Evolution would necessarily indicate that some humans are more evolved than others, which in turn encourages racism. Undeniable logic.

Chris_Balsz

Looks a lot like human nature to me, with all its failings and mechanisms for survival intact, including the drive for something larger to believe in as a foundation, the prejudice to deepen its strength and the outrage to reproduce it over and over.

And a name is a name is a name, enviro whackadoos, Buddhists, Christians, anarchists, name a movement and its all the same mechanism.

Speakup on October 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Just mandatory outrage.

There were a lot of Freemasons involved in founding and running the country over the years, so if one believes Madison’s ideas stem from there (I don’t) then it is likely that those ideas provide much of the foundation of our country.

It is typical Freemasonry, if you would look up freemasonry.

Churches in Europe were involved in government and controlled great amounts of wealth in nations long after they had advanced beyond a warlord environment.

dedalus on October 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM

But not as agents of the state in that period, but as contenders.

I’m not saying what Madison says is not true. It is true the Church did not promote liberty in the medieval world, for the same reason it is true that the Church did not promote radio in the Middle Ages.

Careful, you’re only just portraying Christianity as a more accomplished, articulate, oppressor.

Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM

So what? You cannot show that oppression is wrong in and of itself. “Greatest good for the greatest number”. It’s not as if the tax-units had a sacred individual value, a “soul”; that would be inimical to the whole project of the scientific state.

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
James Madison

By all means let us have the guillotine and the collective farm instead.

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

James Madison

My question is, what is the point of all this? All these “arguments” end up at the same point in time/space (assuming there is such a thing), speculating that the Universe came from something rather than nothing (assuming, again, that we know what “something” and “nothing” are) so that there had to be a something there to start with — ends up seeing it’s own tail, whether or not it chases it. So, the something is not only an X of matter, it is an all-knowing something with the ability to calculate, design, plan, ordain and finger-snap into “existence” (whatever that is), the billions up on billions of collected masses we call planets, or stars or _____ (fill in the blank) and all that lies in between.

Okay, and… the point?

If all these debates regress to the “beginning” of the Universe (sorry for all the quotes but we take the meaning of so many of these terms for granted), then why are we so vehement in attacking those who disagree about the origin? What specific difference does it make?

It’s only when the debate is brought into present day and takes form of, in the worshiper’s view, doctrines and rules and faiths and pages upon pages of things written down by very old men (which somehow gives them weight greater than the ink and paper upon which they are written), people worshiping cows, people stoning women, people condemning others to “Hell” (whatever that is), that the debate seems to have any relevance to daily life.

If you read Dawkins in depth without pre-judgment (which I have done — and it’s not always easy — some things he says as a result of his belief are outrageous IMO), you will see that the thing to which he most objects (and the reason that he’s so passionate about his position) is the amount of harm that is done, many times throughout our human history, in the name of “religion.”

And, on that topic, I agree with him.

I’m not so concerned with whether the first spark came from a spontaneous explosion or implosion about which we know so little as to not even have the basis for the question, or whether it came from the wave of a wand of a being already so advanced, despite the existence of nothing else other than itself, to decide to create, design and create this cool thing called a Universe. I’m more concerned with what we, as people, do to each other (and to ourselves) while we are here, as organisms occupying this speck of space.

We can disagree about whether there was a bang, big or otherwise, or there was a long-bearded wise man with a gold stick back there at the start of all this. And if you want to believe that you’re going somewhere with cream puffs and soft jazz all day long if you’re good, that’s cool. Just don’t tell me I have to believe it or I’m going to burn for eternity. When you start telling people that they should go blow up a cafe full of innocent people, children and infants, in order to go hang with some dozens of hot virgins in the ever-after — that I have a problem with. I don’t care who or what created you.

We might disagree about the beginning. But, we can all agree that we’re here now. Don’t you think we should make the best of it.

A final point. Dawkins makes one interesting point. Why do we give a name to someone for not believing something? Do we have a name for people who don’t believe in Santa? Then what is this thing about “labeling” someone an atheist. It’s prejudging and prejudicial, don’t you think. They’re just people who don’t choose to believe something. That’s every human’s right.

The point being. Someone who doesn’t believe in Santa, or someone who we call an “atheist” because they don’t profess a belief in a divine being who created the Universe, is not inherently evil or psychopathic or likely to kill us in our sleep. They’re just people. And professing a “faith” in a supreme being, one of the dozens of gods worshiped around the world, does not make someone any “better” than one who does not, or any less likely to do harm to us or others.

Seems we should stop looking at the label and look at the person. That’s my forth cents’ worth.

MaximusConfessor on October 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM

.
The hallmark of an uneducated HA troll seems to be the use of the word “logic” which seems to refer to the strange mixture of “sciency” terms, disturbed use of ALL CAPS and bold type to smear their paranoid delusions all over the walls. More funny still that they think they are the first to discover them. Scratch an ID Troll, find a Moon Truther. Go figure. Best of luck with your great scientific work on You Tube.

Atheism is also an illogical and arrogant faith. The only absolute way you can know that there is no God in the universe is to have viewed every part of it.

Even that wouldn’t be sufficient. All you’re talking about is compiling all possible empirical evidence. There is no such thing as empirical (i.e., physical) evidence for the metaphysical. So even if one had observed everything there is to be observed, one could still neither confirm nor refute the proposition “God exists.” (Unless you’re suggesting that God is actually a physical phenomenon that can be observed, which doesn’t seem to fit the common useage of the term.)

