Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked a blog post today which helps explain why some of the most intelligent of liberals, particularly on university campuses, but also in the halls of Congress tend to be so narrow-minded. Over at National Review‘s Phi Beta Cons, David French offers an explanation of why it has “been so easy” for James O’Keefe to obtain footage exposing the prejudiced attitudes and disregard for inconvenient laws (i.e, ., in the Planned Parenthood sting, those restricting abortion) of individuals working for left-leaning organizations:
Because until now Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and NPR have not experienced real media accountability or real journalistic scrutiny — at least not to the extent that conservative politicians and organizations do. The mainstream media (and NPR is obviously part of the MSM) is sympathetic to their goals and purposes, and reporter calls tend to come from friendly voices seeking talking points rather than skeptical reporters demanding answers. In the MSM’s eyes, those organizations were the good guys, part of the home team. So millions upon millions of public dollars flow into their treasuries, while they bask in the goodwill of the cultural establishment.
Emphasis added. Read the whole thing.
For further proof of reporters as friendly voices, take a gander at how Katie Couric treated the vice-presidential nominees of the two major political parities in the 2008 campaign. With the Republican, she was confrontational as if determined to take vengeance on her high school rival after that more attractive, charismatic and popular girl beat her out from prom queen. With the Democrat, she was adoring as if doting on the kindly next door neighbor who always gave her flowers when she returned home from school.
Many on the left just aren’t accustomed to dealing with confrontational questions. (Take a gander at how Barney walked off the set when a CNBC reporter asked him a question he wasn’t prepared to face.) They think everyone they meet shares their worldview and looks down on conservative. It’s what they come to expect since they were in college.
Perhaps, the problem begins the paucity of conservatives on university faculties.
There is definitely a paucity of conservatives on college campuses. Consider science (only 6% are Republican).
Who knows the reasons? I guess in the case of science,
they are interested in technical progress. Progress is by
definition progressive…and scientists are not enamored of the clamor to teach creationism and they typically support the data set for global warming. Many kids go to college to become teachers…teachers tend liberal as well. Whether political viewpoint is a factor in what kids
want to study may be a factor. I have never seen a student change their mind when exposed to liberal or conservative teachers. Kind of odd, in my experience,
many computer tech types tend conservative, and naturally business students. There are a number of
conservative bloggers who are political science professors, but blogs are notoriously bad predictors of
genuine data in the matter!
Thirty-years ago, even at our fairly-conservative school the “politically conservative” typically kept their heads down to avoid useless confrontations or even retaliation from the liberal faculty…in those days we even had some unreconstructed Communists down in the Philosophy Department. The typical response to their fabulist babblings was, “…yeah, whatever dude….later.”
My own department was headed and dominated by several rabid Euro-Socialists “pinkos” who never had…or couldn’t hold…a job in the private sector. You crossed them at your peril since they controlled your letters of recommendation for graduate school or the better internships.
My own (conservative) mentor was a fully-tenured full professor who actually just taught part-time to the fury of the do-nothing liberal Art professors. He was the Chief Design Partner of a large international architectural/engineering design firm who taught us two days a week and at his firm in Philly the other three. (The rules back-then for School accreditation for Architecture professors requires they actively-practice for-profit in their own practices, not just “teach” at the school.) He was always treated shabbily by the “full-time” professors for years, and hounded into early-retirement due to ill-health a few years after I graduated.
I’ve only been back to my alma mater once in thirty-years (on business), and refuse to give the University a penny as a result of his shabby treatment. I just can’t forgive the (tenured) faculty’s treatment of my professional mentor….
Honest question:
If conservatives truly had something to offer in an academic environment, wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive? I know it’s possibly more comforting to invent conspiracy theories about some kind of liberal pogrom hellbent on subjugating conservative white people, who have truly had it so, so hard over the course of this nation’s history, but as the simplest explanation is so often the correct one, does it not stand to reason that perhaps the paucity of conservatives on college campuses is a direct corollary to the value of conservative ideas when held to the standards of strict academic scrutiny?
Some words that don’t belong in the same sentence.
Well, you don’t have to *do* anything. Just carry on giving your opinion on the subject at hand to an audience that pays to be there. When you get tenure, you don’t even have to do that. You have assistants run your class and you write a few meaningless papers to justify your existence and you’re set for life.
I think it has more to do with the fact that the students are immature, tending socialist, douchebags that many tend to grow out of. The profs, on the other hand, never have to grow up.
I would say that that being a professor is not unlike a chronic welfare recipient. Nobody expects you to produce anything of value for the money you get and you raise hell if somebody tries to pry you away from the tit.
But yet, TGC, conservatives never can seem to get a foothold in academia. Again, if the ideas really had so much traction, would they not be more likely to find willing, curious adherents among the more educated classes? And if not, why not, and try to stay away from conspiracy theories until it’s absolutely necessary to resort to them.
Evan, in the current environment, maybe conservative ideas don’t survive academic scrutiny, but liberal ideas don’t survive when confronted with the reality of human nature.
There are great variety of reasons for the paucity of conservatives on college campuses. I can give a personal perspective which likely won’t interest you because you attempt to judge the right without understanding it.
You can reduce these reasons to what you dub a “conspiracy theory” or a prejudiced understanding of conservatism (your comment “the value of conservative ideas when held to the standards of strict academic scrutiny”), but in doing so, you ignore the intellectual intolerance which is legion on college campuses.
If conservative ideas can’t survive academic scrutiny, why then do university professors so regularly misrepresent them?
I could go on. I once aspired for a tenure-track position at an American university, but abandoned my first quest for a PhD for two (main) reasons, one being that I wanted to avoid the scrutiny my politics would attract, i.e., self-selection. There is a lot going on.
To make comments as yours suggests not just a blindness to the prejudice on college campus, but also to provide evidence that you provide similarly narrow views. Conservative ideas wilt when to the standards of strict academic scrutiny! Hardly.
Wait, Dan, you’re admitting that you pulled yourself out of your PhD track because you were worried about your political beliefs being scrutinized? That hardly seems to prove your point. The problem I see is a problem I see among many conservatives — that, in the sort of haphazardly constructed coalition that is modern conservatism, all the different types of conservatives claim that THEY are The True Conservatives, and when people criticize one of the many strains of modern American conservatism that isn’t their particular strain, they say “Oh, you’re misjudging conservatives.” Believe me, Daniel, I understand conservatives, of all kinds. I have them in my family, as parents to boot! I’m also a long time close friend of the president of our metropolitan area’s Young Republicans group, and she would probably laugh at the idea that I don’t understand conservatism. Indeed, one of the few reasons she and I can talk about politics is that we both know our sides, and each others’, so well. In short: That’s a cop-out, and you know it.
That said, your comment about liberal ideas not surviving when confronted by human nature is sort of dangling, so unless you’d like to elucidate what you mean by that…
Evan,
Look at the Global Warming Hoax and the attacks on any scientist (or non-scientist) who dares point out there’s no great and powerful Oz. When you factor in peer reviews, grant funding and tenure, it’s no surprise that those who confront computer models with reality do not thrive in the closed off world of academia.
(Now, in the private sector, they thrive, but that’s a different story.)
This is really all that needs to be said on the subject. Conservativism is about defending the status quo, and that means walling off curiosity, ignoring problems, and suppressing inconvenient information. None of that is compatible with academics, obviously.
Evan,
Honest question:
If conservatives truly had something to offer in acting, wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive?
Honest question:
If conservatives truly had something to offer in at NPR, wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive?
Honest question:
If conservatives truly had something to offer at KOS, wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive?
Honest question:
If conservatives truly had something to offer at The New York Times, wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive?
Honest question:
If liberals truly had something to offer besides shifting the topic, ignoring facts and name calling,* wouldn’t they naturally prosper and thrive and overcome conservatism? (*SIN formula composed by Herman Cain.)
Levi,
Let’s talk evolution. There is a huge meat eating pitcher plant in Borneo that has confused botanists for years. How does it get the meat? Just discovered: a small lemur sits on the mouth of the pitcher and licks nectar off the pipe of the flower which makes the lemur crap into the pitcher. The pitcher gets its nitrogen and phosphorus “meat” needs and the lemur gets fed and a colonic cleaning at the same time. Your assignment: explain this niche adaptation in certain Darwinian proof.
While you babble on and on, I will snicker at your religious incantations. You may now proceed to “defending the status quo, and that means walling off curiosity, ignoring problems, and suppressing inconvenient information.”
Levi wrote:
Levi,
Ever ‘gotten back’ with us on your global warming? Considering every time someone hits you with science, you abandon the thread faster than Democrat senators bailing out of Wisconsin, I think you’re doing an excellent job of “walling off curiosity, ignoring problems, and suppressing inconvenient information.”
Come to think of it, given your demonstrated ability to ignore facts when presented to you, you must be the most ‘conservative’ person in the room.
Sorry to step on your toes, Heliotrope. Ignorance must be fought with facts, so we occasionally double team with Levi. Or to quote from a book…
Kai Allard-Liao: Great Minds think alike.
Hohiro Kurita: When small minds abound, they must.
Comment by Heliotrope — March 14, 2011 @ 10:17 am – March 14, 2011
Nailed it.
As long as liberals are the ones deciding who does and who does not “have something to offer,” conservatives will continue to be excluded.
But there are ways around it. For example, there is the Alinskyite tactic of using the liberals own weapons (like Affirmative Action) against them. My African-American niece-in-law who is so conservative she makes me look like the typical resident of Portland OR is preparing to get her doctorate; that should shake up a faculty lounge or two.
It’s entertaining to watch Evan Hurst comment here, given the abundance of examples of what he and his fellow liberals consider to be intelligent academic discourse:
Actually, Bob, most “reasonable” people, if we’re using the word with a respect for its root word, “reason,” agree that there is no evidence for God’s existence, and thus no rational REASON to believe that any god or gods have determined ANYTHING, much less morality.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 27, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Hahahahaha, um. Dude. Seriously? No one in the history of the universe has ever been able to prove that the idea of “gods,” which have always been used to control populations, ever existed. It’s a ridiculous idea, created by uneducated nomads from thousands of years ago.
GROW UP>
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 29, 2010 @ 4:13 am
They all rank “10″ because they’re all retarded and none of them can be proven by any human who’s ever lived.
God, your questions are really stupid.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 29, 2010 @ 4:29 am
Bob. That means your god is a weak minded little bitch who changes his mind and is definitely NOT eternal or omnipotent. He’s merely a reflection of humanity’s most disgusting instincts.
Grow the hell up.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:20 am
Of COURSE, their idea of god is as a serial rapist. Fundamentalist religious people ARE essentially battered wives. They just act it out on a grander scale without such visible bruises. The really screwed up thing is that their abuser is an imaginary friend.
But it’s a rapist just the same.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:22 am
Ben, everything you said was spot on. Bob’s idea of “god” is a moral reprobate, and a child at that. I wouldn’t worship a sniveling ass like that if you paid me.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 31, 2010 @ 4:25 am
And we can also point at what Evan Hurst and his fellow “academics” consider to be truthful and intelligent commentary about conservatives, suitable for “strict academic scrutiny” and “honest evaluation”.
When one considers how liberals like Evan Hurst make up flat-out lies and smears like that about conservatives, it’s no surprise. Indeed, I would be curious to know which university academic community supports and endorses Evan Hurst’s statements, since certainly that should be public knowledge. We do know that the organization Truth Wins Out and its leader Wayne Besen support and endorse Evan Hurst’s views on religion and conservatives.
The racism of Sadly Bigots seems to be an effort to maintain a status quo of liberal hate.
Wow, NDT, that Evan fellow seems to be something of a jerk.
Here’s the thing, if one chooses not to believe in God, the alternative theory… the best science can come up with… is that everything just popped into existence out of nothing for no reason (The Big Bang Theory) and just happened to defy odds on the scale of trillions to one against that the resulting universe had the right narrow range of physical laws to permit the existence of life.
The existence of God can be neither objectively proven nor disproven. Taking either side is nothing more than a choice made in the absence of probative fact; regardless of what arrogant atheists would have one believe.
It’s actually quite stupid to assert that merely being on one side or the other proves superior intelligence.
I’ll go you one better. To explain the odds of life (as we know it) Scientists like Stephen Hawking argue there are countless ‘universes’ out there where the events didn’t happen.
So we have scientists arguing that for their theories to work, there are universes out there that can’t be seen/touched/measured. Their faith, like Levi’s in the ‘dark matter’ amuses me.
Now I want to find that universe where I’m married to Grace Park…
>>> (Take a gander at how Barney walked off the set when a CNBC reporter asked him a question he wasn’t prepared to face.)
Four words: Palin, the Couric interview.
>>>disregard for inconvenient laws
Four more words: Wisconsin’s open meeting law.
Now I want to find that universe where I’m married to Grace Park…
Good choice. Depending on my mood, I would be married to either a (younger and soberer) Michelle Rodriguez or former San Jose Shark Todd Harvey, in that particular universe.
The other bit is, for the universe to work according to the models currently embraced by astro-physicists, >90% of the universe must consist of “Dark Matter.” The existence of dark matter has never been proven, but scientists insist it must exist because their models of the universe don’t work without it.
But Evan Hurst and the rest of the smug atheists want us to believe that they have it all figured out and do not rely on any sort of blind faith whatsoever.
(Tell me, do my comments look even more brilliant when they happen to post next to the latest curly brown deposit from Auntie Enema?)
Dan.
Without a doubt. Conservatives truly DO have something to offer. Unfortunately they don´t do it in the field of education. The liberal agenda has been evolving over decades to the point where they have taken control over the fields of education, the print, the visual, and the spoken media (until recently with the rise of talk radio), entertainment, and even in homes by usurping parental control of children.
