In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Comments
35,421 - 35,440 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36622
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You didn't do that. You claimed that the Discovery institute published its Wedge Strategy, but not that it hadn't been a "TOP SECRET" internal memo that had already been leaked by Matt Duss and Tim Rhodes around January 1999). What month and year(s) are you referring to here?
<quoted text>
[crickets chirping]
It is not "a top secret internal memo".

It is not an "internal memo" of any kind.

It was a fundraising letter.

It was sent in the mail to potential donors. It contained the same information put out in other forums, conferences, brochures, and books.

That is not a "leak". To characterize it as such is dishonest.

If it was a leak, it was widely distributed and intentional and public.

You ever done any fundraising?

When you send something to potential donors soliciting funds, you try to make them feel they are getting privileged information.

This is a ludicrous charge.

It's almost as good as the Behe supports astrology charge.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36623
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The 'god of the gaps' argument boils down to 'there is no current explanation, so godditit'. What we want is a definite prediction of a future observation that is not explained by the current physical theory and *is* explained by the existence of a creator. That is how we would show the existence of anything else in science, from the Higg's boson, to supersymmetric matter, to a black hole.
<quoted text>
I frst look at what life is: a collection of intertwined chemical reactions. I then look at what the basic bulding blocks for those reactions are. Then I consider whether those building blocks are available in the universe. Then I see if there are plausible mechanisms for going from the chemicals and reactions we know occur to the chemicals and reactions required for life.
<quoted text>
I would argue slightly differently. The basic building blocks for life are fairly common in the universe: amino acids, sugars, etc. The main question is what the exact environment is that leads to the development of life. At this stage we do not know that piece of the puzzle. But we do know that life developeed very early on this planet.
<quoted text>
No, I believe it arose through the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry. That the appropriate precursors were her eis a matter of chance, but not the development from those precursors.
<quoted text>
We do not know what the conditions are for the development of life, so it is impossible to determine the probabilities involved. At this point, the evidence is that it is actually fairly easy to produce life (given how fast it happened on earth), so I would actually *guess* that it is common for bacterial life to exist in other locations.
<quoted text>
Right, once we have life, we have evolution. it isn't evolution until we have life. Evolution is supported by the evidence even if life got started by divine intervention.
Again, a single molecule will not be alive; it is a system of interacting molecules that maintains homeostasis and can replicate in some environment that is alive.
Your argument is abiogenesis occurred because it is easy to produce life because abiogenesis occurred.

It is not easy. Scientists have been unable to come close under controlled, highly managed conditions.

Further, it is not certain the necessary building blocks were present with the primordial earth.

Further still, evolution relies on abiogenesis. The two are inextricably linked. Without a particular conception of abiogenesis, the current Darwinian synthesis breaks down.

That is the reason for the fake bifurcation made between abiogenesis and evolution. It began with Darwin when the theory of spontaneous generation fell apart. He wrote letters expressing his dismay with the damage it did to his theory. So he decided to bifurcate the two publicly, though he knew, and expressed privately, that this was a huge problem.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36624
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This description of the Wedge Document above is pure fantasy. The letter announces a frontal assault on science and the scientific method with its stated goal,
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Buck - these people have zero credibility with skeptics who are aware of all of this. And you tarnish your own credibility arguing for them. It's really a mystery to me why you would fight this battle here any longer.
The statement was "to defeat scientific materialism".

Where did you see the assault on the scientific method?

They advocate using the scientific method to counter materialism.

Your paranoia is characteristic of what started the whole controversy.

It was a fundraising letter. That's how the two guys who posted it on the internet got hold of it - THEY SAID IT WAS A FUNDRAISING LETTER! That's how they got hold of it!

Good grief.

The DI also said if the idiot, Barbara Forest, had wanted to know anything more about it - all she had to do was ask them.

She didn't.

That would not have fit the sinister plot.

You people are pathetic.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36626
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/rel igion/atheism/TEDTVO26B5QGP1RQ 8/post36598
<quoted text>

Can you show us a copy of this fundraising letter? It doesn't seem to exist, according my Google searches, unless somebody is claiming that the Wedge Document itself was a fundraising letter. Clearly, it is not. Those usually begin with a salutation like "Dear yadda," not the word "INTRODUCTION": http://www.churchofvirus.org/virus.1Q99/0510....
How about we take the word of the bitch who started the whole controversy, Barbara Forest?

Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse - A Conversation With Barbara Forrest

Forest:

"The movement’s 5-, 10- and 20-year goals are outlined in a document on the Internet entitled “The Wedge Strategy.” Informally known as the “Wedge Document,” it was **a fundraising tool** used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its creationist subsidiary, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), which was established in 1996 and is now called the Center for Science and Culture."

Barbara Forest: "...it was a fundraising tool"

"fundraising tool"

Mailed in regular mail, that makes it...

A Fundraising Letter.

Game, set, and match.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36627
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

According to Phillip E. Johnson, the wedge movement, if not the term, began in 1992:
"The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself."

How would a strategy discussed at a public conference in 1992 become a SECRET that was LEAKED in 1999?

1992 was before 1999.(by 7 years)

You people seem to have trouble with dates. Just like Thaxton's book on Intelligent Design in 1984 being an attempt to circumvent Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987.

You need to pay more attention to chronology.

