Atheists protest at a Creation Museum in California

[cleanhippie]

You don’t expect to see a creation museum in Southern California. It’s the kind of thing you expect to see in the South or the Mid-West or some other place where the Bible-belt is so tightly cinched around peoples’ heads that it impedes the flow of blood to the brain. Yet there is one here in Santee, just east of San Diego; a Young Earth Creationist one that teaches the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It’s presence in California is a testament to the indomitable human spirit… of self-willed ignorance and blindness to anything that disagrees with personal prejudice, that is.

It deserves opposition from anyone who calls themselves rational; cries out for it, in fact. And on Saturday, September 24, a group of skeptics answered that cry. Members of Orange County’s Backyard Skeptics and the San Diego Coalition of Reason did just that. The protest was organized by Bruce Gleason from BYS and John Viggiano of the San Diego New Atheists and Agnostics. The two groups showed up carrying signs with messages like “Creationism is not Science”; “Thou shalt not lie”; “Keep Church & State Separate” and “Can I Teach Evolution in Your Church?” The peaceful demonstration stayed outside the museum gates (though some protestors bought tickets and toured the exhibits) where they handed out literature and engaged in dialogue with anyone who came up to talk to them. You can view a well-made video of the demonstration at left.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/atheists-protest-at-a-creation-museum-california

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Damn those militant atheists! Who do they think they are, staying outside the gate not harassing anyone, buying tickets to go inside, and generally being pleasant people. Don't they know that they have a reputation to uphold?

[Ian David]

1. Creations protested outside the Walking with Dinosaurs show in Worcester a few years ago.

So, why not Atheists outside a Creationism museum?

[Deep13]

7. I was in Wormtown in August.

The downtown area is wicked depressing.

[hlthe2b]

2. Respectful protest... I should hope so...

Last month was the first time atheists were knocked from the top of America's most hated list, an honor that now belongs to the Tea Party. While this development may have more to do with the fact that the mainstream media's love affair with the Tea Party is not shared by most Americans, it also dovetails with increased visibility and acceptance of atheism. http://www.salon.com/news/alternet/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/09/29/american_secularism

There is clearly a price to be paid for those thuggish tactics of the teabaggers. As well there should...

The linked article above is worth a full read... While I buried the lede, the title pretty much says it all: "America's secular revival
Five signs that, despite the GOP's efforts, religion's impact on U.S. politics will soon decline "

[fasttense]

3. The religiously insane join the politically insane and create a fake museum of history.

I bet the koch brothers funded the museum.

Good on the atheists.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Unrec for the hateful first line

There are plenty of idiots on the coasts, too - STUNNING, I know. Maybe California should take the beam out of its own eye and look at all the Orange County megachurches that are cropping up like kudzu before they criticize the mote in the rest of the country. :eyes:

[cleanhippie]

6. What line are you talking about?

[Deep13]

8. Sorry, you lost me.

Are you denying that the South and Midwest are more religious than the coasts? Cuz it's true.

[Iggo]

10. "You don't expect to see a creation museum in Southern California."

Right or wrong: Creation museums have been pretty much a bible belt phenomenon.

[humblebum]

11. Native American museums, for example, also tell a story of creation.

and yet I don't see atheists picketing them. Personally, I think atheistic ideas about how everything began or has aleays existed are a little outlandish, to say the least.

[skepticscott]

12. As a myth, not as scientific and historical fact.

When Native Americans on school boards start insisting that their creation story be taught in public school science classes, or when Republican presidential candidates and pundits feel the need to trumpet their adherence to Native American creationism, THEN let us know that your point is remotely relevant.

[humblebum]

13. quite honestly, the last thing in the world I want my children learning

is that the atheistic version of anything is absolutely the correct version. That museum is NOT a "public school science class." 'Group think' we do not need. There is absolutely nothing "free thinking" about organized atheism. It is mind control and a ruse.

[darkstar3]

14. "atheistic version"?

:rofl:

There is, of course, no such thing.

[humblebum]

15. Only in your mind. nt

[darkstar3]

16. So you seriously believe there is an "atheistic version" of

-Science?
-History?
-Language?
-Mathematics?
...