One of the things that has bothered me about conservatives, over the years, has been the habit of wanting to start at the top or near top by seeking election to be a president, a senator, or a governor. Very few want to start at the bottom where they can have real influence. School boards and community college boards have been the minor leagues for the liberals. It is there that they have honed their skills and have set the academic agenda in revising history among other things, all from the left´s POV. The brouhaha in Wisconsin is result having having the left in charge of our educational institurions.
Conservatives should enter the teaching profession and offer themselves to be elected to school boards. For those in the media working for Fox is desirable but it is only one network. They can have only so many slots. By infiltrating the MSM and over time moving into positions of responsibilty can they move pendulum of the MSM, at least, to the middle. We are beginning to see some conservatives in Hollywood. We need producers who will make movies and programs that have a positve message instead of denegrating conservative values. We should be taking a page out of the leftists book and have our own community organizers. Real and lasting change is slow. The TEA Party is a phenomenon like a tsunami. We shouldn´t take Jesus´admonition too seriously, ¨neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you.¨ Being forewarned is being forearmed. Therefore with that thought in mind we can turn sows´ ears into silk purses.
Four more words: Wisconsin’s open meeting law.
You mean the one that the fleebagging Obama Party members in Illinois, who refused to state when, where, and how often their meetings were being held, plus refused to release any transcripts or records of it, plus refused to allow any observation and provided no notification, were completely and totally violating?
Projection again, Dogma. Whining about breaking laws that your Obama Party is breaking left and right. Everyone recognizes that fact.
The plants that excrete more of the nectar get more monkey poop, are better nourished, live longer, and thus have more time to reproduce. The genes that regulate nectar secretion are being selected for because they confer a reproduction advantage.
The lemurs that eat the nectar have healthy digestive systems, so they are better nourished, live longer, and thus have more opportunities to reproduce. The genes that regulate the lemur’s taste for this particular plant are being selected for because they confer a reproduction advantage.
The advantage that this confers can be rather slight at first, but over thousands and thousands of generations, the relationship can change so that the plant may be exclusively dependant on the lemur. I’m not sure if that’s the case in this situation, but there are examples throughout the natural world where organisms are completely dependant on other organisms. There is absolutely nothing about this relationship that is unusual, and far from presenting difficulties for the theory of evolution, it actually helps to bolster it.
Is that the mumbo jumbo you were looking for? What is so hard to believe? You think it’s more plausible that an omnipotent superbeing created the universe and mysteriously chose to populate it with organisms that rely on getting pooped on by other organisms?
As for evolution, put a bunch of watch parts in a box and shake it for a billion years, it’s still not going to randomly form a working timepiece.
Is that the mumbo jumbo you were looking for? What is so hard to believe?
Well, Levi, if there was absolute proof, there wouldn’t be any requirement for “belief”.
Heliotrope has nicely tricked you into revealing the fact that you spin “mumbo-jumbo”, none of which you have observed, none of which you can prove, and for none of which you have exact evidence, and you demand that it be taken as “scientific proof” — all while screaming that there is no God because, as you state, you haven’t observed anything, you can’t prove anything, and you don’t have exact evidence for anything.
Your problem, Levi, is that you are an irrational bigot. You may take something that starts out rationally, like evolutionary theory, but your irrationality perverts it, inasmuch as you twist it desperately to make it justify your predetermined conclusion that there is no God.
No real scientist would say that evolution proves that. But, as we see daily from your babbling, you’re not a real scientist; you’re an incoherent and irrational bigot.
Your problem, Levi, is that you are an irrational bigot.
Are you sure that’s his only problem?
Well he has the problem that he only answers posts he thinks he can ‘beat’. Then he goes and shows again why he’s outclassed.
He can’t reply to most of us, because we are able to use Google and put his failures front and centre.
Note how he’s ran away from defending Global Warming fraud. Bet he’ll be defending it next heat wave.
Livewire
You might have spòken too soon. He might try to blame the earthquake and tsunami in Japan on Global Warming.
True.
Maybe he feels this shows yellow people can’t understand nuclear power? Like how ‘Arabians’ can’t understand democracy.
The assumptions about dark matter and energy are nothing like blind faith – they are educated guesses based on evidence. That’s what theoretical physics is. Scientists are doing their best, in their limited capacity, to figure out how this stuff works. They’re working on the telescopes, they’re working on the particle colliders, they’re working on the equations. This is what I meant when I said ‘walling off curiosity’ – you religious types don’t genuinely want to know the answers to these questions, because after centuries of sceintific discoveries in a variety of fields, none of them have ever been shown to help your side of the argument.
See, in my experience, the atheists are the first ones to tell you where their understanding ends. I don’t know of any atheists who claim to have it all figured out. Religious people, however, make that claim over and over again. So who is smug?
Funny, my religion is based on ‘educated guesses based on evidence’. We guess the Temple was in Israel. Look! It’s there!
We guess that there are ruins in the Bible that match historical sites. Look! There they are!
Face it Levi, you’re in a corner.
Me: The Universe works because of the design of the Divine. The Divine is immesurable, and beyond human comprehension.
Levi: The universe works because of Dark Matter, we can’t quantify it except by our theories needing it to work.
Or to put it Mathmatically.
Me: Reality = What we know + the Divine
Levi: Reality = What we know + what we assume has to be out there, because of what we know.
And there’s this laugh track.
“you religious types don’t genuinely want to know the answers to these questions, because after centuries of sceintific discoveries in a variety of fields, none of them have ever been shown to help your side of the argument.”
This is funny. I’ve posted elsewhere how we can line up the events of the Exodus in clear, scientific provable terms.
You know the city of Troy? It was thought to be a myth, well until we found it.
And do I really need to post the links to Levi admitting that he was going to continue to believe what he wants, no matter the evidence?
Hey Levi, how’s that Global Warming working for you?
And one more.
Damn, close blockquote
Perhaps the most unintentional hilarious thing Levi has ever spewed. I literally LOL’d (not kidding) when he praised the significance of ‘educated guesses.’
Obviously, Levi doesn’t spend any of his time among actual Christians and Jews. If he did so, he would realize that there is no ‘smug certainty,’ and that debate over the meaning of life and the nature of God is quite vigorous. There is a rich philosophical life of the mind with faith, and the emptiness that results when one turns one’s back on that may in part explain the vitriol of many atheists.
This is not how evolution works, because you’re leaving out the selection mechanism. It would be more accurate if after each shake, you opened the box and kept the parts that more closely resembled a watch and discarded the ones that did not. Then you put your proto-watch back in the box with a whole bunch of new parts, and repeat the process until you get the finished product.
And before you get too excited, the person selecting the watch isn’t God, that’s just a stand-in for the selection process. In nature, the selection process is a multitude of factors relating to how successful an organism is at feeding, defending itself and reproducing in its environment.
You could at least try to understand what the process entails before you start regurgitating crappy analogies that only serve to demonstrate how little you know.
Educated guesses > A bunch of ancient dogma spread by fear and lies to control people
Again, what is religion bringing to the table? Do we have religion to thank for air travel and modern medicine? Educated guesses have built modern society, despite religion’s best efforts to keep us whining into the sky.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to not spend lots of time with Christians and Jews, and yes, smug certainty is the baseline. You know there’s a
God, don’t you? And that he loves you, and that he wants to be with you, and that I upset him and will be punished – that’s pretty much par for the course, and it’s dripping with smugness.
Do you ever doubt there is a God? When an earthquake hits Japan, and then a tsunami hits Japan, and then a nuclear power plant melts down in Japan, do you consider even for one moment that none of this makes sense if we’re living in a world created specifically for us by a God that cares about our well-being?
No?
That’s smugness.
Levi shows ignorance of his own religion *again*
“This is not how evolution works, because you’re leaving out the selection mechanism. It would be more accurate if after each shake, you opened the box and kept the parts that more closely resembled a watch and discarded the ones that did not. Then you put your proto-watch back in the box with a whole bunch of new parts, and repeat the process until you get the finished product.”
For Macro-evolution to work, you’d have to open the box, find something useful, put back in the box with parts and shake.
To use the one bit of theory I remember, it was theorized that wings developed first as an additional cooling mechanism, and then flight came later.
So to use Levi’s broken watch metaphor (oh how Ironic!) you shake the box, pull out the glass cover and metal bits (to make a magnifying glass) put those back in, now it comes out with the watch hands (to provide more balance) put those back in, and eventually you’d get a watch.
Ironically Levi’s “Knowing what you want at the end, and picking out the parts.” is more an argument for Intelligent Design than evolution.
Then again, Levi’s view of the universe is: unified therory = Plus what I observe + material I want to exist to make my unified theory work.
Kind of like “bunch of parts and I’ll select the parts that make up what I want at the end.”
V the K,
If Levi would stop his own biases against anytihng he doesn’t like, he’d see the debate about the Divine is alive and well, open and tolerant on these comments, let alone in the world.
Still, Levi can’t even explain evolution, why should we expect him to explain theology?
Do you ever doubt there is a God? When an earthquake hits Japan, and then a tsunami hits Japan, and then a nuclear power plant melts down in Japan, do you consider even for one moment that none of this makes sense if we’re living in a world created specifically for us by a God that cares about our well-being?
Absolutely it does.
“Well-being” does not equate to always giving a child what it wants. Indeed, it is the height of hilarity to watch liberals like you try to scream that God doesn’t exist because he doesn’t give people everything they want when you shriek that people who let their kids have the Happy Meals they want don’t care about their welfare and need government to protect them.
You see, Levi, your problem is that you conceptualize God in the same fashion that you do your parents. As is obvious to anyone who observes you, your parents made certain that you never had to work, never were questioned on anything, and always had an excuse for when you screwed up.
Which is why you’re stuck as a clerk in a Verizon store whining about why society doesn’t recognize you as a super-genius when Mommy and Daddy told you you were. You don’t understand why stealing out of the till is wrong when Mommy and Daddy never said a word about you taking money out of their wallet or purse. And you particularly don’t understand why your managers and coworkers don’t agree with you like Mommy and Daddy did when you called them idiots, morons, and fools who should always do what you say because you’re smarter and better than all of them.
Good parents know that the secret to raising healthy, intelligent, and well-adjusted children is understanding that a) children are not able to make fully intelligent decisions and b) ones who are shielded from the consequences of theirs never fully develop. They allow children to have consequences for their behavior, because they understand that is how children learn.
That is incomprehensible to you, Levi. You don’t understand consequences in the least, because Mommy and Daddy never taught them to you. And hence the only way you can understand God is simple: either He gives you everything you want and and shields you from any consequences or responsibility like Mommy and Daddy did, or He doesn’t exist.
Oh, okay, that’s how God works? You don’t get something just because you want it? So thousands of Japanese people wanted to not die in earthquakes and tsunamis, but God wanted to teach us all some kind of lesson, so he killed thousands of Japanese people with earthquakes and tsunamis? You really think that this example has anything to do with consequences and responsibility?
Do you ever doubt there is a God?
Of course. Faith isn’t the absence of doubt. Faith is the mastery of doubt.
Everyone dies; whether in a tsunami or late in life peacefully in his sleep. I don’t fault God because the particular application of inevitability confuses and frightens some people. Nor do I pout like a petulant adolescent because “It just isn’t fair,” and “If my parents really loved me they wouldn’t make put me through this.”
The development of a relationship like this isn’t all that complicated and wouldn’t have taken all that long. No, I wasn’t there to see the first time that a lemur pooped on this plant, but we have plenty of other examples of behavior evolving over time. Humans have domesticated a few dozen of species of animals (I shouldn’t have to list these), and other animals have adapted to our changing civilization like pigeons and rats. This is stuff that is most definitely observable, and it isn’t illogical to extrapolate what’s occurred in our history to the more distant past.
100% of the genetic evidence and 100% of the fossil record also supports evolution in the way that I’ve described. No, I’ve never seen a dinosaur, but there are only good reasons to believe that they once existed and no good reasons to believe otherwise. Ongoing experiments are detecting anatomical changes in organisms that we can detect over the course of a few years – it is not illogical to assume that there can be much more significant changes over longer timeframes.
The bottom line is; we’ll see, won’t we? I mean in six thousand years, if human beings make it that far, we will presumably have many more experiments vindicating evolutionary theory, and Christianity will probably be an extinct religion. Sorry buddy, but religions come and go. Do you think evolutionary theory, which has been the basis of modern biology, is going anywhere? Would you bet money on Christianity outlasting evolution going forward?
Fine, whatever you want. Evolutionary theory doesn’t disprove the existence of God. It also doesn’t disprove the existence of leprechauns. Or werewolves. Or Spiderman. Or unicorns. In fact, you could spend your entire life listing things that evolutionary theory doesn’t disprove, and you’d be exactly right. Just remember, it was your idea to lump God into a category with leprechauns and unicorns.
Wow – I guess that is supposed to mean something? How do you master doubt? What have you achieved upon doing so?
Huh?
What?
I’m just trying to be clear – God loves us, he wants us to live and be happy, but sometimes we have to get killed in natural disasters, sometimes we have to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery at the age of 10, sometimes we have to be shot in a drive by, sometimes we have to step on a land mine, sometimes we have to die of cancer and AIDS…. and if we complain about this arrangement, we’re petulant teenagers?
Do you even know what the word smug means?
I’d also like to know if you think I’ll be spending an eternity burning in hell because I don’t believe in your God, and if so, do you think I would deserve such a fate?
Got to give Levi credit.
His inability to understan Evolution doesn’t stop him from bashing religion.
Hey Levi, when do ‘Arabians’ evolve to the point that they understand democracy?
As a Christian, I would prefer that you did not. But, ultimately, our Free Will is a gift from a God and we all make the choice. I cannot send you to Hell (if it exists), nor does God. That choice is yours.
