New Mexico scientists fight taxpayer-funded evolution celebration

replaytime wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey now you are catching on. It is just as silly to bithc at, to label someone, to call them ignorant, and/or run because they believe in God.

And if someone is a theist, personally that's not what I do. I DO reserve the right to call them ignorant if they are an anti-science creationist though.

And why not? They have the freedom to call evolution and all those accept it stupid or atheistic or whatever, even though they're wrong. Apparently they can say wtf they like but if anyone DARES to disagree then they feed us the biggest whine-fest EVER.

Because they think that someone saying "no" to them is like personally hanging them on a cross, just like Jesus.

replaytime wrote:

You follow Darwin and his is your hero. The last 150 years has shown/told you that.

No, actually we follow science because we have an interest in science. THEN we find out that a VAST movement of religious fundies want to throw science out the window not just for them, but for EVERYBODY, because they don't like the fact that reality says it's a bit different to what the Bible sez it is. Naturally we're a bit peeved when they attempt to push their BS onto others, and have every right to be. And for two very good reasons:

1 - Science. It shows they are wrong. Period.

2 - Even more importantly, religious freedom. It doesn't just apply to Christian fundies, as much as they wish it to be just like it was back during the Dark Ages.

replaytime wrote:

They follow God and he is there savior. The last 4000 years has shown/told them that.
It is amazing all the stupid crap humans will argue over just because someone believes/sees things differently. ie; popularity, money, race, religion, science, etc etc.
If what someone follows/believes does not effect my life, then I have no problem with it.
Live and let live.

If only you could, eh.

Well once you've figured out what the First Amendment means then maybe everyone can do that. Until that time, you're still part of the American Taliban.

replaytime wrote:

<quoted text>
You can believe what you want. It is about Darwin because of evolution. Up until Darwin and evolution there was nothing that people had to use against God and/or creation except opinions. There has always been a war between believers and non-believers, Darwin and evolution changed the battle field by giving it more fighting power. That is my opinion.

So did Copernicus. So did Galileo. So did Linnaeus. So did Kelvin. Heck, you could probably pick any scientist you like.(shrug) That's because when science shows reality to be a certain way, ancient religions tend to lose out, because they tend to have put stupid things into their old religious tomes, such as the Earth being flat. There's a REASON why it's not just biology that creationists reject in favour of faith.

However evolution is the one in particular that sticks in their craw, because while they can blithely dismiss all the rest of their scientific problems, they can't stand the idea that evolution doesn't claim humans to be any more special than anything that evolved in the past, or in the future. The entire universe MUST have been made specifically for US, because the fundies have that desperate need to stroke their monumentally massive egos so that they know that their lives are personally significant on a cosmic scale.

Just one thing:

That's not our problem.(shrug)

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
There is nothing special about Evolution. If someone really needed a scientific justification they could pick anything because all of science is inherently secular. So no scientific theory indicates a Creator. Of course the other side of the coin is none rule one out either.
If you honestly want to see scientific hero worship, check out people into Tesla. They treat him like he is a freaking superhero.

No freakin' WAY man! He's a Commie atheist Darwinist!

>:-(

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I would imagine it has a lot to do with the theory of evolution. It was a tremendous contribution to science. Since atheists only make up 2-3% of the population I don't think they are doing to well for themselves. Most of the people that accept evolution are religious, just not literal creationists. It is that group that doesn't represent the entirety of Christianity, yet seems to scream the loudest. Empty can and what not.
Incidentally, there were theories of evolution before Darwin, they just didn't have the evidence and the mechanism to support them.
I will believe what I want. I was planning on it.
The bottom line is that it isn't science that is attacking religion. It is religion, predominantly in the form of the fundamentalist, creationists, that is attacking science. This forum is full of those attacks.

And they've been doing that for MILLENIA. Literally.