Show me a link to something that is an "atheistic version of anything".

[humblebum]

17. So then, you do believe a diety created the universe. Whaduyaknow? nt

[darkstar3]

18. That's not a link. Try again.

[humblebum]

19. I am glad to see that you are finally becoming a little more open minded.

That radical atheist mentality can really stymie the thought processes.

[darkstar3]

20. So you have nothing but your own little made-up straw man.

[humblebum]

22. There you go with that straw man thing again.

When all else fails, hit 'em with the straw man. Classic.

[darkstar3]

23. I count three individuals that you have recently said that to.

Having trouble telling the difference between atheists, are you?

[humblebum]

25. I'm glad that at the very least, you can count. I say hello and goodbye to

more than one person also. Does that mean I cannot tell them apart?

[darkstar3]

26. Hello and goodbye do not accuse another of specific behavior attributable to a single person.

And now that you've had your fun for several posts, would you care to offer any links to support your idea that there is such a thing as an "atheistic version of anything"?

[humblebum]

27. "atheistic version of anything?" Um? Is there an atheistic version of God?

Or is there an atheistic version of atheist? If there is no atheistic version of anything then ther must be no atheists. I could list ANY link containing anything about atheists or atheism, or attributable to an atheist, and an atheistic version would be presented. But, I am glad to see you opening up your mind a little bit.

But, OK, If you say so.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2556

[darkstar3]

28. You missed a qualifier on that link: "My".

You fail to understand that there is simply no one version of anything that would be considered "atheistic", as in applying broadly to atheists. The writer in that link is presenting their own version of an afterlife, and if you gave a damn to distinguish between atheists you would know that there are a myriad of views on the afterlife among atheists.

And BTW: When you are asked to provide a link to something that is an "atheistic version" and you clearly stuff that phrase into Google and go with the first link, you're already grasping at straws.

[humblebum]

30. Always trying to slip out of something, aren't you? If there is such a thing

as organized atheism, which we both know there is, but which you likely will deny, then that organization must be organized around something in common. And that something in common would necessarily be an atheistic POV, which would be an atheistic version. An yes American Atheists is one such organization with certain ideas in common.

darkstar, you are a master of spin and diversion.

[darkstar3]

32. I'm not the one trying to paint atheism as a religion,

or a worldview with "versions" of history and so on. I'm simply telling you the unvarnished truth. There is only one commonality between atheists, only one thing that causes someone to adopt the label, and that is their lack of belief in any gods. Everything else is unique to the individual who adopts the label.

One commonality, and that is all. It lends itself to no "atheistic version" of anything. Your claim that such a thing exists and that it can be pushed as a "correct version" is nothing but your usual make-believe, as proven by the fact that you have absolutely no substantiation for the claim even after repeated requests for such.

[LeftishBrit]

33. There is no such thing as a single 'organized atheism'

There are some atheist groups, and then there are most atheists, even outspoken ones, who do *not* belong to any organized group.

You seem to equate outspokenness with being part of some organized movement.

[darkstar3]

34. Actually, by previous admission,

he equates outspokenness with extremism and bigotry.

[LeftishBrit]

35. I'd like to ask the atheists here a question

Do any of you in fact belong to any atheist organization or group? I would suspect that most don't, and that those who do would belong to small, separate groups.

I do not belong to *any* atheist or even secularist organization. I subscribe to some political campaign groups: Amnesty International; 38Degrees (a British grassroots campaigning group, mostly about public services); Save Our NHS; HopeNotHate (a group that opposes the BNP and other fascist groups in the UK); and a couple connected with Middle East peace causes, e.g. Peace Now and Oxford Friends of Neve Shalom-Wahat al Salam. But not to anything religion-related or atheism-related, not even the National Secular Society.

What about others?

[darkstar3]

38. Not I.

[humblebum]

36. I never said that there was a single "organized atheism," just as there is no single

organized religion. And I understand that atheists, just like anyone else are individuals with individual ideas. But there are atheist organizations, which are official organizations with boards of directors, mission and vision statements (though they might be called something else), etc. And they do release official statements from time to time, or their leaders issue statements; and if those statements are issued by those persons in their official capacities, they are indeed official statements. Therefore, they are positions taken by organized atheism.