But if you choose not to believe in God and you simply cease to exist in any form after this existence, that seems fair to me.
But I have other plans.
Is it my choice?
Presumably, God knows what it would take for me to believe in his existence. So why am I denied the secret knowledge if he’s given it to you? I hear religious people talk about how God speaks to them, why am I not spoken to? I’ve never seen any evidence that God exists, and all religions have the distinctive stamp of human institutions. I have no reason to believe – and yet I’m told that I have to or else I’ll be punished?
Christianity is interesting because it reduces morality to essentially one decision – do you believe in God or don’t you? If you do, you’re going to heaven, regardless of what you’ve done, and if you don’t, you’re burning in hell, regardless of what you’ve done. Jeffrey Dahmer ate a bunch of people, including teenagers, and then became a born-again Christian in jail before being stabbed to death. So he’s in, right? You can look forward to being Jeffrey Dahmer’s roommate in heaven, yay! But Levi the atheist, he never accepted Jesus as his personal savior, so to hell he goes! Body count doesn’t matter, how good a person you were doesn’t matter, all that really matters is belief!
You were just lecturing me because I was whining about what I want, and here you are planning out your immortality.
AGAIN, I’m the smug one?
You really think that this example has anything to do with consequences and responsibility?
I’m just trying to be clear – God loves us, he wants us to live and be happy, but sometimes we have to get killed in natural disasters, sometimes we have to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery at the age of 10, sometimes we have to be shot in a drive by, sometimes we have to step on a land mine, sometimes we have to die of cancer and AIDS…. and if we complain about this arrangement, we’re petulant teenagers?
Isn’t it funny to watch the liberal who screams the most that disasters “prove” the need for government regulation try to argue that disasters, crimes, and whatnot don’t demonstrate consequence and responsibility?
Levi really does become completely incoherent and contradictory when religion is mentioned. But what else should we expect from a bigot?
Presumably, God knows what it would take for me to believe in his existence.
Yup — which, I would hazard a guess, is for you to develop the ability to acknowledge that someone or something is smarter and more powerful than you are.
Or in other words, you would have to stop worshiping yourself.
I hear religious people talk about how God speaks to them, why am I not spoken to?
Because you won’t stop talking about how much better you are than God.
V the K put it nicely. God lays out the requirements, the benefits, and consequences; it’s your choice as to whether or not to follow them. But as you did with your parents, you want the benefits without having to follow the requirements or accept the consequences.
Your parents were stupid enough to do that, which is why you are in the situation you are in. God is not.
I hear religious people talk about how God speaks to them, why am I not spoken to?
Maybe He is, but you won’t shut up long enough to listen.
Probably because you’ve never shut up and listened.
It’s not solely on whether or not one claims that they’re born again or believes in God. It comes down to whether or not they accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts and asked for forgiveness of their sins. All we can go by is what Dahmer said. Whether he recognize what he did and asked for forgiveness was between he and God. If he did, then yes “he’s in”.
Remember, as Jesus was hanging on the cross, he forgave a criminal who realized the error of his ways, as it were, and asked for forgiveness.
What does evolution have to do with the paucity of conservatives on college campuses? Liberals have a way of distracting us from a discussion of the topic.
V beat me to it.
Like I said – the only moral choice in the Christian scheme is whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Did you kill a bunch of people? Did you rape a bunch of kids? God doesn’t care! He’ll let it slide as long as say you’re sorry, and like, really mean it! For all you know, Hitler begged Jesus for forgiveness before he killed himself in his bunker. Is that what I have to look forward to in heaven? Meeting Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer?
This is the problem with a hypothetical deity that pre-forgives all the sins of mankind. God knew Hitler was going to gas the Jews and God knew that Dahmer was going to eat those people, and he still sent Jesus to die for all of our sins? Supposing that Hitler or Dahmer had some victims who did not subscribe to the appropriate religion, and therefore never had the opportunity to ask Jesus for forgiveness – so they get sent to hell while their murderers get to spend eternity in paradise? This is the objective morality that Christians are so proud of?
This is not the case, nor has it been for any human being throughout history. Oh, someone might have told you that God laid out the requirements, but why believe them? If I told you that I just recently had a conversation with God, and he told me that Scientology was the one true path, would you believe me? If you expect me to take what you say seriously about God, don’t you have to take seriously what I have to say about God?
If God wants to give me the ‘requirements, benefits, and consequences,’ then he can get his ass down here and tell them to me himself. He’s omnipotent, ain’t he? Why should I have to hear about all this Christianity stuff through a bunch of intermediaries?
If this is about my salvation and my relationship with God, wouldn’t I be leaving myself up to exploitation if I just started taking other people’s word for it?
If God wants to give me the ‘requirements, benefits, and consequences,’ then he can get his ass down here and tell them to me himself.
Which He already did. Remember? You cited it yourself.
God knew Hitler was going to gas the Jews and God knew that Dahmer was going to eat those people, and he still sent Jesus to die for all of our sins?
Interestingly enough, in His time here, Jesus pointed out the fallacy of trying to deal with individuals like yourself.
Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.
“Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.
“The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’
“But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’
“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’
“But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’
“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’
“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Luke 16:19-31
And as your postings here have repeatedly confirmed, you don’t even recognize basic facts; it’s hard to believe you would recognize the supernatural when the natural and real even eludes you.
If I told you that I just recently had a conversation with God, and he told me that Scientology was the one true path, would you believe me?
Frankly, I don’t really care.
If you knew anything about Christianity, Levi. you would recognize that the main person’s soul for whom you are held responsible is your own. As V the K and TGC aptly pointed out above, we cannot know the condition of the soul, only the behavior.
You, for some reason, are paranoid that anyone might disagree with you, which is why you and your fellow liberals conduct your regular witch-burnings. You seem singularly incapable of accepting viewpoints other than your own — and amusingly, you project your own bigotry onto others.
Is that what I have to look forward to in heaven? Meeting Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer?
I wouldn’t worry about it. No definite reason, but I get the strong sense it won’t be a problem for you.
And finally, let’s deal with the biggest lie and hypocrisy of all from you, Levi.
People don’t ‘listen’ to God, they’re put through a battery of psychological trauma from early childhood that makes them fearful and obedient to a horrifying imaginary friend.
You see, Levi, this is why we’re laughing at you so uproariously.
We know quite well that you support and endorse this so-called “psychological trauma” and what you term to be child abuse when the correct people are doing it.
Isn’t that funny, Levi? You scream that anyone who talks about doing the “Lord’s will” is a theocrat, and anyone who talks about “spirits” or prays to them is a superstitious and ignorant child abuser, especially when they brag about how often they attended church — except, of course, when it’s your Messiah Obama doing it.
That’s what makes bigots like you so hilarious and foolish looking, Levi. Everyone can see that you’re not consistent; you’re just a hatemongering and racist bigot.
First, I’d like to throw out the little tid-bit that Dahmer was a lib. Just sayin’.
Nobody said anything about your worthiness. NONE of us are worthy. When you accept that, you’re pretty much ready to listen. Sometimes we forget and we don’t hear because we don’t listen either. I can only say that when one is blinded and deafened by their arrogance and hate, like you display here, you’re not gonna hear anything.
What’s more, you can’t demand God speak to you and he may not answer when you want him to. He will answer, though.
I grew up Presbyterian (PCA). When I was in high school, I started going to the Baptist church, occasionally, because they had a larger youth program. I didn’t ask, but my mother told me that if I wanted to join the Baptist church, she thought I was old enough to make that decision on my own and she was fine with it. Where’s the indoctrination? And if we were traumatized, I sure didn’t know it due to my short attention span. I do know that there was nothing hostile or scary about it.
I sure miss the family night suppers, though. This older lady always made a yellow sheet cake with a home made caramel icing that was to die for. That and the church picnics to Rocky Springs and the retreat trips to Brevard, NC. That “forcing” us to go skiing or rafting on the Nantahala River was terrifying, I tell you what. But I digress.
If you make it to Heaven and Dahmer and Hitler are there, you won’t care. All your cares and worries that you have in this life will be gone. Further, it’s not up to us to decide or care about who gets in. It’s human nature to speculate or approve/disapprove but, ultimately, it ain’t up to us.
Here’s a hint: If I’m not mistaken, He’s talking to you now. Will you listen, or will you expend that energy in your usual search for your next obnoxious comment?
Ooops. Forgot to add that if you told me that God said that Scientology was the way to go, I’d believe you. That’s not to say that I have to agree with you. Ultimately, that’s between you and God. I don’t agree with V’s Mormon beliefs or Dr. Dan & Leah’s Judaism etc., but I really don’t care. That’s their thing. I do find the practices and similarities interesting though.
Poppycock. If that were true, I would be of the same denomination as my parents, but I’m not. I converted to a faith some members of my own family find weird and unacceptable.
“Listening to God” doesn’t mean, necessarily, literally listening for a voice to tell you what to think. It can also mean studying scripture, than paying close attention to the world around you and seeing and understanding its applicability and truth.
Granted, this approach takes a lot of discipline and commitment and requires one to be centered on something other than one’s own wants; which is probably why so many on the progressive secular left find it impossible.
It’s also abundantly clear from the discussion that I, NDT, and the Livewire understand evolution and astrophysics much more deeply than Levi understands Christianity; yet he still pontificates on it as though his ignorance of the subject were something to be proud of.
Perhaps, V the K, the saddest part is Levi does really bring forth the cliche that we all see ourselves in the Divine.
He wants a deity who kisses his knee when he scrapes it, who wraps him in bubble wrap and protects him from everything.
Since the Divine doesn’t work that way, he goes off and sulks like a petulant child and demands someone do these things.
I’m still waiting for his answer to when the ‘Arabians’ evolve to understand democracy.
Levi is a typical self-centered liberal; he wants God to worship him.
That’s fine. At least I can still recognize him as a terrible murderer – you worship a God who doesn’t care that he ate people. And Christians claim to be experts on morality?
Arrogance… you think I can even come close to approaching religious levels of arrogance? You’re claiming to be able to communicate with the creator of the universe, and I’m the arrogant one?
How do you know all this? Why should I believe you?
What do you mean where’s the indoctrination? You said it yourself – you grew up Presbyterian. From a young age, you were surrounded by people that believed all this silly stuff, so you started believing it, too. That’s how religions replenish their ranks; they get to work on you before any of your upper thinking faculties develop and they exploit the bond that young children have with their families. You don’t really have a choice in the process.
Oh, as for the conversion… I don’t really have time to learn all the differences between all of your little sects – you’re all just Christians to me. I don’t know anything about Presbyterians. Baptists get some water splashed on their head, right?
…
So if I make it to heaven, I will be a stranger to myself? I can expect to become a completely different person that doesn’t care whether or not other people were horrible monsters on this planet… why should I like the sound of that? If upon death, you’re transformed so wholly and completely, what is the point of this plane of existence anyway? You’re passing out lectures on responsibility, and yet here you are saying that nothing that I do, good or evil, matters in the end… why would I want that to be true?
Maybe that’s why Levi can’t answer when ‘Arabians’ will evolve to understand democracy. He himself hasn’t evolved enough to understand that his creator doesn’t cater to his every whim.
#53
Well it does show how liberal ‘intellectuals’ like “The Constitution can only be amended for what I feel are good reasons” Levi try to ignore or shout down any dissenting beliefs, making academia hostile to conservatives.
Levi’s main problem is that he is so intellectually limited he can’t comprehend other points of view, so he reduces them to simplistic caricatures: e.g.
– Christians: self-righteous, ignorant, and dumb.
– Arabs: brown, primitive, incapable of democracy
– Republicans: hate gays, love war
Complex thought and insight seem to be above his pay grade.
V to the K,
What you said earlier about astrophysics:
That’s my understanding of the current theory as well, so how is your statement that your understanding of it is better than mine in any way justified?
The issue seems to be your poor understanding of what a scientific theory is. No one is saying that dark matter exists for sure, but it certainly makes sense given the information we have. As I said earlier, there are ongoing efforts to test that hypothesis with better telescopes, experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, better equations, etc. I don’t expect that question will be resolved in our lifetime, human beings might never figure it out. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad theory.
Here is what you said about evolution;
Whatever you want to call that, it is not an understanding of evolution. That’s a strawman that religious people use. Find a biologist, describe evolution to them that way, and they will tell you the same thing.
Roberto @ #53 asks a great question:
From a Jesuit standpoint, nothing. The Jesuit keeps his faith and explores the mysteries with great curiosity.
For the liberals who overrun academia, evolution has overcome faith and is scientific certainty. Well, now really. There is evolution, which the Pope acclaims, and there is evolution theory which stretches wide and far, even to the theory of eugenics and Planned Parenthood clincs for the eradication of excess clumps of cells. But, you may not doubt the theory. To doubt the theory is to believe in God and his Lego blocks and all the smoke and bells and mystery voodoo of the Holy Spook and myth based religion.
Evolution theory is a prime example of “Uncle Bob science.” Uncle Bob sees a lemur sitting on a pitcher plant and crapping into it because the pitcher plant nectar the lemur is licking off the pitcher plant makes him want to poop while it also sustains him. Then, since Uncle Bob wants to make it a case of evolution, he develops a mystery tale to make it so.
It stands to reason, you see, that the pitcher plant would evolve to perfectly fit the lemur butt and put nectar at the right height for lemur licking. It make even more perfect sense that over the span of time that the pitcher plant was evolving, the lemur did not evolve and grow a bigger butt or move on to planting and harvesting peanuts.
Niche adaptation is curiously dependent upon one component not evolving while another does. But, those are Jesuit musings, not liberal academic evolution theory “science.”