Typical Freemasonry. The clergy does not exist to foment revolution, and “in no instance” outside of the US was a government founded on a guarantee of liberty. For the bulk of Christian history the common folk did not want independence, they wanted the protection of the most powerful warlord against despoiling warlords, in which the Church most certainly did cooperate.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM

There were a lot of Freemasons involved in founding and running the country over the years, so if one believes Madison’s ideas stem from there (I don’t) then it is likely that those ideas provide much of the foundation of our country.

Churches in Europe were involved in government and controlled great amounts of wealth in nations long after they had advanced beyond a warlord environment.

Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM

having a good day, sweetie?

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
– James Madison

Speakup on October 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Typical Freemasonry. The clergy does not exist to foment revolution, and “in no instance” outside of the US was a government founded on a guarantee of liberty. For the bulk of Christian history the common folk did not want independence, they wanted the protection of the most powerful warlord against despoiling warlords, in which the Church most certainly did cooperate.

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison

Presenting the atheist religion as science is a straw man. Most of mankind rejects pseudo sciences like phrenology and astrology. If dawkins faith were true you could demonstrate it in a lab…
Jerricho68 on October 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM

You are correct that Atheism is a sort of religion, in that it professes to know an answer to a metaphysical question, just as the various Theisms do. I submit the correct perspective is igtheism, in which metaphysical questions are regarded as inherently neither true nor false, as they are by definition immune to empirical investigation. There is no conceivable test for the veracity of either Theistic or Atheistic perspectives.

The confounding thing is that genuine scientific endeavors to understand evolution, which is an inherently empirical investigation, gets tied up in debates about Atheism and Theism (which are both metaphysical concerns). This makes no sense, and confuses two wholly unconnected realms of discourse. While there is empirical evidence for an evolutionary process, ultimately the detailed, step-by-step, empirically-backed answer as to how life came to exist in its current state on Earth is “we don’t know,” and it’s almost a certainty that we will never know with any great precision.

However, there is not, and can never be, empirical evidence for a Theistic claim such as the one endorsed by O’Reilly. So his perspective that, since “We don’t know” is ultimately what science has to offer, he’ll side with some metaphysical perspective, is on a par with saying that, if he can’t fly to Hawaii on a supersonic scramjet, he’ll stay home and do some push-ups to solve the problem of getting to Hawaii. That’s to say, it’s entirely unsound reasoning that results in no solution to the problem, as the first part of the conditional is completely unrelated to the other. If he can’t eat apples, he’ll crush oranges with a hammer. I won’t call it insanity, but I will call it evidence of profound confusion (from which Dawkins also suffers, in a typically equally belligerent fashion).

The bottom line is that “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable answer. What leads O’Reilly to assume he can or should know? Indeed, “I don’t know” is the very statement that drives the entire field of scientific endeavor. It’s good to admit when one doesn’t know.

“Ah seed it on them intertubes! It must beh troo!”

ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Did you even watch the videos? Of course not..that is the extent of your “scientific research”..absolutely nothing.

I just proved scientifically and without a doubt that NASA NEVER went to the moon and that it was impossible for them to go in the first place.

All you can do is throw insults because you are unable to refute the facts and too lazy to even bother researching whether these many BS “scientific theories” that you believe, are true or false.

But then again, lazy mindedness,inability to do any research whatsoever,extreme gullibility and bitterness are all traits of the typical atheist sheeple anyway. Why would I expect you to be able to hold a normal and logical conversation using FACTS? You’re far too emotional for that.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on October 12, 2009 at 2:47 AM

.
Losing? Only in your moms basement dwelling reality. Science marches on.

ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:50 AM

Proves the point. Scorn, ridicule, and taunts make poor arguments.

No such evidence exists, because the hardened skeptics on both sides will not accept it *as* evidence. The atheist does not believe in the possibility of the supernatural, so any phenomenon proffered by believers is dismissed, ignored, ridiculed, or explained away.

The believer’s worldview includes a reality beyond that which is measurable by the human senses, so any evidence offered by unbelievers is dismissed as insufficent because it does not include the possibility of the supernatural.

Hitches, Dawkins, and Harris clearly have no respect for those who do not share their position. The sneers, insults, and ad-hominem bombs they lob show that they are fundamentally unserious and non-responsive with prejudice.

Saw Burkes programs when it when it came out. As I suspected your entire world view comes from TV.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:51 AM

Not at all. And that’s some weak insult when discussing one of the few items of TV with any intellectual weight.

Since you’re aware of how haphazard any bit of technology really is, your mystical faith in Science is even more irrational. You should stop telling anybody you trust in hard evidence and solid logic, because it isn’t true.

Meh. How about the polio vaccine. Penicilin. Moon Landing. Heart Transplant. Steam Engine. Philosophy, Geology, Biology, Mathamatics, Astronomy, Physics.

But I’ll just go with whatever justifies your sneering attitude.

ronsfi on October 11, 2009 at 11:52 PM

none of which have anything to do with your hairygod darwin, and his racist eugenicist theory.

so what are those lower races darwin was talking about? and why should they be exterminated? hmmmm??

I cant resist. This is right up your fruitcake alley.

ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 2:59 AM

It fits you better. Ignoring their own lying eyes is what the flat-earthers do.

why don’t we get to teach “evolution minus” too showcasing evidence that there is, in fact, no God?

I’m game. Show me any evidence.

MaximusConfessor on October 12, 2009 at 1:14 AM

I cant resist. This is right up your fruitcake alley.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:33 AM

.
Saw Burkes programs when it when it came out. As I suspected your entire world view comes from TV.