[LeftishBrit]

42. And what level of influence do you think such groups have?

[skepticscott]

21. I'm not surprised

I'm sure you wouldn't want your children learning that the version of how life got to be the way we see it that DOESN'T invoke "god" is the only one that is scientifically legitimate. Or that the non-Biblical version of pi (3.14159+) beats the god-inspired one (3) for accuracy.

And no, the museum is not a public school science class. Show me where I ever said that it was, please (well, we both know that you can't, so don't make your little head explode trying). The point (which you unsurprisingly missed) is that the museum is simply another manifestation of a religious creationist sub-culture in this country that DOES try to ram their views into public school science classrooms, while the Native American museums are not. So your analogy is basically bullshit.

And atheists will be more than happy to tell you what evidence would start to convince them of the existence of a "god". Show me some fundamentalist Xstians who will tell us what evidence will convince them that there is NO god. Then talk to us about who is "free-thinking".

[humblebum]

24. Clue: Trying to restrict thinking is NOT advocating "free thought."

Science can do nothing more than hypothesize about origins. It has proved nothing. Christianity claims no objective proof. And yet you persist in ridiculing those who do not hold your view. Organized atheism IS about thought control, not free thought.

[skepticscott]

29. Ignorance squared

on top of avoidance of any answer to substantive rebuttals of your (non) points.

The scientific side of this is the evolution of life, not its origins, and science can do and has done a great deal more than hypothesize, and has done it based on overwhelming evidence. As far as "proof", science is not about proving things in the way that mathematics is, and has never claimed to be. You've shown by repeated dodging of the issue that you have no clue what science IS about.

And fundamentalist Christians claim that their view of how life got to be the way we see it is absolutely, unquestionably correct based on the myths of a gaggle of middle eastern tribesman from thousands of years ago. No evidence or argument will ever change their minds. Evolutionary scientists have been more than happy to state what evidence will convince them that evolution is untrue. Once again, which of the two groups is "free thinking". Which group bases the strength of their convictions on the strength of their evidence, as all sane and rational people do? Which group repeats the same lies over and over and over, even after they've been debunked countless times?

[cleanhippie]

31. ^^THIS^^

[pokerfan]

37. +1000

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

[humblebum]

39. You are the ignorant one here, sir. It really doesn't matter

whether or not you disagree with the position of the creationists. the issue at hand is the open protest of another group's ideas. That proves an aversion to free thought. And there IS an issue of origins, as well as evolution, here. On that issue science can only hypothesize. You are using the science/mathematics straw man as a diversion to the topic at hand, which is the protest against free thought. When I see you or yours protesting an astrologer or a display of native American spiritualism, etc., I'll reconsider. Until then...?

[LeftishBrit]

40. 'the open protest of another group's ideas. That proves an aversion to free though't.

No, it doesn't. It proves one's desire to exercise free thought and speech oneself.

Banning or criminalizing another group's ideas is indeed an aversion to free thought. Protesting isn't.

Do you consider that people who go on protests against cuts in public services, or against the war in Iraq, are thus averse to the 'free thought' of those who support the cuts or the war?

[Goblinmonger]

46. So protesting the support of the death penalty

is an "aversion to free thought" yet you wildly supported it in that thread.

Hard on for atheists, you have.

[humblebum]

51. So, you are protesting my protesting against organized atheism? nt

[Goblinmonger]

53. I'm not the one with the "protesting is bigotry" standard.

That is you. I'm trying to have you come to grips with it. Given your side-step response, I see you still haven't.

[humblebum]

56. Where did you get the quote, "protesting is bigotry" ? nt

[Goblinmonger]

59. Are you shitting me?

Seriously? We went over, and over, and over this in the other thread.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Here is a link to one of MY posts

So that it is clear this isn't a call out of you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x304207#304300

[humblebum]

61. You used quotation marks around your statement indicating

that I or someone else stated that, and yet I see no evidence of it. so if you insist that I said that that then please provide the evidence or stop your bogus quotations.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Your obtuseness if fucking sickening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x303316#303362

[Goblinmonger]

80. *crickets*

Looks like my post isn't going away. You going to back pedal some more to indicate you didn't really say what you said?

