Do science, get reported to the government as a terrorist

[shesulsa]

I am not arguing the point, but quoting Shakespere is being uncivil!?!?!

But the stuff previous was ok???

Actually I'm sure the bard would be proud..

Sorry, I'm out

Xue, that was not an official warning or anything, just a suggestion. Also, you might wanna know, for future reference, when a moderator posts an official warning, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the post or poster immediately previous to that warning. It's a general warning to everyone in the thread and if we have to address someone in particular we do so privately.

Also, if you have any complaints whatsoever, you can always report a moderator post, PM the admin staff, send an email to the [email protected] or open up a thread in the support forum.

No worries, Xue!

 

[Xue Sheng]

No complaints, just confusion, I was a tad bit confused there for a moment...

"Now go we in content To liberty, and not to banishment"

OK I promise no more Shakespere..

 

[Marginal]

*Sigh*
I'm not gonna ****ing argue with you. Believe what you want.

Well, that has been the problem all along hasn't it? Why argue when one can co-opt the politically correct language of victimization?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

"co-opt the politically correct language of victimization"?

which play is that line from?

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, that has been the problem all along hasn't it? Why argue when one can co-opt the politically correct language of victimization?

Exactly... at least you understand your tactics and admit them. Thank you.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[qizmoduis]

I read the article "3 times" and I have seen nothing that says religion is the motive for any of this.

I have done a web search on this and there appears to be a total lack of supporting evidence on both sides.

And a couple of guys calling each other names, a report to Homeland security and a few death threats do not a crusade make.

I read a lot of name calling and although it is an entertaining read I do not see it as responsible journalism.

As for the national media firestorm it is alleged to have caused, I live in the same nation and this is the first I heard of it.

You would need to know about the history of Mims, Dembski, and the infamous Discovery Institute to understand the religious motivations behind all this. These guys are an extremely well-funded sub-cult of fundamentalist christianity who champion biblically literal creationism wrapped in slightly fluffy disguise known as "Intelligent Design". Dembski regularly instigates local school boards and sometimes state level boards to implement science standards that would pave the way towards undermining science education via forced religious indoctrination. Conveniently, he also has a texbook that he simultaneously hawks: "Of Pandas and People", which started as a book teaching literal creationism but was later modified to refer to ID instead.

The folks at the following sites have more takes on this and the ID issue:
www.talkorigins.org
www.pharyngula.com
www.badastronomy.com

and many more.

This is really just another manifestation of the religious right's well-documented desire to eradicate science in general. Before I get accused of being anti-christian, please understand that this isn't a christian vs. atheist argument, but rather a tiny but politically powerful subset of fundamentalist christianity vs. all of science (including the rest of christianity).

 

[Xue Sheng]

You would need to know about the history of Mims, Dembski, and the infamous Discovery Institute to understand the religious motivations behind all this. These guys are an extremely well-funded sub-cult of fundamentalist christianity who champion biblically literal creationism wrapped in slightly fluffy disguise known as "Intelligent Design". Dembski regularly instigates local school boards and sometimes state level boards to implement science standards that would pave the way towards undermining science education via forced religious indoctrination. Conveniently, he also has a texbook that he simultaneously hawks: "Of Pandas and People", which started as a book teaching literal creationism but was later modified to refer to ID instead.

The folks at the following sites have more takes on this and the ID issue:
www.talkorigins.org
www.pharyngula.com
www.badastronomy.com

and many more.

This is really just another manifestation of the religious right's well-documented desire to eradicate science in general. Before I get accused of being anti-christian, please understand that this isn't a christian vs. atheist argument, but rather a tiny but politically powerful subset of fundamentalist christianity vs. all of science (including the rest of christianity).

I will have to look through this and get back to you.

But there are many groups that are touting religious histories that are not true in order to put forth their agenda that I believe are considerably more dangerous than what I have read here so far, but I have yet to go through what you just posted. Although I am having trouble taking anything all that serious that has the word "Moonbat" associated with it, I will give it that benefit of the doubt for now.