It can be important.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36628
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W edge_strategy
According to Phillip E. Johnson, the wedge movement, if not the term, began in 1992:
"The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself."
How would a strategy discussed at a public conference in 1992 become a SECRET that was LEAKED in 1999?
1992 was before 1999.(by 7 years)
You people seem to have trouble with dates. Just like Thaxton's book on Intelligent Design in 1984 being an attempt to circumvent Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987.
You need to pay more attention to chronology.
It can be important.
You are unhinged. Seek help.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36629
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

"The wedge strategy was largely authored by Phillip E. Johnson, and features in his book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism."

Phillip Johnson, "The Wedge of Truth":

"If we in the Wedge have an enemy, it is not those in open and honest opposition to our proposals but rather the obfuscators - those who resist any clear definition of terms or issues, who insist that the ruling scientific organizations be obeyed without question and who are content to paper over logical contradictions with superficial compromises." (pg. 17)

Some secret. It was leaked all over Amazon.com .

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36630
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"the Discovery Institute in its Summer 1996 Journal, "a periodic publication that keeps Discovery members and friends up to date on Discovery's programs and events," the Discovery Institute announced the CRSC's formation, which "grew out of last summer's [1995]'Death of Materialism' conference."
"The eight-year-old Discovery Institute is a Seattle think tank where research in transportation, military reform, economics and the environment often takes on the easygoing tenor of its Northwest hometown. But it also sponsors a group of academics in science affectionately called **'the wedge'**...**The wedge** is part of the institute's four-year-old Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), a research, publishing and conference program that challenges what it calls an anti-religious bias in science and science education."

"In November 1996, Johnson and his associates convened the "Mere Creation" conference at Biola University in California. The importance of this conference cannot be underestimated; indeed, in the Foreword to the book which issued from it, its importance was explicitly spelled out by Henry Schaefer, the University of Georgia chemist who had supported Phillip Johnson as a signatory to the Ad Hoc Origins Letter: "An unprecedented intellectual event occurred in Los Angeles on November 14-17, 1996. Under the sponsorship of Christian Leadership Ministries, Biola University hosted a major research conference bringing together scientists and scholars who reject naturalism as an adequate framework for doing science and who seek a common vision of creation united under the rubric of intelligent design." (Christian Leadership Ministries has continued to actively assist **the wedge** both logistically and in its provision of "virtual" office space to **wedge members** on its "Leadership University" web site"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36632
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johns...

In his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Johnson summed up the underlying philosophy of his advocacy for intelligent design and against methodological and philosophical naturalism:

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy **the wedge**.

"The Wedge Strategy"

In a 1997 book - distributed all over the world.

1997 is before 1999.

But the wedge strategy was a "secret" that was "leaked" in 1999??

No sale.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36633
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johns...

1997 - Johnson describes the Wedge movement as devoted to a "program of questioning the materialistic basis of science" and reclaiming the "intellectual world" from the "atheists and agnostics" that Johnson believes are synonymous with this "scientific materialist culture". He describes the "logic of our movement" as:[41]
"The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence, and the logic is terrible."

1997 is before 1999.(by 2 years)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36634
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

<chirp...chirp...>

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36635
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time. When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed. Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.
There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?
Did you not hear me? I said prove your god exists before you attribut things to it. All you did here is spout off some scientific work, nothing else.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36636
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<chirp...chirp...>
When you post a bunch of garbage that proves nothing, you cannot expect anyone to respond other than laugh and snicker behind your back.

Discovery Institute is a sham here in Seattle, it's the least popular group in the entire state, actually.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36637
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Because physical laws, or physical anything, do not appear by magic.
But according to you, physical laws DO appear by magic, since that is what your creator would be using.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36639
Aug 21, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Because physical laws, or physical anything, do not appear by magic.
Which is precisely why Creationism / ID is ridiculous.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36640
Aug 21, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The statement was "to defeat scientific materialism".
You lack a basic education about Evolution, but this doesn't seem to stop you from spreading unscientific garbage about a biological process you choose to ignorantly and dishonestly deny.

Considering the whole forum thinks you're an ignorant Creationist joke, why the f*ck do you keep posting this garbage?

And expecting it to make a difference?

You're mentally ill and need to seek help asap. Don't become another John Buck. It's pitiful.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36641
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Your Creationist cult unashemedly follows the Wedge Strategy documents created by the Discovery Institute.

You represent them and spread their religious propoganda.

You really haven't fooled anyone.

The funniest thing is that you probably believe that you're "doing good" for your cult and are being "effective".

The irony is that you create more atheists here today than any atheists do.

So keep posting your garbage and we'll keep exposing it.

You paint a great picture of what theists are really like when it comes to dishonesty and shamelessness.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36642
Aug 21, 2012
 
Lets hear how Humans rode on the backs of Dinosaurs?

It's all part of your theory, but you never talk about that for fear that you will be laughed the f*ck out.

Instead you use language that mimics science, in a effort to sound intelligent.

The truth is that most people are factors smarter than you here and can see straight through your cult bullsh*t.

Bring it buck, because you create more atheists here than anyone else.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Hollywood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36643
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

madscot wrote:
<quoted text>Did you not hear me? I said prove your god exists before you attribut things to it. All you did here is spout off some scientific work, nothing else.
Do you have a better argument, coward?
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Hollywood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36644
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>When you post a bunch of garbage that proves nothing, you cannot expect anyone to respond other than laugh and snicker behind your back.
Yeah, I'd expect that from a child!

Coward!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••