[darkstar3]

83. It's SOP. Take a look above.

I clearly asked him, point blank, to prove there was such a thing as an "atheist version of anything," and he ran the fuck away, because he knew he couldn't, and he knew what that would mean for his "organized atheism" bullshit.

[LeftishBrit]

70. You can protest against anything you want, peacefully.

Just like the Tea Party, or any other group.

I may not agree with the views expressed; but freedom of speech and of peaceful protest is key to a democracy.

[deacon_sephiroth]

41. This may be the most ironic thing I've ever read

in my entire life...

Please, tell us more of the evils involved in group think, mind control and ruses perpetrated by atheists... as opposed to.... oh I don't know....

[humblebum]

50. That statement was designed to illicit your feelings of irony.

I consider the New Atheist movement to be no different than any overbearing religion or cult.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Atheism,organized or otherwise, is NOT mind control or a ruse!

It's just a viewpoint with which you disagree! That doesn't mean that in order to be an atheist, you must be either insincere or brainwashed. And who is doing the brainwashing? I'm talking about atheists in Britain or Western Europe or America - not places run by dictators. Do you seriously think that Richard Dawkins, for example, has the power to control people's minds? Not very successfully! Because I know religious people who work in the same building as he does. I know religious people who (gasp! shock! horror!) studied Biological Sciences at Oxford, and therefore had (GASP!) tutorials and lectures from him - and who are still religious. Not very good at the old mind control; needs a few refresher courses. More generally, though I know plenty of atheists, I don't know anyone who became an atheist through meeting up with an 'organized atheist' individual or group. Family influence, probably yes.

Atheism is not some evil plot to control people's minds or lure them into evil. Neither in general is religion (of course, there are religous cults that do; and there are some non-religious ideologies that can become like cults).

[humblebum]

44. It has become a standard practice by many influential atheists

to openly ridicule religious belief and to call for other atheists to ridicule religious belief, e.g. C. Hitchens exhorting atheists to "show ridicule, hatred, and contempt for religion." He is not alone. that is clearly an attempt to persuade people into a certain line of thought, which has a history of negative effects upon society.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Do you believe in creationism?

Do you think it is correct despite ALL the evidence to the contrary?

Is calling something that is fucking ridiculous (that the Christian creation myth is the correct scientific explanation for the universe) fucking ridiculous ridicule? I don't think so.

[humblebum]

49. I believe in a Creator, but I do not accept the the earth or the universe

is only 6-10 years old. I also believe that atheism is a ridiculous idea.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Why not go the 6-10K years old?

Could it be that it is ridiculous given scientific evidence?

[humblebum]

57. Most Christians do not hold to that, so what is your point?

Atheism has absolutely no hold on science. But there are many atheists who use science to validate their case that there is no diety, which is laughable in itself, since science has not the ability to determine that.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Surveys show differently.

They have been hashed and rehashed in here.

I don't think I have ever seen a scientist say that science proves there is not diety. Dawkins has made the most bold statement that is is pretty clear from what we know in science that there isn't, but even he doesn't say 100%.

Did you go to a strawman building convention over the weekend?

[humblebum]

62. When the Catholic Church does not hold to the idea of a literal

6 day creation, then it blows your assertion out of the water, since they are a majority in Christianity. And certainly not all Protestant denominations hold to it either. Now, when we know that the majority doesn't officially hold that POV, but you are claiming that MOST do, you are definitely suckin' air.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Gallop Poll, this month

40% of people believe that God created humans in their current form at some point in the last 10,000 years.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Now, simple math will tell you that if 75% of the population in the US is Christian and the 40% that buy the Christian creation myth would be Christian, that the majority of Christians believe in young-earth creationism.

QED motherfucker

[humblebum]

65. Are you speaking about the world population or the US?

And certainly you can eliminate most Catholics. So regardless, I would still question your poll.

[Goblinmonger]

66. It's not my poll. It's Gallup

Go ahead and question them on their standards. You'll look like a genius saying Gallup sucks.