But if you get just *one* atheist Darwinist who's out of order, it's a sign of the End Times.

replaytime wrote:

I can't help but notice they consulted atheists to help plane it all and are now having Darwin days to celebrate the "birth" of Darwin ,,,, and evolution is not seen as a religion to atheists. lol.

If they consulted scientists, most of the people they consulted are atheists or agnostics, simply because most scientists are non-believers. Not all, but most. On the other hand, who else would they consult about matters dealing with science? Faith healers, palm readers, psychics, bishops, imams and other purveyors of BS?

They chose Darwin's birthday as an appropriate day to recognize his contributions to science. No religious connotations in that. Before we had the concatenated "President's Day" holiday, we used to observe Washington's Birthday as a legal holiday. It was an appropriate day to commemorate George Washington's contribution to our nation's founding. It does not mean that there is a religious cult worshiping Washington.

If classical music fans held a celebration of Beethoven's birthday, to commemorate his contributions to music, would you claim that that means they worship Beethoven?

Your inductive leaps would make Evel Knievel jealous.

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
If they consulted scientists, most of the people they consulted are atheists or agnostics, simply because most scientists are non-believers. Not all, but most. On the other hand, who else would they consult about matters dealing with science? Faith healers, palm readers, psychics, bishops, imams and other purveyors of BS?
They chose Darwin's birthday as an appropriate day to recognize his contributions to science. No religious connotations in that. Before we had the concatenated "President's Day" holiday, we used to observe Washington's Birthday as a legal holiday. It was an appropriate day to commemorate George Washington's contribution to our nation's founding. It does not mean that there is a religious cult worshiping Washington.
If classical music fans held a celebration of Beethoven's birthday, to commemorate his contributions to music, would you claim that that means they worship Beethoven?
Your inductive leaps would make Evel Knievel jealous.

I have to disagree with your first point. The ranks of science may contain a higher percentage of atheists, agnostics and non-religious then the general population, but I still think those in the US are predominantly some form of believer.

However, the rest of your post is BRILLIANT. Especially the examples you provide.

Indeed, Knievel never cleared such vast gaps.

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I have to disagree with your first point. The ranks of science may contain a higher percentage of atheists, agnostics and non-religious then the general population, but I still think those in the US are predominantly some form of believer.
However, the rest of your post is BRILLIANT. Especially the examples you provide.
Indeed, Knievel never cleared such vast gaps.

Hmmm I could not entirely agree with your assessment: where it is stated that 40% of American scientists, irrespective of their discipline, are believers. That means that the majority doesn't believe.

AND the discussion here, set up by Replayer, was not pertaining the US.
The figure of scientists worldwide being believers, will be even lower.

Better to focus on the gaps left for their god as they're getting smaller and smaller.

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>I have to disagree with your first point. The ranks of science may contain a higher percentage of atheists, agnostics and non-religious then the general population, but I still think those in the US are predominantly some form of believer.
However, the rest of your post is BRILLIANT. Especially the examples you provide.
Indeed, Knievel never cleared such vast gaps.

Dan’s view might be based on a Pew Survey of 2009....
(link removed)

I’m not sure what importance that has. Statistics are notoriously misleading as some people who tick religion don’t believe in god and some atheists tick belief in ‘some higher power’....
quote from BHA (link removed)
“..when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’.
When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.” Unquote.

The point is that there is no evidence of ‘a creator’ and even if there were Abrahamic god(s) and religions are obviously the inventions of man, like all those in godchecker.com

I think it a mistake to believe the majority of educated people believe in god. Just ask them to define god and they soon start rambling. Some people (for whatever reason) retain a positive view of religion, that’s why they defend it. Most of us were raised in a culture and atmosphere where the absurd idea of an interventionist god was not only acceptable, but even normal and positive. Abrahamic believers I have confronted about their god don’t pretend they ‘know what Jesus said’.

So the point is that there’s no such thing as gods or fairies. Most people certainly aren’t sure that statement isn’t true.

Religion = superstition

(This post keeps getting auto-deleted by Topix for unknown reasons. I’ve tried removing links to sources)