Academia is the home of “progressive” thinking where “progressive” templates are placed over law, literature, the arts, history, science, philosophy, etc. Your colleagues are so liberal that they see the Trotskyites among them as conservative. As a conservative, you choose whether to engage them and endure endless ignoring of facts or topic shifting or name calling or team snobbery. You choose to be a chuckle wit in silence and tend to your own knitting.
But that leaves the Holy Grail of evolution theory unchallenged. And that destroys the meaning of the university system.
To be clear, it is not all about evolution theory. That is just such a delicious stick to use when roasting the liberal marshmallow. How about talking about “social justice” or “diversity” or about the “rules” of deciding great literature or what is “journalism” or a thousand other indefinable scores liberals ache over and want to settle?
Levi is a poster child for the true believer in liberal doxology while never understanding it is his religion, his faith, his anchor.
As Levi backpeddals, he tried to use this very argument, and got it wrong.
So which is it, Levi? Theory you tried to argue and got wrong, or strawman.
“Strawman (n) = Argument Levi fails to apply correctly.”
Wow, that reads just like this.
“The issue seems to be your poor understanding of what a scientific theory is. No one is saying that
dark matter exists for sureGod exists, but it certainly makes sense given the information we have.”Of course we don’t have absolute proof the Divine exists, we just know His presense.
Oh, wait…
Damn preview function.
I just proved I can’t keep track of my HTML tags too.
My actual statement was that I understood astrophysics better than you understood Christianity. Reading comprehension… try it sometime.
Nor did I claim that my box example was a complete explanation of evolution; rather it illustrated the long odds against random elements randomly combining to form a working organism; which is the starting point for anything that follows in evolution.
If your starting point for the debate on this thread was that “Conservativism is about … walling off curiosity, ignoring problems, and suppressing inconvenient information,” your last several posts seem to exhibit the precise behavior you claim to decry.
Also, Livewire, the only reason dark matter is said to exist is because scientists have imbued it with the precise set of properties needed to fill the holes in their models of the universe.
Just saying that, for example, the Red Wings need a right-handed goalie, 6’3″ 210 pounds with a a .950 SV% and 2.5 GAA… does not prove that such a person actually exists.
“It’s not that our friends on the Left don’t know enough, It’s just that so much of what they know is WRONG” ~ Ronald Reagan
Do you think President Reagan knew Levi?
#72 Heliotrope
Thanks. However, to get back to the topic of this thread I think everyone should read my comment #24. I believe I have offered an assessment as to why there is a a paucity of conservatives on campus and have made some suggestions as to how we can change the situation. As for Levi, he and the libtards who invaded the site before him and those who will come after him should be ignored. Why be baited? You can´t confuse them with the facts; their minds are already made up. They will not see the light Ignoring them is the fastest way to get of them. I´ve seen it too many times on this blog where libs come in and jousting takes everybody off topic. We could have had a real investigation into this topic. I would have liked to have read other conservatives opinions and observations as to why the paucity and suggestions to remedy the situation.
Roberto,
Reading 24, I’m not thinking it’s a matter so much of ‘wanting to start at the top’ as it is not wanting to deal with the crap at the lower levels.
To use the oft maligned Sarah Palin as an example, she didn’t wake up one day and decide she watned to run for Governour of Alaska. She started as a mayor in a (fairly) small town.
Also, I think there is a contradiction in Conservatives in government. We (as a whole) want a smaller government. Running to get to the head of Leviathan, only to try to lop that head off, takes a true beleiver (TM) few people could weather that storm.
I’m planning to try to get on my Condo association board this year, that starting small enough fro you? 😉
That’s another little slice of religious propaganda you’re forced to rely on because you have nothing else. Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide moral justification for abortion or eugenics and it never has.
Oh you can doubt it all you want, just don’t expect to be taken seriously if you want to spout off about how untrue it is without providing any justifiable reasons or alternative explanations.
You can offer up an alternative any time you like. The ‘Uncle Bob’ explanation that you’re so quick to dismiss is undoubtedly supported by genetic evidence, and I can conceive of a half dozen experiments where we could probably introduce any number of anatomical variations in the plant that. Would you like the plant to eat cat poop? It could probably be done, it could probably be done within our lifetimes.
Plants are easy, plants can change very quickly. Do you know that bananas didn’t always look the way they do today? Do you know that corn and wheat looked completely different at the dawn of agriculture than they do today? Plants can evolve extremely rapidly, do you know anything about the history of agriculture at all?
What’s curious about it? That’s exactly how evolution works, and we know the exact process. During reproduction, DNA strands make copies of themselves, and there are random errors in the translation process. Most of the time, these errors don’t impact the well-being of the animal relative to their parents, sometimes they change it negatively, and occasionally they confer some kind of reproductive advantage. The changes in the genes is what natural selection is working on, and so yes, niche adaptation is dependent upon one component changing while others do not. The vast majority of your genes are identical to your parents, but a few of them are not.
When we’re talking about copying the millions of bits of information that make up our DNA, errors are inevitable, and so there is nothing ‘curious’ about it. Your ‘Jesuit musings’ are desperate attempts to sound reasonable and accept undeniable evidence while arbitrarily ignoring some crucial part of the theory so that you can shoehorn religion into the equation.
And again, simply calling it curious while offering no alternative for how the process works is a complete waste of time.
And what do we end with? Again – no alternative explanations, no reason to doubt the evolutionary explanation for the lemur and the plant, just a few whiny paragraphs about not being taken seriously enough by your coworkers. Here we go again with the Christian/conservative persecution complex, woe is me, I-got-picked-last-in-gym-class….
By my count, 100% of the scientific data we’ve gathered since the theory of evolution was first introduced has been compatible with the initial premise. A theory based almost exclusively on anatomical observations has been corroborated entirely by the fields of paleontology, biology, chemistry, embryology, geology, genetics, etc. In 150 years, we’ve learned more about our bodies and the planet and the universe than we did in all the previous centuries, so if you want to walk around at an institution of higher learning and be a martyr for creationism or whatever, more power to you, but you have not been able to point out any flaws in the theory and you have not been able to present an alternative theory that makes nearly as much sense. Nobody cares if you want to believe in magic and fairies that no one can see or touch, but you shouldn’t expect to be treated like an intellectual equal if you think that’s more convincing than almost 2 centuries worth of undisputed scientific data.
So you think you understand Christianity better than I do? I guess that depends on your definition of understanding. I suppose you do probably know more about the various Christian sects, and you can probably quote more Bible verses than I can, but as an outsider with no horse in the religion race, I’m pretty sure that I have a better understanding of religion in general as a political and historical institution. Now what’s more important? Knowing more about a particular religion’s rules on premarital sex, or knowing more about how religion has shaped the development of human civilization?
I don’t know buddy, you seemed awfully dismissive the way you started – ‘As for evolution…’ – and then you describe something that isn’t like evolution at all.
The odds argument is terribly boring. Do you know what the odds are that you or I would ever have a conversation on something called the internet? Infinitesimal. I think I’ve said it before in this thread, you’re only amplifying the odds and making them more remote by positing a supernatural layer of the universe and an omnipotent, omniscient superbeing that controls everything.
What are you referring to? I’m walling off curiosity because I don’t want to indulge a bunch of religious nonsense like ‘you should start listening to God?’ That’s not exactly the same thing I was referring to. There are all sorts of absurd, fancy, make-believe scenarios I could conjure up, and I wouldn’t accuse you of ‘walling off curiosity’ if you decided not to take them seriously. I’d understand that you weren’t interested in wasting your times with someone else’s delusional fantasies. You, clearly, can’t do the same.
Poor Levi,
You can not fathom a scientist who is deeply engaged in the theories of evolution and who has unshakeable belief in God, can you?
You can not fathom the essence of curiosity without having a probable explanation which you can not prove.
You can not see an observable fact without satisfying your itch to explain it by your undying faith in possible scenario solutions which you then brand as “science.”
I trust real science more than you do. I respect the scientific method. I enjoy science fiction where dreamers postulate and what they postulate sometimes occurs.
If you could only tighten up your use of the word “evolution” you would actually begin to sound a bit educated. But like all liberals, you take a solid word like “racism” and you morph it into an all purpose elastic concept that will cover any political need of the moment in your discourse. That is what you do with “evolution” which you use as a battering ram to “disprove” religion.
You are really narrow-minded about excluding religion from the minds of “intelligent” humans and then you leap over the bounds of evolution as science and you go worship the theories with a religious vigor.
Thanks for your story on bananas. I assure you I am entirely acquainted with Mendel’s laws of inheritance, genetics, dominance, meiosis, assortment, etc. and Linnaean taxonomy and the DNA troubles in race classification and the studies of niche adaptation and the scientific method.
I have listened to Oprah and Sigourney Weaver banter on the BBC Planet Earth films about how birds have cleverly evolved feather patterns to fool their prey, etc. Evolutionist clap-trap spews out everywhere liberals prattle about scientific mystery and curiosity in their Godless world. They always do their Uncle Bob explanation just as if they can totally prove and demonstrate the theory. It is like sucking your thumb, it doesn’t produce anything, but you get satisfaction from it.
Now, go play with your fruit flies and evolve one to eat pine needles. The coniferous forests are sadly lacking in things that eat astoundingly abundant pine needles.
Your god of evolution theory beckons you. You must go out among the infidel and beat their false faith out of them. You must win one for the Darwinists. Jihad is the game and you are serious. You are an “elite” intellectual on the path of truth and righteousness which you must set before us for all the days of our lives. Boundless evolution theory is the true god, even if it is only theory and probably unprovable. After all, it a “scientific” theory and all scientific “facts” are permanent and immutable. Or not.
What do you think man is evolving into? Or don’t your scientific theories work that direction?
Levi is starting to melt down as he confronts the holes in his “progressive” religion, I see.
Evolutionary theory doesn’t provide moral justification for abortion or eugenics and it never has.
Of course it does, Levi. Remember your previous statements?
It would be more accurate if after each shake, you opened the box and kept the parts that more closely resembled a watch and discarded the ones that did not.
Humans have domesticated a few dozen of species of animals (I shouldn’t have to list these), and other animals have adapted to our changing civilization like pigeons and rats.
For abortionists like yourself, Levi, you support the removal of “undesirables” from society. Indeed, your primary argument for killing babies is because that way poor people don’t have to spend money on them. There are analogous examples throughout biology where old, sick, deformed, or otherwise “unwanted” creatures are left helpless and exposed to save resources.
And do you even know what eugenics is? Selective breeding and population control, same as humans did in the domestication process. Keep the desirable traits, breed those with desirable traits, and prevent from breeding or otherwise eliminate the undesirable ones.
You yourself cited this as an example of evolutionary theory at work, Levi. And since, according to evolutionary theory, man is just another animal and has no more value or worth than any other animal, there is no justifiable reason that you could not engage in the same sort of selective breeding and elimination of undesirables that you do with cats and dogs.
Indeed, what makes you and your fellow progressives so perverse, Levi, is that you have hissy fits over the number of dogs and cats being euthanized in shelters even as you send millions of infants to their deaths annually for being unwanted. You value animal lives more than you do human ones.
Funny how Levi’s ran away from his Dark Matter gods.
Then again, Levi always runs away from things he can’t understand. Helitrope beats him with science, V the K trumps him with Theology, and I just use his own words and laugh.
Oh and as for this howler…
A lot of of sources disagree.
Oh wait, those are hyperlinks. Every time we post those, Levi runs away.
One more
Piltdown Man was part of the Evolution theory until 1953. So either Levi includes it in his 100%, or he can’t count.
Though he still won’t answer when ‘Arabians’ will evolve to understand democracy.
And even more examples of the ignorance of the silly boy Levi.
Do you know that corn and wheat looked completely different at the dawn of agriculture than they do today?
And what happened at that point, Levi?
Someone took over and manipulated the process to get to a specific outcome through selective breeding, eugenics, and domestication.
And guess what, Levi? Isn’t it amazing how fast things can change when you have someone in place overseeing it all? The changes that you mention would have taken hundreds of millions of years to occur naturally, and in fact had not happened by hundreds of millions of years passing — but then, with one educated touch, massive change became possible in mere decades, even within same growing seasons.
Your using that argument makes more sense in the context of intelligent design than it does in comparing it to pure evolutionary theory.
Heliotrope
Sarah Palin took a good route. Good luck on your campaign to get on the board of your condo association. why not go for more, like your county central committee, Where we have very little representation are on the school boards and community college boards. Democrats, if they´re not community organizers, they´re on the those boards and that´s where they hone their skills. MOre than that they are responsible for the revisionism, the political correctness for minority students, and anti-Americanis. There have many examples, the school that displays the mexican flag on Mexican Independence Day but won´t allow the pledge of allegiance to American flag and send students home to change patriotic t-shirts. because it´s offensive. Of course no criticism of islam is allowed while christianity is trashed.
Why is there a paucity of conservatism on college campuses? It´s becasue we have allowed to happen by not being in positions to where our POV can be respectfully presented.
I’m the one running for the association Roberto.
In all honesty? I’m tainted goods for any thing visible. Twice divorced, still tangentally involved with the BDSM scene. “It’s easier coming out of the closet than the dungeon.”
Shorter Levi: “Damn right I’m ignorant of Christianity, but I’m still going to lecture everybody on how awful and stupid it is.”
I know they’re out there. I don’t really care what you believe so long as you don’t run around playing it like a trump card.
What’s the problem with that?
Oh yeah – it doesn’t leave any opening for me to take seriously your claims about the supernatural. Oh well…
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I have to ‘tighten up’ my use of the word evolution? Huh?