And why do you eliminate Catholics. Am I now to believe that all catholics believe exactly what the hierarchy says they should believe? All Catholics believe abortion is wrong? All Catholics believe gay marriage should not be allowed? Scary ground you are treading on there.

[humblebum]

67. 40% is NOT most. nt

[Goblinmonger]

69. OK, One more time for you since it is Monday.

This poll shows that 40% of people in the US believe in young earth creationism.
Roughly 75% of the US population is Christian.
Those 40% that believe the Christian myth would be Christian.
That would mean that most Christians believe it (40% of the population is more than half of 75% of the population--simple math might be tough for you).

[humblebum]

73. No. Actually it means that 40% of the people polled believe that.

If you are going quote polls then you need to stick with facts, and not assumptions. There is no end to your deceit. How, many Muslims were polled? How many ministers? What was the age differential? You are making baseless assumptions - again.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Yes, I'm sure that ALL kinds of non-christians

believe in the literal interpretation of the Christian creation myth. Yep. Jews, too. They are SO literal in their interpretation of the old testament.

Deceit is a pretty strong word there, partner. I gave you a link to the poll. All of your red herring arguments should be answered there. But, hey, perhaps you are right and Gallup is just a polling hack organization with no track record of being able to correctly predict the tendencies of the country. Yeah, that's probably it.

[humblebum]

77. You can spin your poll using your fuzzy math any way you want, Bubba.

But the simple fact is the poll in no way says what you claim it to say. We know that a certain percentage of Christians are non-believers, and we know that some Muslims adhere to the 6 day creation. And we do not know male or female, denomination, age, or is 16% of the population atheists? your conclusion is bunk.

[darkstar3]

86. "Fuzzy math" was a Republican meme. It actually makes no sense, especially here.

The poll shows clearly that 40% of the US population believes in the 6-day creation myth. Demographic data, shown here, lists 79.0% of the US population as Christian and/or Muslim, the two religions that would believe in the 6-day creation myth.

40% of the population
--------------------------- = 50.6% of US religious believers believe in the 6-day creation myth.
79.0% of the population

You can question the polling data all you want. You can question the Pew demographics all you want. I expect that you will, and make a whole lot of people laugh in the process, but one thing you simply cannot question is the math. A fourth grader would understand it.

[humblebum]

95. That poll, in no way, "shows...

clearly that 40% of the US population believes in the 6-day creation myth" - assuming that you mean the literal 24 hour day. Where does the poll say that or even imply that, when you are talking about the entire catholic church that doesn't teach that and whose people have not been taught that? Not to mention most mainline moderate or liberal leaning protestant churches, which do not teach literal 24 hour 6 day creation either. It just isn't what the poll says. The poll does not even address the literal 6 day creation. You really need to look at what the poll is asking.

[Goblinmonger]

97. It does show that 40% of the population

believes in young earth creationism. That is clear from the poll.

It doesn't matter what the churches teach. Those are the numbers that believe it. Where they learned it from is another question. But the numbers clearly show that over 50% of believers believe in young earth creationism.

[humblebum]

100. Absolutely NOT. I shows that 40% believe that "humans, in their present

form" began appearing about 10,000 years ago. That is a far cry from young earth creationism, a view held by relatively few Christians. See post #93. you need to read what the poll is asking. Not one word about young earth creationism.

[Goblinmonger]

101. So you think that "began appearing" is the same as "created"

I am going, and have done so with each instance, with what the poll states. This one is pretty clear. God created humans in their CURRENT form within the last 10000. That does NOT take into account evolution. It is worded to eliminate it.

[humblebum]

104. You have stopped making any sense. You do not even have

a clue of who "gap" creationists are and who "day-age" creationists are. If you continue to say that young earth creationists makeup over 50% of christianity, you have nothing to back you up. Your poll is bogus and you are again being purposely deceitful. Young earth creationists make up on a small minority, and are included in that poll, along with those who believe in evolution and an earth and universe that are billions of years old.

Perfect example:"God created humans in their CURRENT form within the last 10000 years. That does NOT take into account evolution. It is worded to eliminate it." If it was worded to eliminate it, it would say so. It does NOT say God created humans 10000 years ago. Again, you have NOTHING to back you up. You are just spouting the common atheist propaganda.

