any more than religious people. One might argue that as they have no religion they see no bounds and they commit hubris, but one can equally argue that since religious people associate themselves to something divine, they're giving themselves an aura of superiority, imbued by that divinity they are supposedly linked to.

Firstly, yes I am saying that Theists are generally not as biased against atheists as they are against theists. This is exactly what I'm saying, which is basically indisputable since there are simply more Atheists willing to denigrate theists than there are theists willing to do the same to Atheists. The numbers just don't add up. Besides, we never hear of Christians suggesting that we should round up non-believers and perform experiments on them, do we? I think the worst that a Christian has said to me was that he'd pray for me.

On your second point, you are indeed right that certainly some theists would believe themselves superior by association of divinity, but once again I do not believe that the quantity of those types to narcissistic atheists are in a good ratio either. This is all observable.

[myk]

I think one could conclude something like that if one were to think of atheists that are on the par activists. These tend to label themselves as atheist, while many other atheists might not even mention their lack of belief in a god, passing off as "just people." Religious people also include activists, as well as people who join religious activities but are otherwise not vocal about them, and can thus also be identified by their beliefs, unlike many atheists.

[Visplane Overflow]

My resolve is not very strong. I'm wrong, you guys are right, I can carry this discussion on no longer, sorry for drawing it out this long in the first place.

[Gez]

Visplane Overflow said:

This is unfuckingbelievable. I've heard that Atheists have a bad reputation, but this is just...typical.

Why do you assume that all the proponents of teaching correct science in school are atheists? Would you say, for example, that the Catholic Church is atheist? Because the late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was "more than just a theory" and that it was compatible with Catholic faith.

Visplane Overflow said:

but this was in the midst of many claims that I'm a Creationist (because anybody that rejects your theory MUST be a Creationist, I mean damn.)

What other reason could there be to reject it?

Visplane Overflow said:

In the beginning, I was wondering why a non-issue such as the evolution versus creationism debate stirred so much controversy

Because it's not a non-issue.

Visplane Overflow said:

Once again, I posit the following : Your belief in evolution is only relevant as a means of proclaiming mental superiority over your peers (after all, I don't think Doomworld houses that many biologists studying the origin of life.). It's unfortunate, but it brings with you the stereotype that Atheism is the religion of worshipping yourself instead of God - I know it can't be true of all Atheists, but from my experience, I have seen this to be applicable to nearly anyone here.

Okay. Reread your text above, but substitute "evolution" with something else, such as "gravity" or "the Earth orbiting the Sun", or "Pythagoras' theorem".

Visplane Overflow said:

Why would Atheists continue to claim to be the 'good guys', trying to "take power back from something that doesn't really deserve it"

Where did you find such a quote?

Visplane Overflow said:

when all they demonstrate to people is blind, insatiable hatred towards an entire (mostly harmless) group of people.

What is your "entire (mostly harmless) group of people"?

Visplane Overflow said:

Killing in the name of God is wrong obviously, but so isn't killing in the name of Science?

Murder, now? Who has killed anyone over this issue?

Visplane Overflow said:

There is a prevailing attitude among Atheists that goes along the lines of 'Anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is not intelligent enough to understand my beliefs, and because they are lesser than I, I shall not attempt to engage them in rational discourse. Huzzah.'

First, stop using "believe" for science that can be so readily proven through a simple observation of the world around us. Secondly, stop using "atheists", for the reason above. Many believers accept the theory of evolution, because they are rational and intelligent enough to examine the evidence for themselves and see that it's true. Those who do not accept it, therefore, are only those who do not examine the evidence for themselves, do not understand it, or reject it out of bias if it contradicts one of their beliefs. This is being either intellectually lazy, stupid, or dogmatic. So on the other end of the debate, all we can do is spoonfeed the argument for evolution in the hope that the other guy belongs simply in the first category (intellectually lazy), and not in one of the other two.

Visplane Overflow said:

That's fair enough that applying evolution is the driver for positive change - but that neither warrants attacking people that don't believe in evolution to begin with, nor does it answer why merely believing in it is so important, if all we're worried about is whether or not scientists in a position of power are applying evolution theory to well; science.

You perceive an attack against obscurantists, when the fact is that it's a defense against the attacks of obscurantists.

Visplane Overflow said:

Secondarily, your examples of the places where evolution theory has advanced scientific knowledge are not specific, nor are they examples.