And damn right it’s a battering ram to disprove religion. People have always wondered where we came from, and religion always exploited that opening gleefully. Now that we’ve figured out what really happened, you’re having a cry and pout, because that’s one less toehold. You don’t have much left except to offer the false consolation of eternal life and reunification with all of your loved ones – which is so plainly an exercise in wish fulfillment that I can’t imagine it will work for much longer.
This is always ironic to me – you’re accusing me of having a religious vigor and you intend it as an insult? Of course there’s nothing religious about it, because there is all that annoying evidence. I don’t just read Origin of Species and ‘listen’ to Darwin’s ghost, I can go to a museum and see the bones of animals that died millions of years ago, or I can read a study about some genetic discovery that might help eliminate cancer or Alzheimer’s Disease. Evolution is a proven commodity and there’s no need to have a religious faith in it, and to have a religious person accuse me of doing that is just absurd.
Oh are you?
Yes, that’s right. The theory of evolution underpins our understanding of biology and modern medicine, but it doesn’t produce anything! You heard it here first everyone, this evolutionary theory stuff is just some mindless preoccupation like stamp-collecting and watching porn, you might as well do something productive with your time like wailing into the sky and speaking in tongues!
I’ll ask again – where is your alternate hypothesis? How did birds and insects get their camouflage if it wasn’t through evolution? Come on buddy, if you can dismiss all this evolutionary stuff as gobbledygook, if it’s ‘Uncle Bob’ explanations and ‘claptrap,’ then how is it happening?
It’s just a better explanation than… well, whatever your explanation is. You seem petrified at the prospect of explaining what you think is really happening. Did Noah march the animals onto the ark two by two?
Shouldn’t we go with what makes the most sense, with what has the most evidence?
Why wouldn’t they work in that direction?
Assuming we don’t exterminate ourselves in a nuclear holocaust (which is the safe bet), we’ll probably start getting smaller in stature as the world population continues to grow. I’d also guess that there won’t be as much variance in skin color since there will be fewer and fewer isolated breeding populations. The compendium of knowledge that the internet provides and its speed and availability will probably have an effect on our brains, for better or for worse. Climate change might make us hairier or more hairless.
I don’t know man. But you know what? We’ll find out, won’t we? Like I said before, give the human race another ten thousand years, and I would expect to see some significant anatomical trends in the species. I wouldn’t expect to see any Christians walking around though – Jesus would be an antique novelty at that point in the same way that the Roman and Greek gods are to us today.
Or wait – the apocalypse is probably going to happen before that, right?
So, there you have it! Levi insists on an alternative theory with which he can do battle. Well, Levi, I don’t have one because my faith in God does not require one. That does not mean I would not make a good scientist involved in genetics and the theory of evolution. I can do that and have faith in God.
I read Kipling’s Just So Stories as a lad and I like those explanations more than your dry tale about the lemur’s butt and the pitcher plant’s determined adaptation.
As to Noah’s Ark, can you think of a grander, more energizing story than that one? It is full of lessons, hope, and significance. Jonah and the great fish is another one. I really like the walls of Babylon and its true ancient Hebrew meaning. From Darwin, we get Margaret Sanger and ovens at Dachau. Not that Darwin caused that or had any personal connection with what lunatics did, but Darwin’s theories fed the darkest side of many “scientists” who created the most horrible tragedies of the Third Reich. I would posit that “survival of the fittest” has done far greater harm in the hands of theorists than Noah’s Ark ever set loose.
So, Levi, here is a problem for you: the Shroud of Turin. If there was ever a place for science to triumph, that is certainly the place. The Pope does not stake his Papacy on it, but “science” can not destroy its possible authenticity. A Jesuit would encourage “science” to keep trying. Not because the Jesuit wants to see the legend collapse, but because the Jesuit values the wonders of honest science. Meanwhile, the same Jesuit marvels in the wonder of mystery and the strength of faith.
That should be plenty enough for you to sputter and scoff at. Except I still want to know why you won’t go man-made global warming consensus scientist and give us your best evolution theory prediction of the future. After all, scientific fact undergirds the laws of science. What are the laws of evolution?
The Levi meltdown just gets more and more entertaining.
First, Levi was claiming that evolutionary theory didn’t have anything to do with religious belief.
Now he’s acknowledging that he’s using evolutionary theory to attack religious belief, even though he previously acknowledged that doing so was completely unscientific and irrational.
Shows how unscientific and unintelligent Levi is.
Alternate theory? There are really only two.
1. Defying odds greater than those of hitting the Powerball every week for a thousand years, the universe popped into existence out of nothing and happened to have physical laws within a very narrow range of tolerance that permitted matter to exist, that then produced elements with specific properties that enabled them to combine in ways that eventually and totally randomly resulted in life that happened to randomly evolve on a planet with a very narrow range of characteristics (existing at the triple point of water, having a large moon to stabilize its axis and a strong enough magnetic field to provide protection from solar radiation), and through an improbable series of geological and biological events somehow produced human life as we know it.
2. Or, you can believe that some higher power ordained the foregoing to happen.
I don’t see any alternative to those two points of view. Either one of which requires you to believe in miracles, and neither of which can be definitively proven. So, whatever side you come down is purely choice.
Sorry, Livewire. So you´va had a past but it´s not stopping Newt. If your worried about baggage, your County Central Committee won´t care. Being on the committee is an open door to to higher offices you don´t have do that. One of the duties is to find candidates and from experience on the committee, we never had a candidate run for a school board post or community college board. If I were back in the U.S.A. I would do it. All I can do from El Salvador is sign petitions that come to me via e-mail and vote absentee. I live across the road from La Fuerza Aerea de El Salvador. I´ve invited Barak Obama to my home for a beer or Pepsi should he land there. I have a few things I would like to tell him to his face. I invited GW Bush but his plane landed at Comalapa Internatonal 40 miles away.
Also, I saw a program (Naked Archaeologist?) where they said that there’s barely physical proof of crucifixion, but we know from written history that it was a widespread form of execution. There’s a museum or university in Israel that has a bone fragment that seems to have been pierced by the type of nail that was used, and that’s supposedly the only physical evidence.
ND30,
and we’ve also learned Levi will just ignore inconvenient facts that get in his way.
And then when called out on his contradictions, people expect him to be taken seriously.
Roberto, let me survive the condo association first, then we’ll see about pestering city council. 🙂
Wow…I’ve spent the last few hours reading all of these comments and I love it!
As a 37yo gay libertarian, I can tell you this….
I was raised a Catholic…went to church every Sunday as a kid…first communion, confirmation…you name it, I did it. Was very active in my church community, volunteered, youth group, etc….even though I knew I was gay from an early age, I never felt any animosity from anyone in my church. For me, I was happy to participate because church was a big part of my small town, growing up experience.
To this day, even though I consider myself an agnostic, I still have the utmost respect for believers. I often recite this quote to my “atheist” friends (most of whom have no real idea what the word “atheist” really means, it’s just a convenient label for them) when we get into these debates…”Just as theology has never been able to prove the existence of God, science has never been able to disprove it.”
Few of them can ever come up with a coherent defense to my argument. It amazes me that people who claim to be so “open-minded”, like Levi, are so hell bent in their belief that no God exists.
I don’t care either way. It is what it is. But I’d rather fight our REAL enemies (i.e. the Islamists) vs the FRC. Just sayin.
It seems simple to me. If God exists, then there is an external, objective, implacable judge of right and wrong. This prospect is horrifying to people who want to make up their own rules based on greed, selfishness, situational ethics, and false moral equivalence. Hence, it must be fought tooth and claw.
See also: Bill Maher
Shorter version: Levi denies God because he knows God would never fall for his bullsh-t.
The other curious thing about Levi is, he refuses to believe in God in the absence of definitive, undeniable proof of His existence. But on the other hand, Levi has absolute, unquestioning faith in socialism; an economic philosophy that has been proven to fail utterly everywhere it has been tried.
What’s so unreasonable about that? If you insist on criticizing evolutionary theory with vague and shifty rhetoric, I would expect you to have something reasonable to present as an alternative. Obviously, you don’t.
And I am the one that gets the lectures about being accountable and taking responsibility for myself? What a complete cop-out. Is there anything you couldn’t justify by flatly asserting that your faith doesn’t make it a requirement?
Again – this is all fine so long as you don’t walk around playing your religion like a trump card, which you’re doing.
We’ve arrived at last – the conflict between religion and science. Science strives to be accurate, you’re just looking to be entertained.
Noah’s Ark is a cutesy thing that Christians go after kids with. What’s ignored is that God has a hissy fit and decides to wipe out humanity, but Jesus loves me!
I don’t disagree that there are warped individuals who can turn anything into justification for evil. But religion is way ahead on that score. I know you guys like to pretend that Hitler was an atheist, he wasn’t. But even if he was, it would say nothing about the question of God’s existence or the veracity of evolutionary theory. Being an atheist and accepting the theory of evolution is no more a predictor of somebody’s moral inclanations than being a Bible-thumping fundamentalist.
Is that a problem? It’s a piece of cloth. It was dated to the Middle Ages. Religious officials won’t let scientists further examine it, which is somewhat understandable given its age and delicacy. How is this a problem to the atheist or evolutionist, exactly?
I gave a little list, but speculating about where evolution takes our species is impossible. There are trillions of variables to consider today and the future holds trillions more. I could predict all kinds of things, and if a meteor hits the planet, or if the ocean levels rise, or if there is a nuclear war, all of that is out the window. It’s a pointless exercise.
What are the laws of evolution? If there is a gap, it will be filled. New opportunities will be exploited by new species. Organisms have been trending towards increasing complexity, that will likely continue. What are you looking for here?
Oh, there’s way more. You’ll see…
Yes. There’s evidence that this is exactly what occured, and there isn’t much more to say than we’re all incredibly lucky. Of course, in a universe made up of billions of galaxies, each of which as billions of stars, many of which are surrounded by planets, the long odds that life would develop somewhere don’t seem quite so long. And as I said before, all you’re doing by postulating a supernatural creator for the above-described universe is reducing the probablity even further.
This is where it gets fun; by your standard, an alternative theory requires no evidence and really can be just any made up story. This could keep you busy for the rest of your life.
3. We’re all in the Matrix.
4. The universe exists in the teardrop of a giant, celestial, pink unicorn.
5. Leprechauns are responsible.
6. Maybe I’m the only real human being, and the rest of you are projections.
7. Maybe we were all created five minutes ago with a lifetime of false memories.
8. I am God.
9. Satan created the universe.
10. We are an intergalactic reality TV show and every animal is a representative from another planet. (I stole this from South Park)
11. This planet was terraformed by aliens and we are those aliens’ offspring
12. Santa is the one true God.
Gee, unburdend by any requirement to provide evidence for one’s claims, attributing the universe to some magic, undetectable force can really get out of hand quickly….
Then you’re pretty uncreative.
Two things.
1. Morality is an evolved characteristic that helps our species survive. Behavior like rape and murder were counterproductive to group cohesion, and so the genes that make us more predisposed to those kinds of behaviors were bred out of us. You’re begging the question if you assert that there has to be an external, objective moral law – that simply isn’t required. Animals display morality, sometimes animals display interspecies morality, or do you think that God gives dogs an external, objective moral code? If so, how do dogs learn it?
Morality is as easily explained by evolutionary theory as are physical characterisics like eyes and opposable thumbs.
2. I’ve brought this up before and can’t remember if you specifically addressed it, but from my perspective on the Christian faith, it seems that the only prossible moral choice that a human being can make is to believe in the Christian God. I used the example of Jeffrey Dahmer earlier – he became a born-again Christian in prison, and because of this, his earlier sins of rape and murder are completely forgiven.
And you say that I’m the one that wants to create my own sets of rules?
My set of rules, by the way, is that we are extremely lucky to be here, we have one life to live, and that we should take care of each other. But for Christians, this plane of existence is basically spring training, where nothing matters and people can literally get away with committing murder so long as they eventually get around to kneeling and begging before God. That’s what you call morality?
That’s not so much an argument as it is a conversation-ender.
You know, back in the days before science was invented, people used to go around claiming that all sorts of things proved their religion. Earthquakes and hurricanes were explained as God’s wrath, diseases and sicknesses were explained as the will of God, droughts and floods was a manifestion of God’s anger at his people…. this is how religion propagated. That was probably a pretty convincing argument when people didn’t know about weather cycles and plate tectonics. Hundreds of years later, science has crashed that little party and provided actual explanations based on evidence, and religious arguments have started to take on this last resort ‘You can’t disprove it!’ kind of position that isn’t really an argument at all.
And why? Because there is an almost infinite amount of stuff that we can’t disprove. You can’t disprove that leprechauns exist, does that mean we should believe in leprechauns? You can’t disprove that there is an island somewhere with dinosaurs still living on it, should we believe that? You can’t disprove that there is a teapot orbiting earth halfway between our planet and the moon, can you? You can’t disprove that the color that you recognize as yellow, I recognize as purple, so is that a safe bet?
You see how quickly things devolve into absurdity if you rely on that line of reasoning. People like evidence, and people generally want some evidence if they’re going to believe in something, we’re kind of programmed for it. In the past, religious leaders could use earthquakes as evidence of their religious claims, and that put butts in the seats. Science is such a thorn in the side of religion because as time goes on, science keeps taking away those really convincing arguments that religions used to trade in. Religion has gone from making lots of very specific claims to being completely vague and relying on rhetorical tricks and emotional appeals.
Sorry, but that ace up your sleeve you thought you had was actually a Pokemon card. Is that a coherent response?
My set of rules, by the way, is that we are extremely lucky to be here, we have one life to live, and that we should take care of each other.
If you really believed that, you wouldn’t be wasting your life writing long hateful diatribes against belief systems you don’t even bother to learn anything about.