If you can specifically point to any cities or established civilizations that are much older than 10000 years, be my guest. Most mainline Protestant denominations and Catholicism teach evolution, and even to suggest that most christians are young earth creationists is a calcuated falsehood.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Here are the options from the poll

1. "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"
2. "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"
3. "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years of so"

You are saying that the 40% represent #1. But the 40%--which is the largest percentage btw--picked #3, which, given the options, is the choice NOT reflective of evolution. Actually, of those that think god had a hand in this, the smaller percentage believe in evolution by 2% (that could be within the margin of error--I couldn't find it on the site but even so, it's neck and neck).

[humblebum]

110. You have lost it and need to do some book learning.

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years of so" Nothing in that statement precludes evolution." You need to investigate gap creationists and day-age creationists to get a clearer picture. But the bottom line here is that your original assertion is bogus and you are now straw manning and throwing out red herrings to change the subject. The poll said what it said and nothing more. Good day.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Hey, genius

Did you read the first two options? THOSE are the ones that include the evolution distinction by saying that evolution got us here with a god and no god option. The third one does not. It's really not that fucking hard to understand.

Your accusations of fallacies is clearly projection.

I also like, and haven't forgotten, that you completely gave up on your "I never said it was bigotry" bullshit above.

[humblebum]

112. Yeh. uh huh. nt

[Goblinmonger]

113. What a witty retort.

But then, when the answer is pretty clear and has been shown to you about 100 times, I guess that's all you got.

[humblebum]

114. Regardless, Bubba, your insistance that over half of Christians are

"young earth creationists" has been proven to be bunk. I would imagine however that you will continue to parrot the falsehood, even though you know it to be untrue.

[laconicsax]

115. You've proven nothing but your own denial. n/t

[darkstar3]

116. Bingo.

[humblebum]

117. Denial of what?

That 40% that is being touted as "young earth creationists" are creationists alright, but certainly not all young earth creationists, not even close, and continuing to pander such crap is a purposeful deception. But par for the course, coming from radical atheism.

[laconicsax]

118. And now you've proven that you didn't read the poll results. n/t

[humblebum]

68. i don't eliminate Catholics, but that is NOT taught in the Catholic Church.nt

[Goblinmonger]

71. Again, are you telling me I can hold ALL Catholics

to what Rome dictates?

Because many here make it pretty clear that US Catholics don't believe what Rome believes.

Kind of awesome for the RCC side of the argument when they can say "that's not us" when it's a shitty position but "hey, that's us" when it is a "good" position. The Gallup poll makes the numbers pretty clear in the US, though, so your argument is moot and just a red herring.

[humblebum]

72. You sure spend a lot of time telling me what I am saying or what I think

You told me that I said "protesting is bigotry," which is bunk and made up.

That all Catholics think alike, which they don't

And that a majority believe in the 6-day creation, which you have yet to prove.

You just kinda have this thing for making things up don't you?

[Goblinmonger]

75. I gave you link up above, bucky.

But I'm going to guess you have passive-aggressively alerted on that post and are hoping it will be deleted so you don't actually have to deal with it.

I also gave you a link to a Gallup poll that pretty much says what I said. Unless you think that the 25% of non religious in the country are young-earth creationists. Because THAT'S possible.

You can stammer and spout all you want about me not giving you links, but they are all there.

[humblebum]

78. Yes, deceit was the proper term to use. And even if your poll was anywhere to being accurate,

Then you would have 16% of the population trying to tell the other 84% how to believe or ridiculing them for what they believe. Either way, we have a real problem here.

[darkstar3]

85. So you believe in mob rule? The 84% should get to do whatever the fuck they want?

Congratulations, you're a Republican!

[LeftishBrit]

96. While in general it's a good thing for people to 'live and let live'..

it's not a terribly serious problem to have '16% of the population trying to tell the other 84% how to believe or ridiculing them for what they believe' (even if they were). It's a much more serious problem to have have 84% of the population trying to tell the other 16% how to believe or ridiculing them for what they believe - because they are in such a case using their numerically superior position to bully others.