However I still do not see it as setting off a national media firestorm nor do I believe that scientists get reported to homeland security as terrorists all that often

 

[Xue Sheng]

"co-opt the politically correct language of victimization"?

which play is that line from?

I am clueless as to which play it is.

"O insupportable and touching loss!"

I have a vast repository of useless information in my brain and some of that info is in the form of Shakespearian quotes I came across back when I made a serious attempt to read Shakespeare.
OOPs….I said I would not quote Shakespeare anymore…sorry about that

 

[Marginal]

Exactly... at least you understand your tactics and admit them. Thank you.

My fault for being honest. Problem is, it's honesty that keeps egging them fundies on.... I mean, an Imax film mentioning the big bang theory? That's just like fighting words. Utterly taboo. Of course scientists persist in mentioning stuff like evolution and the big bang, so that excuses crazytalk and/or death threats from the fundies. If scientists were really socially responsible, they would humbly take on Kansas' definition of science, all these problems would vanish, like magic.

You're right. Ward Churchill had a great point. It's just the chickens coming home to roost. It's not a response that's disportionate or somehow, crazy at all.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Eric Pianka vs. Forrest M. Mims III

I went to these sites and it all appears to come down to this

Both appear to have proof and evidence of what was said and or heard.

Form what I read I would hardly call Mims a creationist, but he certainly does not agree with Pianka. And to make things better it appears that there are transcripts of Pianka’s speech that say he talked about genocide via Ebola and transcripts that show he didn’t.

Basically at this point I think they are mostly harmless.

So far from what I am reading it comes down to
You said Ebola
No I didn’t
Yes you did
No I didn’t
Yes you did
No I didn’t
Etcetera
Etcetera
Etcetera

As for the report to Homeland security, I am guessing if they have investigated and are following this they think the both of them are brain-dead, credulous moonbats

 

[Don Roley]

My fault for being honest. Problem is, it's honesty that keeps egging them fundies on.... I mean, an Imax film mentioning the big bang theory? That's just like fighting words.

I am not religous at all. At best you could say that I am agnostic, leaning toward atheism. In fact, I really dislike the idea of religous faith. To do something based on a lack of proof is an abhorance to me.

Having said that, I have to side with people like Technopunk when they talk about how there are a lot of people who are out to get religion and not in the manner you try to portray above. In fact, your attitude that religous people would get mad just over a film about the big bang theory is part of what I see as the problem.

There will always be a few nutcases that will take any excuse to do evil stuff. But to brand each and every "fundie" like you did is wrong. And religious types who used to be chagrined at what people did in the name of their religion will instead rally around those people as it seems more and more obvious that there are people like you out to attack them.

I would like a world where I am free to believe or not believe as I choose. As long as what I do does not impact others, I do not see a reason for others to stick their nose in my business. I extend the same consideration to others. If what they do does not impact me, I will not put limits on what they can do or say. I do not like the theology of the Catholic church. My response is to not be Catholic- not attack them at every chance. But it seems obvious that there are folks on both sides of this debate that will settle for nothing less than the elimination of the other side. And that will only polorize the problem.

 

[Marginal]

Having said that, I have to side with people like Technopunk when they talk about how there are a lot of people who are out to get religion and not in the manner you try to portray above. In fact, your attitude that religous people would get mad just over a film about the big bang theory is part of what I see as the problem.

It's not an attitude. It's reaction to fact. This nonsense has already happened. All this bluster about free speech, and a scientific theory can't even be mentioned in a movie theater in parts of the south.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It's not an attitude. It's reaction to fact. This nonsense has already happened. All this bluster about free speech, and a scientific theory can't even be mentioned in a movie theater in parts of the south.

So you saying that the movie that discuss free speech and science can't be shown in parts of the South.....what parts?

They apparently don't see many movies there or watch much TV for that matter, including the news.