Levi,
Evolution is a fact. It is a very narrow fact. There is much theory being explored. The theory is not fact. The theory is “best guess.” The theory is reason made reasonable. Theory is a postulation. Theory is like the planet Pluto. It is subject to change as new facts are uncovered. Theory is based on evidence. A preponderance of evidence leads to a likely case scenario, but not scientific fact.
What part of this do you wish to quibble over or massage? Here is part two:
Uncle Bob science is when you accept the theory as whole cloth and you explain anything and everything by way of the theory. That does not make the explanation correct and scientific. It makes it a “reasonable” and reasoned cause and effect best guess. That is what you came up with in your lemur and pitcher plant Uncle Bob “science.” You feel smart and satisfied. Good for you.
Other minds than yours are able to accept wonder and mystery. They are able to explore the mystery and discover its elements and solve the puzzle. That is the wonder of the human mind. Man’s invention of mathematics has allowed man to solve incredible, complex mysteries. So far, however, man has not been able to create a human brain out of stuff in a lab. “Reasonably” we should be able to do that. We should be able to mix chemicals and stuff and create a cockroach. We should be able to manage climate change we don’t like. We should be able to create self renewing batteries. We should be able to figure out how to swallow ourselves whole. Or am I being “unreasonable” in this? Probably. So where is the “scientific” line between reasonable and unreasonable? Why is God an unreasonable possibility?
(By the way, you mixed Noah’s Ark of the Old Testament with the love of Jesus of the New Testament: Noah’s Ark is a cutesy thing that Christians go after kids with. What’s ignored is that God has a hissy fit and decides to wipe out humanity, but Jesus loves me! The difference between the two books of the Christian Bible is stark and fundamental as any Christian can tell you. Even Jews understand it. You seem not to.)
(By the way, again. You went to the one-sided data on the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps you will permit no open mind on your part on this topic. Just the same, try this site: http://www.shroud.com/ you should at least enjoy the science and the mystery. It ought to really gall you and get you working on proving the hoax and how it was accomplished.)
I get the distinct impression that Levi believes that hating Christians and voting for Democrats is all he needs to do to put him on a higher moral plane than Christians who volunteer to work with the elderly, run soup kitchens, participate in prison ministries, or adopt special needs kids.
Levi scolds the “evolution” of religion thus:
First, Levi is so anti-religion, he is flat out dumb about it.
Secondly, religion “evolved” as human knowledge grew. Unfortunately, Levi gets religion and creation myth all mixed up. He concentrates on the myth and relegates “creation” to Darwin.
The Old Testament is astounding for its understanding of the complexity of human interaction and the psychology of man. The Old Testament has all of the answers in a way that no other book does. It clearly deals with the virtues and the vices and leaves nothing undiscovered. The New Testament lays out the ways to handle our virtues and vices and provides a perfect model. The life and death of Jesus had more impact on the growth and improvement of human civilization than any other man or woman who ever walked on earth. (Disprove that last statement, Levi.)
But there are plenty of smug men and women of “reason” who don’t need no stinkin’ Old Testament or New Testament. They can get along just fine with Google and comic books. They will handle virtues and vices according to how the means must be manipulated at the moment to get them to their desired ends. Everything is relative and everything is subject to change. Life is a temporary moment in the great useless void of time. There is no continuity, only change. The good that men do in their lives does not live after them. Poof!!! You die, you are nothing. Why bother?
What, pray tell, makes liberals want to “improve” mankind? Everyone is on the treadmill to personal extinction. Why not just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you vanish? You have no soul. You have no purpose. You suck in oxygen and you blow out poison. You eat and crap, sleep and wake and wear out. Why should I care a bit about your hulk? What can you do for me? Ask not what I can do for you, tell me what you can do for me. The liberal elites are not a happy lot.
Let us not forget while Levi is displaying his ignorance of science is only overshadowed by his ignorance of religion, he’s still not addressed his belief that Piltdown man is essential for evolutionary theory, since “By my count, 100% of the scientific data we’ve gathered since the theory of evolution was first introduced has been compatible with the initial premise.”
The_Livewire,
Recently, while in England, I dined with the White-Cliffs of Dover and I do believe Lord Piltdown was at the table. He had the most dreadful tale about obtaining a coin marked 374 B.C. which he purchased from the wife of the unknown soldier. The coin turned out to be fake and the unknown soldier denies he was ever even married. While Lord Piltdown looked fairly hale I did notice the down was rather scruffy on and about his pilt.
Strange, Piltdown was across the table from me and all I could see in the great mirror upon the wall was a chair back and my own reflection. I must postulate on this mystery. I am beginning to suspect chicanery of some sort. I shall have to apply evolution theory about this business of being clear and present while at the same time being extinct. Perhaps he is some sort of ivory-billed woodpecker charlatan or heretofore unknown Dodo offspring.
Livewire…
You realize that his ‘count’ is actually an ‘educated guess,’ and he furthermore dismisses out of hand anything that goes against his little pet thery as not being ‘scientific data.’
Ann Coulter, in Godless spends several chapters debunking much of the ‘scientific data’ that ‘proves’ evolution. Among the gems:
– That thing about how moths ‘adapted’ to pollution in Britain by darkening their coloration through natural selection is complete bunk.
– The Ernst Haeckel embryo drawings that show humans, fish, and chickens all vertebrate embryos look the same was accepted as scientific data supporting evolution for over 100 years, before an actual scientist in the 1990’s looked at actual vertebrate embryos from different species and discovered they looked nothing at all alike.
– The Fossil record doesn’t jibe with evolutionary theory at all. This is a very long, heavily footnoted section of Godless (That Levi will of course dismiss out of hand without reading), she describes how the fossil record doesn’t show a gradual change from a few species to multiplication and diversification of species, but rather that diverse species are a constant throughout the record. To give an example from page 224, excavations in China unearthed fossils showing a vast and diverse array of species at a time when evolutionary theory said there shouldn’t be any. The ACLU sued to prevent a teacher from mentioning this evidence in a high school biology class.
Ironically, Levi issued the challenge “Do you ever doubt God.” It’s clear that Levi is incapable of stepping out of his very narrow intellectual comfort zone to ever question his own dogmatic beliefs.
I just want to underline my lack of participation here. I don’t think the arguments here on either side, are entirely sound. But I don’t want to insult my religious friends here by saying more than that (which might appear to be siding with Levi’s bad arguments).
And this is the funny part. “Scientific” Levi is getting his butt kicked by people with religious beliefs who keep pointing out his lack of understanding of evolution, his lack of understanding of religion, and his inability to make or hold a coherent argument.
What it all boils down to is this: Levi is just a poor terrified child whose entire worldview is being challenged, and he’s lashing out and throwing tantrums. His arguments are not in the least scientific, as is shown by his flat refusal to acknowledge any facts, no matter how well-documented, that contradict his pre-existing conclusion. His understanding of religious belief is irrevocably colored by his basic need to rationalize his irrational hatred of and bigotry towards religious people.
ILC,
I won’t speak for others, but I personally enjoy reasoned disagreements. I’ve been proven wrong before and have had to adapt my beliefs to reality more than once. I don’t see that as a flaw in the Divine, rather it’s a flaw in my understanding of the Divine.
It’s the ‘reasoned’ part of that statement that would seperate you from Levi.
TL, thanks… and, same to you. I would enjoy a back-and-forth on God and/or evolution if I could do it without Levi’s bad arguments being in the way, making it seem like I take his side.
ILC,
I am not arguing for religion. That is entirely a personal issue. But, I know the difference between evolution scientific fact and where a reasonable application of the theory of evolution leads us to look for verification. I applaud the search and have an enormous interest in it.
The April 9, 2010 issue of Science (AAAS publication) reports the following: The National Science Foundation dropped this question from their science literacy survey
The NSF board dropped this survey question because it forced the public to “conflate knowledge and beliefs” about evolution. 45% of Americans surveyed answered “true.” However, in 2004, the question read like this
With that wording, 72% of Americans answered “true.”
When measuring science literacy, which is the more accurate question in terms of both acquaintance with the science of evolution and the actual facts established by the scientific method?
The rush to judgement in declaring evolution “settled science” is regrettable and political and not very honest. If God is destroyed in the process, so be it. I can not imagine that any thinking person can reflect on the theory of evolution and the facts of evolution and believe faith in a higher spirit has been scientifically proven to be a useless, ignorant waste of time.
ILC,
I am not arguing for religion. That is entirely a personal issue. But, I know the difference between evolution scientific fact and where a reasonable application of the theory of evolution leads us to look for verification. I applaud the search and have an enormous interest in it.
The April 9, 2010 issue of Science (AAAS publication) reports the following: The National Science Foundation dropped this question from their science literacy survey
The NSF board dropped this survey question because it forced the public to “conflate knowledge and beliefs” about evolution. 45% of Americans surveyed answered “true.” However, in 2004, the question read like this
With that wording, 72% of Americans answered “true.”
When measuring science literacy, which is the more accurate question in terms of both acquaintance with the science of evolution and the actual facts established by the scientific method?
The rush to judgement in declaring evolution “settled science” is regrettable and political and not very honest. If God is destroyed in the process, so be it. I can not imagine that any thinking person can reflect on the theory of evolution and the facts of evolution and believe faith in a higher spirit has been scientifically proven to be a useless, ignorant waste of time.
With that wording, 72% of Americans answered “true.”
As would I.
As similarly I would answer “true” if you stated, “According to the Lamarckian theory of evolution, giraffes have longer necks because they stretched them out to reach taller tree branches.”
Therein lies the difference that Levi doesn’t understand. It is perfectly possible for something to be true in the context of a theory, even if that theory is questionable, because a theory is a framework and reference for understanding an event that occurs or an observable point.
The problem with Levi is made abundantly clear here.
And damn right it’s (the theory of evolution) a battering ram to disprove religion.
That is emphatically unscientific. Evolution says nothing about religious belief. But Levi perverts it and twists it to suit his need to disprove religion.
Levi is a bigot. There is no better way to say it. He is an irrational bigot when it comes to religious belief.
ILC, do you agree with the thesis that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven and that choosing to be on either side is ultimately an act of faith?
All of this evolution discussion flows from
and it illustrates how liberal academia shuts down debate when it involves their sensitivities. The “debate” between Intelligent Design and Evolution theory is a non starter. There is no definitive conclusion to be reached. But the liberals have declared evolution theory to be conclusive and settled science. In doing so, they say “and by the way God is dead and evolution science killed Him.”
They have the cart way before the horse. It is not time to turn churches, temples and synagogues into 7-11’s just yet.
No, I think it comes down to definitions. What do you mean by “God”? If you define God as something which exists, then It exists. If not, then not.
Some believers ascribe contradictory attributes to God: simultaneously He is an old man in Earth’s sky who watches what I personally do with my genitals, and a super-being that defies and transcends all categories of being. If that’s your God, sorry but It does not exist, period. Because, by the nature of existence and of logic, contradictions don’t exist (except in discussion / the imagination).
However, you could go with just the second one (a super-being that defies and transcends all categories of being) – or with a naturalistic definition (say First Cause; or sum total of all creative causes operating in The Universe, just as The Universe is the sum total of all entities) – and then I’d have to stop and go, hmmm, I don’t really care to argue with you – even if I thought I might be able to.
As for the argument that evolution is too improbable: No, I don’t buy it. The universe is *made* of improbabilities that nonetheless happened. Pick an air molecule at random. Where it ends up, one tenth of a second from now, is incredibly improbable. And yet it happens.
As for the argument that evolution is guided by God: Sure, why not? It is plain to me that the Universe, by its nature, is filled with some sort of intelligence. The universal intelligence, is what I call “God”.
And as for Levi’s bad theodicy where this all started: Forget it. What a dope. Pathetically immature.
Finally V, congratulations for getting me involved after all 😉
In fairness, not all atheists and liberals are as narrow-minded as Levi.
Certain discussions bore me, because I’ve done them enough to know “the answer”, the place where they must end up if pursued honestly.
“Why does your God permit tragedies like the Japanese earthquake?” is one of them. God permits them so that we can have the gift of free will – and its companion, moral responsibility. A universe where God constantly altered the physical laws to intervene to meet our wishes, would be a universe where we have neither free will nor responsibility. But, He doesn’t and we do. If you hate God for putting you in such a universe, kindly consider killing yourself so the rest of us don’t have to hear your whining.
What is the point of doing the work if not to provide an explanation? What’s with the Uncle Bob slams, why do you insist on being so damn dismissive? You brought this up – do you think that my description of the evolutionary mechanisms at work is lacking? If so, can I expect you to ever tell me what was wrong with my explanation? Again, are you going to provide an alternative that is even half as plausible?
I don’t accept wonder and mystery? I didn’t develop an interest in dinosaurs when I was a kid? You’re shooting blanks.
There isn’t anything unreasonable about an expectation that humans will someday figure out how to grow brains in the lab or build cockroaches from scratch. Human brains and cockroaches are things that we can be sure exist, because we can see them, and feel them, and deconstruct them, and reverse-engineer them, and potentially do exactly what you’re describing.
By comparison, God is an unreasonable hypothesis because there is absolutely no evidence that he exists. I know I keep repeating this point, but things quickly become ridiculous if you start seriously entertaining a bunch of unreasonable hypotheses that lack evidence. Why waste your time?
I could care less if I’m fudging the details of your little make believe world.
Holy shit man, what am I supposed to do with that? You want me to read through 100 articles? It’s not that interesting. It’s a cloth with an image on it. It doesn’t heal people, it doesn’t grant wishes. Who cares? I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a cloth has an image on it. This is your proof of the supernatural?
Uh, what?
Oh, okay, so the Bible is like the greatest book ever, in the opinion of Heliotrope? Consider me convinced!