Can't really expect to have specific examples. All research in biology done after the theory of evolution was perfected and accepted was shaped by it. Pretty much the entire field of genetics exists only because of it. The fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster) is used extensively in research because it has a very short generational span, meaning you can observe macro evolution on them in a few years. They're perfect lab rats for that reason. Here's a few research papers on them if you want specific examples.

Visplane Overflow said:

So, I'd like to hear it, how have religious people earned discrimination?

What discrimination? Being told that your beliefs are not backed by science is not discrimination. Being told not to impose your obscurantist views on school kids is not discrimination.

Visplane Overflow said:

I remember a guy in 1940's that declared whole groups of people to be inherently worse than other groups...I forgot his name though. Seriously though - this kind of prejudiced behavior is unbecoming of so-called 'intellectuals' - There is no need to be so hateful.

The only one being hateful out there is the one who insists on saying that "atheists" (because it's only atheists, of course) are a bunch of little Hitlers who practice murder on the oppressed mass of poor little downtrodden creationists.

Visplane Overflow said:

I have done so, his post does not seem to touch on how in particular, Theists have earned discrimination, or how anyone can earn discrimination (I personally don't believe this is possible).

Same replies as above. 1. This is not atheists vs. theists. 2. There's no discrimination of people.

Visplane Overflow said:

Some examples of Atheist extremism :

"Since the kook said that 'We are not against science, we just have mercy for the animals', herd those goons into labs and perform experiments on them instead of on the animals. Wouldn't that solve the whole problem? No animals will be harmed, and this will be a good way to remove some anti-science goons from the gene pool. A whole new generation of lab rats will be born!"

Where is god in this? All I see is someone violently anti-PETA. Where is atheism vs. theism in this quote?

[kristus]

Gez said:

Where did you find such a quote?

I think the quote in question is regarding the political climate in the USA where you unofficially can't become president unless you are a christian.
But more specifically, it's a voice against leaders that attribute their critical thinking to what their religious belief is telling them. Such as George W. Bush.
But also that atheists in the US are one of the misrepresented and mistrusted groups.
For instance, in several cases. Atheists are compared to being homosexual in the US. People are closet atheists because they are afraid to stand up for their lack of belief as that would have serious social impacts to them.
One example of this is the recent case of an atheist group that posted billboards as a becking call for other atheists. Showing them that they are not alone. One of the billboards had to be moved because of the threats that the landowner received from religious people.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Godless-Billboard-Moved-After-Threats/W0iGN9STXUW0m6VF2g2Xeg.cspx

Gez said:

Where is god in this? All I see is someone violently anti-PETA. Where is atheism vs. theism in this quote?

The quote was also a classic quote-mine. Visplane didn't care to include the "*snicker*" part at the end of it. Indicating that the person who wrote it wasn't being serious.

[GreyGhost]

Visplane Overflow said:

Source: http://www.evolvedrational.com/2008/04/solution-anti-animal-testing-goons.html

This..speaks for itself : http://www.evolvedrational.com/2008...-theistard.html

The blog of an Encyclopedia Dramatica supporter who's mission statement is "Spread the Lutz" isn't something I'm likely to take seriously.

[myk]

GreyGhost said:
who's [sic] mission statement is "Spread the Lutz"

That person isn't doing a very good job, as not one of Chris' levels is linked to or mentioned in the blog.

[Enjay]

If those graphs posted on the first page are accurate, I find the number of people in the US who do not believe in evolution absolutely mind boggling. I mean, really.

As for the "evolution versus religion" debate, I see nothing in the theory of evolution that rules out the possibility of a god.

[Sharessa]

They say that we lost our tails evolving from little snails. I say it's all just wind in sails. Are we not men?

[Enjay]

Oh, and on the whole "it's only a theory thing" - NO! It's not only a theory. What makes it proper and valid science is the fact that is is a theory. That's how the scientific method works and that's why it is robust. The whole point is that it is a theory. It's not a weakness, it's a strength.

That is why the theory of evolution can be examined and tested. And, related, that is why "alternatives" such as intelligent design cannot. Sooner or later, intelligent design requires a leap of faith:

Things are very complicated? Yes, testable.
Things are interdependent? Yes, testable.
It seems to work really well? Yes, testable.
It is so complicated and works so well that it couldn't have happened by chance and there must have been some intelligence behind it? NO!, not testable. That, right there, is a leap of faith.

