More fanatical intolerance by secularists

Jewish World Review ^ | February 28, 2005 | Michael Medved

[beaversmom]

TV comedian Bill Maher has provided new proof that today's secularists display far less tolerance, and far more fanaticism, than their counterparts among people of faith.

On MSNBC, Maher baldly declared: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion…. I think it justifies crazies…I think religion is a neurological disorder… The future does not belong to religion."

Even those who share Maher's left-leaning politics must recognize that religious celebrities who railed against non-believers in similar terms would face an avalanche of criticism. Imagine the reaction if James Dobson suggested, "atheism is a neurological disorder!"

Of course, religious leaders seldom denounce non-believers as "sick" since they hope to encourage their faith — and millions of uncommitted Americans have indeed recently embraced traditional religious practice.

The ongoing, undeniable revival in Bible-based Christian and Jewish families gives the lie to the unmarried and childless Maher's smug declaration that "the future does not belong to religion."

[tx_eggman]

Yeah, advise all your friends to be delusional. Reality is such a hard thing to take.

No flat earther here Shub, just someone amused by the vagaries of OCD.

[shubi]

OCD is sometimes better termed passion for the cause of truth. In this case, you might give a diagnosis of
nuerological damage causing retardation in creationists.

Or possibly some just have a reading disorder that allows
them to only understand the Bible in the most simplistic terms imaginable, meanwhile accusing others of not being Christian because THEY think the Bible is meaningful in profound ways.

[tx_eggman]

This post may be of interest to you:

Shubi's (AKA Fo-Foe) Pedigree

[tx_eggman]

OCD is sometimes better termed passion for the cause of truth. In this case, you might give a diagnosis of nuerological neurological damage causing retardation in creationists.

Fo-Foe, you've got your facts, they've got theirs. It ceased being about the truth a long time ago.

It has devolved (damn, I crack myself up sometimes) into a pissing contest to establish who is smarter - which, incidentally, does nothing to advance the Gospel of Christ.

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

[shubi]

Creationists have harmed the Gospel by putting in requirements for salvation (or at least making it appear like there are requirements) beyond the Gospel.

Creationism is apostasy.

[shubi]

You recognize your superiors, I see.

[Auntie Dem]

Why have the lower primates that have been studied for recorded history not advanced?

But they have advanced. You must have missed the constant stream of them walking upright out of the jungles, shaving, putting on a suit and running for some Democratic political office.

Oh wait...running as/being a democrat is not advanced.

[tx_eggman]

Last post for me this go-round fo-foe.

Creationists have harmed the Gospel by putting in requirements for salvation (or at least making it appear like there are requirements) beyond the Gospel

Creationism is apostasy <=== You mean like requiring that they believe what you do in order for them to pass muster?

Fo-foe, my very first interaction with you revolved around removing the plank from your own eye. You haven't made any progress.

[muawiyah]

Seems to me when you get into the question of dog breeding you actually fall right into the nebulous pit of "intelligent design" with human beings actually doing the selecting, and the designing!

I'm sure Darwin thought dogs were a different species than wolves. In modern times we know from our examination of their DNA that they are, in fact, the exact same species.

Give us something better than the puppies.

[shubi]

Your lack of understanding of biological processes does not necessitate me spending time explaining the inanity of your opinions.

[shubi]

Hmmmm... maybe you shouldn't talk, seeing how you are attempting to attack the man rather than offerring any coherent arguments other than misinterpretations of Scripture.

[muawiyah]

Look, you can use dogs to explain how "selection" works, but you sure can't use them to explain how "natural selection" leads to new species.

You have to have a much better example than that, and anyone who claims to have in depth knowledge of biological systems who doesn't know the difference between selective breeding as conducted by humans and natural selection definitely needs to go back to school.

[tx_eggman]

offerring any coherent arguments other than misinterpretations of Scripture.

Nope, not me.

[shubi]

Here is the whole text of Darwin's Origin of Species. It has more than just dog breeding in it. Why argue with me, when you can look at the reasoning at its source?

Knock yourself out:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

[shubi]

A large amount of change in our cultivated plants, thus slowly and unconsciously accumulated, explains, as I believe, the well-known fact, that in a vast number of cases we cannot recognise, and therefore do not know, the wild parent-stocks of the plants which have been longest cultivated in our flower and kitchen gardens. If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that given to the plants in countries anciently civilised.


Darwin, Origin of Species Ch1

I thought you might like to see a paragraph from Origin, so that you might decide to actually read the whole book, rather than speculate on what it might contain on puppies.

[muawiyah]

Darwin didn't have a clue regarding the mechanism of inheritance. Why would I want to go back and re-read something that in light of today's science is a tad dated.

[muawiyah]

Darwin was not exactly correct in that statement you quoted.

In fact, the greater part of it was given over to his condemnation of dark skinned folks who didn't live like "civilized" people in the salons of London.

Are you trying to tell us that Darwin also came up with fascism, or what?

And what is it you are trying to tell the rest of us?

[shubi]

Uh huh, sure.... I didn't really expect you to want to read any science. Speaking of not having a clue...

[shubi]

If you can't understand the import of the paragraph, it demonstrates you don't understand science. The meaning of the Darwin's reasoning is clear.

Nice try at obfuscation. Do creationists have any shame?

[muawiyah]

Not being a creationist I can't speak for them. On the other hand, it's very easy to acknowledge that Darwin didn't know about DNA, and until recently most of the folks in the world, if they thought about it at all, probably believed dogs and wolves were DIFFERENT species.

DNA exists. Our genome has some that clearly came from our ancesters, all the way back, and some that was acquired from different branches of life via infection, or even other, but unknown processes.

Then there's the dog/wolf problem. A dog is a wolf, but all the "natural selection" has been supplanted with "human selection".

Like I said, it's time for you guys to give up on using "intelligent design", also known as "human selection" to explain "natural selection". Certainly there's some other group of species out there where such explanation is possible ~ maybe some kind of bugs! Should be trivial, eh?!