I’m frequently accused of being the narrow-minded one around here, and yet I’m subjected to these woefully uninformed, stereotyped rants about what it must be like to be an atheist. Of course, the Christian religion actively spreads those stereotypes to its followers, so it comes as no surprise.
Needless to say, I consider myself a moral person that enjoys his life and finds plenty of purpose in it. By your estimation, I should have – what, killed myself by now because I’m such a nihilist and because I just think I’m sooooo cool because I don’t go to church? You’re a caricature.
I’m sorry you think that your life would be meaningless and that you’d have no moral compass if it weren’t for your imaginary friend. I’m unencumbered by that kind of psychological torment and have to recommend it, I’m quite happy with my life thank you very much.
Wait a minute – you’re going to quote Ann Coulter in an effort to shine evolutionary theory in a bad light? This ought to be hilarious.
Oh is it? And my, what an in-depth explanation you’ve provided?
Oh my god, 100 year old drawings of embryos are incorrect? Stop the presses….
Allow me to update you by a century;
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/of-cats-and-men-old-genes-give-embryos-an-hourglass-figure/
They look pretty close to me! Or would you say they ‘look nothing alike?’
Sorry, I’m not going to run out and buy some Ann Coulter book because I’m worried she’s single-handedly disproven the theory of evolution. I’ve never heard of this crap before, I don’t think you’re explaining it right, and I don’t think you understand evolution enough to even be able to realize what you think you’re trying to refute.
There are a million ways that the theory of evolution could be disproven. If fossils start showing up the wrong places, if DNA analysis showed unexpected relationships between different animals, if a brand new, completely unique animal of some kind blinked into existence from seemingly nowhere…. lots of things could happen. But again, we’re talking about one of the best track records in the history of science here, so I’m not all that worried. Especially if you guys have chosen Ann Coulter as your representative.
Nope – that still doesn’t make sense. You’re twisting yourself into knots to explain away purely natural phenomena that can be explained entirely by geologists. Free will? What does free will have to do with an earthquake? How does an earthquake give us the opportunity to demonstrate free will?
In this case, why not go with the simplest explanation? Human beings live on the thin crust of a molten ball of iron that is occasionally perturbed by natural, physical forces, and this means that human beings will sometimes die in random natural disasters. Is that not satisfactory? We really have to make it about some lesson that God needs to teach us?
And again, Heliotrope nails it.
Levi, in his open mindedness, dismisses anything that might conflict with his worldview.
And of course, would dispute his ‘100% of science’
Best of all, he doesn’t deny that wrong information was accepted without being challenged until the 1990’s.
Let’s contrast and compare.
Heliotrope, well read, educated, able to draw from multiple sources.
Levi- Unable to get basic math right (are percentages still basic math?) Unwilling to look at anything that might shake his beliefs. Claims to know about Chrstianity but can’t even get his testiments correct.
And he calls conservatives closed minded?
I don’t know what’s funnier. That he gets schooled so easily by Heliotrope, or that he’s such a coward to not address any time I use his own quotes against him.
Oh, and speaking of his own quotes. Since, by any objective measure, Heliotrope is smarter than Levi, he should just shut up and let Heliotrope ‘drag him kicking and screaming into the future.’
As predicted, Levi doesn’t bother with the ideas Coulter presents (again, heavily footnoted from scientific literature) he just dismisses them because he doesn’t like her.
It’s true what they say: Intelligent people are about ideas. Average people are about things. And dumb people are about other people.
You gave me absolutely nothing to work with. I don’t have a copy of Godless to read through, and you haven’t provided anything close to an explanation. I do know that those British moths are widely accepted as a great example of evolution, I know that 100 year old drawings don’t really matter for much and that new, real photos of embryos show lots of similarities, and that last thing about the fossils is incoherent. Give me some more information if you want me to take that bullshit seriously.
Funny thing is, Levi’s been given informaiton in the past, he refuses to accept it.
He’s been given a sourse book now, he refuses to accept it, or even look at it.
When caught rejecting out of hand the material as predicted, Levi then tries to whine and spin, saying that it’s too much effort for him to find a book.
Let’s not forget where he claims to work… either at a bookstore, or at a Verizon store where Sarah Pailn randomly does book signings.
We assume the Verizon store, since Verizon cell plans are the only things that he has demonstrated any accurate knowlege of.
but the idea that he can’t get a hold of a book at a bookstore is too priceless.
maybe it’s that he might have his world view challenged that scares him?
#128 – Levi didn’t understand a word I said. LOL 🙂 As I expected.
Levi,
Read my lips: I am not interested in disproving the theory of evolution. It will disprove itself if it is flawed. But, as a theory, it is only a best guess explanation. Much has been found and researched to improve its standing.
There. That is my full and complete statement on the theory of evolution.
You, however, have a visceral disgust bordering on hatred for religion and the type of faith required in religion.
I see no relationship between the theory of evolution and religion or religious faith. If science creates man from primordial ooze, I will praise God for giving man such an incredible gift. If, however, a cockroach creates man from primordial ooze, I may have to scratch my religious head.
Your battle with religious faith and religion in general is pathetically perplexing. Your mind only grasps the freak show side of religion. (Although you seem not to care much about Islam and its treatment of women and homosexuals, which seems awfully anti-liberal like, but ….)
We used to have three pillars in our society: the family, the church, and the schools. Much bad has happened to the family, the anti-church crowd has grown in numbers, voice and obnoxiousness and the private schools and home-schooling have taken over where the public schools continue to spiral downward in failure.
Now, we have liberals who need a village to raise a child and preach social justice and control the message in public education and all of that is aimed at the one pillar in our society that replaces the three former pillars: government. State health care, state housing, state food stamps, state minimum wage, state income assistance, state obesity rules, state anti-bullying initiatives, state this, state that.
Any Levi loves it. He can not begin to understand the TEA Party or the rugged individualist or the faithful or even quiet, silent charity. Levi is the very model of the modern major progressive generalist. (apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan)
From my darker side, I hope Levi encounters a miracle in his life and he gets an itch he can’t scratch because it so confuses him he is driven to almost accept the “unreasonable.”
In Levi’s elite world, I am irrational and unreasonable and dumb enough to read mythology (The Bible) and get suckered into it. Also in Levi’s elite world, my very existence is an assault on him and any mention I make of faith or the faithful is an act of war on sanity, rationality, reasonableness and the theory of evolution.
There you have it. I have never tried to convert Levi. I have only used him as an example of what a conservative, educated professor in a liberal college is dealing with.
I feel compelled to add: I feel liberated. If I spoke from the lectern as I speak here, I would have been canned years ago. You simply are not permitted to intellectually examine the liberal doxology. Liberals can not debate. They shift the argument, move the goal post, resort to name calling and run in circles to keep from being pinned down. That is all liberals I have encountered since the days of the great Moynihan or Humphrey or RFK. These spoiled rotten children of the 60’d and children of the children of 60’s are all hat and no horse.
When caught rejecting out of hand the material as predicted, Levi then tries to whine and spin, saying that it’s too much effort for him to find a book.
Actually, Levi’s position can be summarized as, “I don’t have to read anything that contradicts my point of view because I know I’m right.” (See his comment #81)
I have been musing on the Coulter book conundrum. The libs have successfully done a Letterman or Tina Fey on Ann Coulter. She is a poster child of hate speech, conservative meat grinder, and leader of the drooling masses for people on the left. She has had the full treatment which Carville set out to do on Paula Jones to contain Clinton’s bimbo eruption. If you can not deal with the message, shoot the messenger.
Coulter’s references to the theory of evolution are fully footnoted and easily accessible. Somewhere, there should be a studied response to the points she raises in her book. And then, there should be a reasoned response by Coulter in rebuttal. Books are the product of a moment in time. Theory of evolution elites should have no difficulty in tearing Coulter’s references apart and it would be in their best interest to do it.
I found this from Media Matters:
Gobbledygook. I have rarely read such a muddled response. If you are going to disarm your opponent, don’t leave the spectators scratching their heads. Don’t put on Geraldo opening an empty vault that might have be used by Al Capone. Go after the topic hammer and tong and make your case. Underwhelming at best.
Interesting that they reference Darwin’s Finches, Heliotrope.
Per Wikipedia (arguably not the most unbiased source, but bear with me) I’m reading that Darwin was *gasp* wrong and it’s not a number of different species evolving to fill a niche. rather within the population, it seems that the beaks are affected during development, not to address a specific feeding.
It also points out that the taxionomics are unsure where to put them.
So, look, Levi gets shot down again, since I’m assuming he includes Darwin in his “100%”.
I feel like I’m picking on the developmentally disabled here.
Good grief! What a pissing match! Has anything really been resolved? How are we going to overcome the condition of a paucity of conservatives on college campuses?
And then, Livewire, this gets to be the funny part.
Levi first screams this:
By comparison, God is an unreasonable hypothesis because there is absolutely no evidence that he exists. I know I keep repeating this point, but things quickly become ridiculous if you start seriously entertaining a bunch of unreasonable hypotheses that lack evidence.
And then, when cornered, he whines this:
I could care less if I’m fudging the details of your little make believe world.
So what we have here is Levi, the so-called “rational scientist”, claiming there is a lack of details and evidence while simultaneously admitting that he doesn’t care about the details or evidence, that he won’t bother to collect them, and that he in fact will “fudge” the details if they in any way disagree with his predetermined conclusion.
That is pure raw bigotry, not science.
I feel like I’m picking on the developmentally disabled here.
In a sense, you are. Levi has been intellectually retarded by incompetent liberal parents and the laughable failure we call the public school system. He has been indoctrinated from birth with “progressive” leftist dogma and been threatened with social ostracism and punishment if he dares disagree with it.
Levi’s shrieking about religion and indoctrination and child abuse are nothing more than projection writ large; he accuses others of such rather than acknowledge that he was indoctrinated and psychologically tortured by his parents and unionized teachers into accepting “progressive” dogma.
To borrow from South Pacific, “you’ve got to be taught to hate”, and Levi’s parents and teachers certainly did a fine job of doing so.
Roberto, let me offer this.
One of the reasons colleges have become filled with liberal academics spouting leftist claptrap is because they have been generously supported by taxpayers. Government grants and loans assure that students don’t really pay the cost of their education. As such, they don’t really care about the real value of what they study.
Over time, this has diminished the value of a college education; for most, college education is a four year vacation at Hedonism before transitioning to adult life. At the same time, these subsidies have pushed the cost of a college education to the point where it no longer makes economic sense for a majority of the population to pursue a four year degree.
Ultimately, the system corrects itself. Taxpayers can no longer afford to subsidize Hedonism, nor do they want to as they no longer see the value in it. As financial support collapses, colleges will either close their doors or focus on a more limited and practical curriculum.
That is how conservatives get back into Academia. Conservatives don’t want to teach crap like Womyn’s Studies, or African-American Studies, or Human Sexuality Course featuring live sex in the classroom. But conservatives will teach engineering, science, accounting, and other courses that have actual real-world value.
Aw hell, V. Conservatives in Academia would be happy to teach spelling. 🙂
Roberto,
To parallel what VtheK has to say: As a conservative academic, I walk my path carefully. There are schools where I would love to teach because they are run like academic institutions rather than as small cities with a politically active mayor and council.
My best friends in years of teaching have retired to run institutes and be scholars and get out of the diversity, affirmative action, political correctness, pop culture, grade inflation, grant chasing circus.
Conservatives are well on the way to creating schools free from government meddling in the curriculum and the face of the faculty and student population. It is a slow slog, but you can find more and more of them.
The two highest rates of inflation in the US are in medicine and education. There is an iron triangle between government, education and the players in providing education and another iron triangle between government, medicine, the players in providing medicine. In each case, the patient and the student are hit with rapidly skyrocketing fees.
Levi more than adequately represents the intellectual vacuum running around teaching and setting policy in education.
I freely admit that I don’t understand a word you said. I don’t see what free will has to do with random people going through so much suffering. Religion doesn’t make sense.
V the K
Very interesting. As I stated in my comment # 24 the liberal agenda has been decades in the making or implementing. You have shed light on how it has happened. I think we both agree that it will time for the for the system to ¨correct itself.¨ I would add to your list of course that will be taught by conservatives, history. The left has revised and distorted history as to make the Founding Fathers evil. Students from Belmont HIgh in L.A. , on my soccer team, didn´t have a clue what are the Bill of Rights. They never read the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, but they knew about the 14th Amendment.
Heliotrope
Let me congratulate you for being an academic. If your friends had stayed on wouldn´t they have been able to sway their students away from the liberal bias. My bachelor´s was earned at La Salle College (now University) in Philadelphia but my master,s at U of P. and the liberal bias agenda was already in play. If my granddaughter learns enough english to study in the U.S the only college I would consider letting her attend is Hillsdale. From time to time if you can alert us to schools and colleges that are being founded by conservatives . It would help a lot. In your opinion would a conservative majority in both the Senate and Congress be able to break the iron triangles. in their budget negations?
As for trying to fill the intellectual vacuum in the heads of libtards like Levi, and others who might come after him, it is a waste of time and energy. It is my belief the best way to get rid of them is to ignore their comments and refuse to be baited by them.
Have a super day guys.
And if there’s an expert here of not making sense.. it’s Levi.
I agree fully.
Between disgust and hatred, I choose disgust. Religion is completely vestigial and it’s endlessly frustrating that there are so many who insist on clinging to it. I also recognize that most people are indoctrinated into their parents’ religion before they have the mental facilities to do anything about it, so it isn’t exactly your fault. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for even confused and doubtful religious adherents to leave their religion after decades of participation and fear of abandonment by their friends, families, and communities. .
Mainly I feel sorry for you. So it’s a combination of pity, disgust, and frustation, if I had to describe it. I’ll leave the hating to you guys.
No relationship?