 

[Marginal]

So you saying that the movie that discuss free speech and science can't be shown in parts of the South.....what parts?

No, I'm not an idiot. It was a reference to the Danish cartoon collection that's invoked the call to arms over free speech. The idea that Christian fundimentalist groups in the US can block films that contain discussion on topics such as evolution or the big bang seems contrary to all that free speech that has to be thrown at the Islamic nations. Yet to hear Technopunk tell it, it's the Christian fundies that are apparently being persecuted...

 

[Xue Sheng]

No, I'm not an idiot.

I didn't think you were, I apologize if I gave you that impression.

It was a reference to the Danish cartoon collection that's invoked the call to arms over free speech. The idea that Christian fundimentalist groups in the US can block films that contain discussion on topics such as evolution or the big bang seems contrary to all that free speech that has to be thrown at the Islamic nations. Yet to hear Technopunk tell it, it's the Christian fundies that are apparently being persecuted...

Actually I do not think that is what Technopunk is saying, I think it is more of a reference to extremism being bad no matter which side of the fence you are on.

 

[Marginal]

Actually I do not think that is what Technopunk is saying, I think it is more of a reference to extremism being bad no matter which side of the fence you are on.

In light of other comments he's made, I have a hard time drawing a similar conclusion.

 

[shesulsa]

Well, since Technopunk is absent at the moment, and the topic of this thread isn't about him anyway, howzabout we get back to the original topic?

 

[Cryozombie]

In light of other comments he's made, I have a hard time drawing a similar conclusion.

Well, thats because you only apparently read 50% of what I say, and draw your conclusions from that.

Xue Sheng hit the nail on the head.

 

[heretic888]

I am not religous at all. At best you could say that I am agnostic, leaning toward atheism. In fact, I really dislike the idea of religous faith. To do something based on a lack of proof is an abhorance to me.

Having said that, I have to side with people like Technopunk when they talk about how there are a lot of people who are out to get religion and not in the manner you try to portray above. In fact, your attitude that religous people would get mad just over a film about the big bang theory is part of what I see as the problem.

Like Don, I am not religious at all, at least not in the conventional sense. I consider myself a postmodern perennialist, with strong leanings toward Mahayana Buddhism (especially Zen). As a student of the social sciences, I also strongly believe in moving forward on the basis of reproducible data and communal peer review.

Having said that, I have to disagree with Don and Technopunk on this issue. I'm just not seeing this widespread antagonism against religion (specifically Christianity) that you guys are talking about. Even when I was a Baptist, I didn't see it.

At worst, we have a few college professors and influential writers (such as, say, Richard Dawkins) defaming religion. This is NOTHING compared to what various segments of the Religious Right have attempted over the years. Everything from trying to have Intelligent Design (what one Republican judge recently described as "creationism re-labeled") taught in public school biology classrooms to trying to have Imax films that describe the Big Bang Theory shut down (and yes, Don, that really did happen) to having stone monuments of religious teachings erected in federal courthouses (Separation of Church and State??). There is nothing even vaguely comparable to widespread movement on the "anti-Christian" side of things.

I don't hear of atheist lobbyists trying to forcibly change the teachings of local churches nor do I recall atheist protestors trying to have films like "The Passion of the Christ" cancelled or boycotted nor do I hear of atheist manifestos being erected in federal courthouses on the taxpayers' dollars.

It seems to me that what many Christians are perceiving as an attack on "their religion" are really attempts to enforce the Separation of Church and State. Most Christians that I have met are actually behind such democratic principles. It is only a rather neurotic, yet politically powerful, minority that seems to be huffin' and puffin' about the whole situation.

Sorry, guys, but I just don't see it. And, while I don't agree with Marginal's vitriole about the subject, I am inclined to agree with his general perspective of the situation. Perhaps somebody could give some specific examples of these atheist thinktanks or atheist movements that I've never heard of??

Laterz.