As the old verse goes:

Way down south where bananas grow,
A grasshopper trod on an elephant's toe.
The elephant said, with tears in his eyes,
'Pick on somebody your own size!'

Of course, expressing one's own beliefs, whether as one of the 16% or the 84%, is not in itself ridiculing or telling people what to believe.

[Goblinmonger]

98. When the 84% are being fucking ignorant,

such as believing in young earth creationism, I would hope that all progressives would stick with the 16%. Your mileage might vary, I guess.

[laconicsax]

76. Elimating Catholics makes it worse for Protestants.

-Protestants make up about 50% of the US population.
-40% of the US population believes the Christian creation myth is literally true.

Since you've eliminated Catholics, you have 80% of American Protestants as Young-Earth Creationists.

The only way to make that 80% a minority, you need for a majority of non-Christians to believe that the Biblical creation myth is literally true. Remember, 100% of Jews and Muslims only make up 2-3% of the US population.

[humblebum]

79. The poll says what it says. you can extrapolate for eternity, but

in order to find what percentage of Christians believe in a 6 day creation you would have to poll a large random sampling of Christians. And if you wanted to poll the percentage of Catholics, you would need to poll only Catholics. As it is, you have no firm figures on percentages of certain subgroups, and any conclusion that the majority of Christians are young earth creationists are is a logical fallacy.

[laconicsax]

87. The numbers lead to an inescapable conclusion.

Of course, you're well practiced at denying reality.

[humblebum]

89. And you are well practiced in spin. nt

[darkstar3]

90. When all else fails, you again attack the messenger.

How predictable.

[humblebum]

91. Kinda puts you in that group too doesn't it? nt

[darkstar3]

92. Oh I mock you openly and without regret.

I simply do so while at the same time answering your bullshit, as I did above.

[humblebum]

94. Spinning as usual, with not a clue of what you are talking about.

The poll simply does not say that a majority of Christians are believers in the literal 24 hour 6-day creation, as is being claimed or implied.

[pokerfan]

82. Sixty percent of regular church-goers are young earth creationists

According to Gallup. Doesn't look like they broke it down further than that. In any case, 60% is still a majority, last time I checked.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

[laconicsax]

88. Only if you limit yourself to the rules of mathematics. n/t

[humblebum]

93. That's not 60% " young earth creationists".

The 60% not only includes "young earth creationists", but those who think that "humans in present form" or civilization (aka civilized man) appeared around 10000 years ago. That would include the "gap" creationists, and probably some of the "day-age" creationists who also believe the earth and the universe are millions and billions (the common scientific view), with modern humans being late comers. The poll does not say what you claim it says.

[Goblinmonger]

99. Look who's spinning now.

How can you POSSIBLY get that from the results. Even if you are right about the age of the earth that these people believe in, they still think that god created humans in their present form in the last 10,000 years. Which is utter bullshit.

[humblebum]

102. there is no spin. You totally misread the poll. Most of those people

in the 40% are NOT young earth creationists as you you state and most believe that the earth is about 4+ billion years old, and that it evolved. If you continue spouting falsehoods about Christianity then you are purposely being dishonest.

[Goblinmonger]

103. How do you know that from the poll?

I will agree that we don't specifically know their views on the age of the earth, but they completely do not believe in evolution and think that god created humans in their current form within the past 10000 years. That is VERY clear from the poll and is ignorant bullshit that is coming from somewhere if not their church (pssst, it's from their church).

[humblebum]

105. "That is VERY clear from the poll" - Pure ignorance!

[Goblinmonger]

107. Perhaps ignorance on your part. The poll is clear

Check it here

[LeftishBrit]

55. Fine - and some people would think you're a heretic for not being a 'young earth creationist'

Why do you worry so much more about atheists disagreeing with you, than about the real fundamentalists thinking that you have views that go against God and the Bible?

And I have no problem with your thinking that atheism is a 'ridiculous idea'. I do have a problem with your (apparently) thinking that atheism is a sinister influence on the state, and a form of 'mind control'.

[humblebum]

81. I think I told you before that I think that there are extremists on both

ends of the spectrum. I certainly don't think all atheists are dangerous, or immoral, or are any more or less normal than anyone else. But I do think that many in the New Atheist movement are spouting things and encouraging things that are potentially dangerous. There are also some very potentially dangerous characters and orgs. on the religious side, too.