Over the course of human history, thousands of cultures have had thousands of religions, and the most fundamental feature of all of them is that they provided an explanation for the origin of humanity. These stories were universally treated as proof positive of God’s existence because there was no other explanation available to primitive man. Religious origin stories place man as God’s favored creation, and all of the advantages that we enjoyed and the dominion we held over other animals were considered evidence that God loved and made the world specifically for us.
Humans like proof, and for most of our history, religions all over the world insisted that all kinds of things were proof of God’s existence. Evolution has forced religion to abandon those kinds of arguments, and that’s the relationship. Evolutionary theory provides a logical narrative about how human beings came to be which also demonstrates that our position is no more intrinisically valuable than a rodent’s. Evolution is a target of religions because it and other fields of scientific discovery have disarmed them of all of their most convincing arguments.
The distinctions between the various religions aren’t nearly as important as are the things that are the same. Fundamentally, the problem is that religions claim special privileges and exceptions with absolutely no justification. Obviously, there is the a big difference between someone shouting into the street with abortion signs and someone blowing themselves up in a market, but both of those actions are supported by the same fallacious argument – that as a religious adherent, you are privy to some secret truth, and that you are justified in trying to get other people to obey the big guy’s orders.
Christians do this just as much as Muslims, and I live in a Christian country. I know that radical Islam is a big problem globally, but American religiosity is a big contributor to a lot of global problems as well. But again, the details that you guys think make you completely unique and different aren’t nearly as important as you would like them to be.
Vast majorities of people still claim to be religious; so what’s the problem? You guys are still the vast majority, so you can’t really blame the relatively miniscule handful of people like me for changing the country. You don’t seriously think atheists and secularists have been pulling the strings in this country for the past few decades, do you?
Blah, blah, blah. You can pretend your life has turned into a statist, dystopian nightmare if you want, religion has adquately prepare you for that kind of overly dramatic hysteria.
Ugh – did you just shamelessly refer to yourself as a ‘rugged individualist?’
lol….
Plenty of stuff has happened to me that a religious person might find ‘miraculous.’ It hasn’t swayed me yet. Unless I see some dead friends or relatives crawling out of their graves, I’ll remain unconvinced by stories of bleeding statues and faces in grilled cheese sandwhiches.
I find plenty to marvel at in the universe that is confusing and mysterious and exciting. The difference between you and me is that I would like to know what’s really going on, whereas you are programmed to assume a diety. Religious people look for mysteries not because they are curious about what the solution is, but because they’re desperate to shoehorn their religious belief into the fabric of the cosmos before those nasty scientists come through and figure out the explanation. You guys are working backward from a conclusion that you’ve already arrived at, and this is what I was referring to when I said that the religious want to ‘wall off curiosity.’ You may be looking for the unexplainable mysteries, but you’re only doing it for your own selfish ends and to justify your beliefs. You’re not trying to figure out the problems, you’re not devoted to accuracy. You’re looking for more propaganda to convert people with.
You can believe whatever silly nonsense you want so long as you figure out that you have to check that crap when you enter the public square. Most people are capable of doing this. Most religious people have figured out that their religion is good enough for them, and are respectful enough to recognize that other people have the right to not indulge their beliefs.
Christian conservatives, however, don’t really seem to operate under these rules of basic human decency, and insist that they’re religious dogma needs to be respected by everyone and that the law should reflect their values and ideology. The classic examples of this are the conservative positions on gay marriage and abortion, in which Christians absolutely insist on intervening in other people’s lives, and have no justification for doing so aside from an appeal to an invisible, incommunicative authority that only they believe really exists. That is a crazy low standard for an argument and clearly prone to abuse and corruption. You guys need to follow your own advice on these kinds of issues and stop trying to insert government in other peoples’ lives.
And still, I haven’t seen anything amounting an ‘intellectual examination of the liberal doxology’ from after all these posts. Your trick the past few days has been to repeatedly dismiss the scientific explanations provided by evolutionary theory as ‘Uncle Bob science,’ which I can’t imagine means anything to anyone. What exactly is your problem with the hypothesis about how the plant and the lemur could have evolved? You brought it up, and you still haven’t stated one, except to say that you just don’t like it.
Which is what this all comes down to. For religious people, accuracy and truth aren’t nearly as important as how the information makes you feel. Religion is all about wish fulfillment and ignoring the information you don’t want to hear. A grown up believing in God is like a 4 year old believing in Santa Claus, but I’m the spoiled rotten child?
Please.
It’s not bigotry to disbelief in some clearly made up fantasies designed to subjugate me. I really don’t care about the details. What’s the difference between a Lutheran and a Baptist? Who cares? It matters as much as the differences between Pokemon and Ninja Turtles, which is to say, not in the slightest. Knowing all the minutae of the Mormon belief system still doesn’t provide any positive evidence for the existence of God, so why should i pay attention to them except to laugh at the silliness of it all?
There’s the religious and the secular, and that’s the only distinction that matters here.
Oh, my goodness. Levi has taken over the rules of “the public square.” Clearly, Levi does not understand the concept of societal (shall I say?) evolution. What a HOOT!!!!
OK, Levi, lets keep them gays and coloreds and Mexicans and gun toters and heavy metal people and druggies and Democrats and Birkenstock wearers and greenies and Phelps/KKK/skinheads and old people with walkers and Pit Bulls and SUVs and fossil fuels and incandescent light bulbs and obesity and little girls dressed like a Disney Princess out of the “public square” along with the cross wearing, grace praying, Bible thumping Christians and the funky clothed Jews and the towel heads and the dot people and the head scarf women and especially the robed Buddhist monks.
Did I leave anyone out? Or, should I say, in?
By your own words, you are either a full blown bigot or too weak minded to understand the meaning of what you say.
B-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z!!! Wrong.
Human life begins at conception. Abortion kills a human life. That is biology. Science. Scientific fact. Abortion is a value judgement. You claim abortion is a woman’s right over her body. Fine. That is the chattel right found in the Dred Scott decision. You may do to your property what you wish, including killing it before the head pops out of the birth canal. (And I just know that you strongly uphold the right to chattel slavery.)
Gays are protected by the 14th Amendment. Gays can marry in all 50 states. Gays can not marry their sisters or preadolescents or the same sex or if they are incompetent to make choices. Where is the beef? Oops. Gays “want” to marry the same sex. Have the debate and change the law. I think that is what is occurring. Why should the Judeo-Christian ethic (and Islam) be off limits in the debate? That sounds like a freedom of speech issue to me.
Show me some other “classic” examples. This is fun.
He’s a full-blown bigot, Heliotrope, as we can show from this example.
First Levi whines this:
For religious people, accuracy and truth aren’t nearly as important as how the information makes you feel. Religion is all about wish fulfillment and ignoring the information you don’t want to hear.
And then what does Levi do?
Wish fulfill and ignore the information he doesn’t want to hear.
It’s not bigotry to disbelief in some clearly made up fantasies designed to subjugate me. I really don’t care about the details.
The difference between Levi and all of us is very instructive. Not a soul here has said that science is designed to “subjugate” people, or has shown the raw, primal fear that Levi shows toward religion.
And why? Because Levi is like a child. Levi hates anything, repeat ANYTHING, that ties him to a moral code or requirements that he cannot change at will. He’s a perpetual three-year-old brat, both emotionally and intellectually.
The example of science is even more indicative of this. Levi cannot define evolution the same way twice. Every time one of us has confronted him with actual science, he twists and spins, going so far as to contradict his previous statements. He is clearly using science in the same fashion that a drunk uses a lamppost — more for support than illumination.
And he flat-out states that his goal in using science is to attack religion. He flat-out states it.
He is a complete and total bigot, and anyone who reads this thread immediately recognizes that.
It’s not hard to understand what I said. If you have an idea about how we should run our society and government, then by all means, present your idea. But if your rationale or justification for your idea amounts to whispers from your imaginary friend or subjective interpretations of archaic religious texts, then you should have no expectations of being taken seriously.
Most religious people don’t have any problem separating their private beliefs with their political inclinations, and can recognize how valuable that principle has been in American history. Conservative Christians, however, seem to have a difficult time with the concept, and insist on being exempted from burden of proof rules that everyone else has to abide by. Yes, there are environmentalists, gay groups, and unions who advocate for certain policies that apply to everyone, the difference is that they are capable of presenting evidence and making a compelling argument. It is possible to weigh their proposals on the merits and have at least some degree of certainty that their course of action is the right or wrong thing to do. This is not the case with religion. I could just say that God told me he wanted our wars in the Middle East to end, and I’d have just as much footing as when you invoke God when you argue against gay marriage. That is to say, absolutely none.
NDT,
Do you find liberals in general are any better able to debate their “feelings” based doctrines? I give Levi credit for coming back over and over to butt his head against the mountainside. I know that is the definition of insanity, but at least he doesn’t just blow farts like The Auntie of All Dogma in a series of hit and run non sequiturs. Even Hi Cas has a certain naval gazing type charm in promoting “feelings” over substance.
Does the left have anyone capable of debate? Or are they all Henny Youngman sound barb experts like Anthony Weiner, Charles Schumer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Chris Matthews?
When I am on panels with liberals, they generally devolve into sputtering ridiculous comparisons, charges of fascism, and name calling from the leftists. They shift the goal posts, tilt the topic, and go into theatrics. They do not accept the premise and stick with it. Resolved: “social justice” can not be defined for purposes of governing in a republic. Response: You are a fascist.
Most religious people don’t have any problem separating their private beliefs with their political inclinations, and can recognize how valuable that principle has been in American history.
And the vast majority of liberals like yourself, Levi, are completely incapable of separating their hatred of religious beliefs from their political inclinations. Your need to purge and eliminate any type of religious belief or public expression of religious belief has been damaging to our society and culture as a whole, and demonstrates completely the hollowness of liberal thought.
Your game is obvious to anyone who watches, Levi. When you disagree with someone or something, you claim that it’s informed by their religious beliefs and then insist that that means it’s invalid. You blatantly and openly discriminate against anyone who dares to publicly and freely exercise their religious beliefs or speak on religious topics. Your understanding of Constitutional law is so weak that you honestly believe Christians can be denied voting rights based on their religious beliefs.
You have been repeatedly humiliated in this thread by people who demonstrated that you lie about science and you lie about religion. Your bigotry is now blatantly obvious for everyone to see. No one seriously thinks that you understand either science or religion, and your flat-out statement that your goal is to attack and destroy religion makes your motives completely obvious.
They shift the goal posts, tilt the topic, and go into theatrics. They do not accept the premise and stick with it.
Mainly because, in a feelings-based setup, anything that makes you feel bad must by definition be wrong, and anything that makes you feel good must be right. This is created by indulgent parents who are more frightened of their child’s feelings than they are of reality, and of schools that have been turned from academies of facts and thought into factories of self-esteem building.
The problem with us in their eyes, Heliotrope, is that we allow ourselves to be “subjugated”, as Levi puts it, by standards and moralities that are not subject to immediate and convenient change. Indeed, liberals recoil from disciplines, practices, and processes that cannot be easily manipulated to their own ideological end, which is why you see far fewer of them in the hard sciences than you do in the soft.
And thus, any type of rule, standard, value, or unchanging premise is inherently threatening to them. They refuse to follow it, which is why they a) demagogue it and then b) subvert it by overdoing it.
Their treatment of black people has been an excellent example. Liberals believe, as we see from the writings of Darwin, Sanger, and others, that black people are inherently inferior to white people. At first, this manifested itself in outright slavery and segregation. When that got batted down, liberals changed their tactics; they still recognized black people as inferior, but started to couch that in the terms of white man’s burden and social duty that they had previously used when slavery was first started. If you can’t control them with contempt, switch to plantation kindness.
I agree, NDT, but there is a place for honest liberal debate. Representative democracy is an inherently liberal concept. I am involved in Offender Aid and Restoration, housing non-violent drunks, soup kitchens, helping immigrants acclimate, mentoring, tutoring, and a slew of other uses of my time, talents and compassion. Mostly, the people I work beside are pretty realistic about who and how they are trying to help. We are not confused by optimal outcomes or being able to keep all boats afloat. Generally speaking, we are more politically conservative and religious than not. But our continuing biggest obstacle is the government social services network of regulators who “advocate” for the recipient. They make it easier to stroke a check and walk away than to lend a hand.
Truth be told, I ask conservatives for help and liberals for money. My teaching is now mostly by invitation and the students have generally gotten well past the utopian tooth-fairy socialism of sophomoric psychobabble. But the classroom professors I encounter are too often single-minded Johnny one-notes who do not brook honest dissent. They undoubtedly feed the “feel good” side and pooh pooh the “cold, fascist” “failed ideas” of the past. The first time I heard Obama, I recognized him for what he is. That bothers me, because I value honest liberal ideas. Those people seem to have become mere ideologues.
Been sick all day, so I’m a bit behind of Levi making an ass of himself.
I do think he’s summed up perfectly in this statement.
Levi only encourages debate, if he gets to set the terms. Levi only allows people to amend the constitution if he approves.
like most petty tyrants, Levi would offer people the illusion of freedom. Like Saddam Hussain, Levi would claim a majority, by squelching any who disagree with him, no matter how numerous they may be.
The Livewire,
Feel better soon. My thought are with you as well as my prayers.
(No, that is not a barb to irritate Levi. I pray for him as well. But don’t tell him. He would call me perverse.)
Thanks Heliotrope. Fever’s been between 99.5 and 101.4. If it’s still here monday, to the doctor I go.
Just hope it’s not pneumonia.
The Livewire
Get well soon. You have much to offer not only on the board of your condo association, but I see you you as contributing to the conservative movement by becoming a member to the Republican County Central Committee in your county and possibly on the State Committee.