And that's what makes ID not science. It isn't a testable theory. All the fudging and rhetoric by the proponents of ID cannot change that. Let's face it, the only reason for the existence of ID is an American-Christian agenda to try and force an alternative to evolution, that intrinsically has the implication that a god-like intelligence is behind the evolution of species, to be taught in science classes in the US. (In the UK, for example - and other countries, it's an utter irrelevance and thought of as something "those crazy Americans believe in".) However, any real scientist who actually understands the scientific method cannot, hand on heart, make a genuine claim that ID is science (and, yes, I know that people have tried).

ID may have its place but it is not in the science room. Go down the hall to the philosophy department. That's where the ID debate belongs. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be considered. All I'm saying is that it isn't a scientific theory and, as such, has no place in the science room.

[Enjay]

Danarchy said:

Are we not men?

We are DEVO. :rock:

[kristus]

Enjay said:

It is so complicated and works so well that it couldn't have happened by chance and there must have been some intelligence behind it? NO!, not testable. That, right there, is a leap of faith.

Actually. That is testable. And they made the conclusion that it could happen. In evolution's case, not by chance, but by natural selection. ;)

As for the beginning. Here's an interesting lecture by Lawrence Krauss, where he explains that the universe could in fact have come from nothing.

[Gokuma]

I believe all the answers we are seeking are here.

[GreyGhost]

Enjay said:

As for the "evolution versus religion" debate, I see nothing in the theory of evolution that rules out the possibility of a god.

Agreed, if there are currently no gods who's to say they won't evolve some time in the future - possibly from laboratory animals released into the wild by animal rights activists.

[Technician]

I know your joking but those words are possible ammunition in disproving the "wacky minds behind science".

[gggmork]

"A good explanation is one that's hard to vary" (david deutsch):
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation.html


"The power of a theory = that which it explains, dividided by that which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining" (dawkins):
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2

[myk]

The historian looks backward. In the end he also believes backward. Only by looking back do we think that in the past people explained everything with myths and suddenly then we didn't. Large portions of the population still do it in one way or another. Myths are a residue of generic cultural parameters that are retained with time, but people knew very many practical things in the past, that they applied, at the same time.

I kind of agree with what Deutsch was saying about empiricism, yet in a way we do perceive what we judge to know, indirectly through technology. I'm no empiricist, but his musings aren't really a refutation of it. At least not a good one.

How does an anthropomorphic myth explain anything except by integrating a phenomenon into a culture? Treating myths in the same light as science is just stupid. In what way did "knowing" that Persephone went to the underworld affect people's lives? You could say, at least, that it was a mnemonic mechanism for recording the perceived behavior of the seasons in a non-literate culture and a mechanism for fortifying moral schemes in that culture. Culturally speaking, for the Greeks as such, the myth wasn't really all that variable, as it helped code their general outlook and depended on their context. It had more functions that trying to explain the seasons. You could say it didn't explain them in any analytic way, and just made them humanly understandable. It can't be judged only from its explanatory function, if any.

Besides, I bet our theory of seasons could be different if we had somewhat different technology or needs. The objects explained and the practical thoroughness of the science involved wouldn't vary much, assuming a comparable level of complexity and development, but the focus might.

The enlightenment had its impact, although perhaps it was lesser than the discovery and widespread use of tools and fire, and the diffusion of writing. Technological findings have an exponential effect on our progress. Much of the merit for what we call progress usually relies on a set of simpler changes with then unforeseeable effects.

So, what's the real difference between us and the Greeks, comparatively? We have additional and more potent ways to write down, codify and perceive what we find, that we've acquired little by little and step by step, and have had exponential effects, and don't have to use our brains and eyes exclusively to retain all or most of those finds anymore. We codify them elsewhere and at leisure work on more complex and efficient conceptions than back when we had to do most of that directly in our minds. It's a process of progressively expanding technology, and not a magical "hey suddenly we rejected stupefying authority and got smarter!"

[gggmork]

All interesting points. Technology such as books (to store info) and telescopes/computers/etc (to augment senses) probably had a huge network/exponential effect on the accumulation of knowledge.

'In what way did "knowing" that Persephone went to the underworld affect people's lives'

Good point, but maybe knowing the cause of seasons isn't a particularly good example of something that affected people that much (the seasons come and go regardless of whether one knows their true explanation), relative to things like thinking leeches were useful in medicine (the medieval way, not the modern way which actually is useful sometimes) or thinking people were witches, etc. In that case knowing more could prevent a culture from burning people or throwing them off cliffs (if they didn't fly, they weren't a witch, heh, I guess they only ever killed false positives).