My religious beliefs do not include a 6 day creation belief, but my Christian beliefs are easily more rectifiable with their overall POV's than with Atheism.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Are you proud of the fact

that your views mesh better with 6-day creationists than scientific evidence? Personally, that would be a reason for me to take a hot shower with plenty of soap and a new loofah.

[cleanhippie]

109. What current, modern day atheist spouts ideas that are "dangerous?"

Current, as in today, right now?

Who are they and what makes them dangerous? Please, be specific.

[cleanhippie]

120. *CRICKETS* Whenever you paint yourself into a corner, bum, you run away...

And we both know why, don't we?

[LeftishBrit]

54. Expressing ANY opinion is to some extent 'an attempt to persuade people into a certain line of

thought'.

Argument is not the same thing as brainwashing.

And Hitchens is not all that influential a person in society as a whole. He has influence in a small group, who mostly agreed with him from the start anyway. While I respect him for his intelligence, and for his courage under serious illness, I have never been influenced by him, and disagree with him very strongly on quite a few issues.

Do you think it is wrong for a vicar in church to try to influence his congregation to believe certain things? That, too, is an attempt to persuade people into a certain line of thought.

To condemn all attempts to persuade others of anything, would be indeed be an attack on free thought and speech.

And speaking of 'ridicule and contempt', here are a few random examples:


'The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country’s own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted...Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or “anti-racists” who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people’s livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands' (Melanie Phillips, widely-read journalist and strong anti-secularist).

'Sir Terry Pratchett has been around our household for some years: the 15- and 17-year-olds have been devouring his books ever since they were so high, and when he "outed" himself as suffering from Alzheimer's, Hugo, the younger, almost wept. But ever since I heard Pratchett claim that only the "far Right" had any objections to assisted suicide, I have loathed him. For a man blessed with such talent and success, who wields an influence on so many young people, to rubbish life so publicly is disgraceful. . (Cristina Odone, strongly anti-secularist writer for the Daily Telegraph, attacking a man whose views, whether one agrees with them or not, are based on his own terminal illness.)


Poverty? It’s just a lie the Left uses to destroy the middle class...Everyone knows that ‘poverty’ in Britain is relative. The British ‘poor’ of today do not starve, do not freeze, do not go without medical treatment – as truly poor people across the world undoubtedly still do. I have seen actual poverty in Africa, South America, India and Burma. And I have seen the poor areas of my own country too. There is no comparison. What the British neglected classes mainly suffer from is moral poverty, a grim mental diet of TV slurry and an almost total absence of good examples in their lives. ...The middle classes are not good because they are better Off. They are better off because they are good. This is the fundamental truth that socialism has always hated.' (Note: 'middle class' in British usage corresponds to 'upper middle class' in American usage) (Peter Hitchens, strongly Christian brother of the atheist Hitchens).


So, it's hardly just atheists who can use aggressive and at times hateful language when they are trying to persuade others. Hardly restricted to 'organized atheism'.

[darkstar3]

84. Fallacious to a fault.

You have invoked the slippery slope, the blind source ("he's not alone"), and a false premise. You do this in support of your special pleading. :boring:

[Goblinmonger]

45. Here you go with your atheists protesting problems

You are such a damned hypocrite it is amazing.

Do you agree with the creationists?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

119. Over the summer,

I visited both the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., and the Creation Museum of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis in Petersburg, KY. There were many differences between the real museums in D.C., and the fake museum I saw the next week, but pertinent to your point is this: the Museum of the Native American did mention creation myths in passing, mostly when discussing artworks on display. It also mentioned other myths like the rabbit and panther, the raven as trickster, etc. However, it did not insist that they were real accounts of history. It did not insist that people who disagree have an agenda, are dishonest, or are responsible for all of the world's problems. It simply presented them in the interest of context and knowing more about the artwork on hand.

The Creation Museum could not have been further from this neutral method of presentation utilized by the Smithsonian. Their presentation of claims was nothing short of strident; they practically dared patrons to disagree. It took every opportunity to malign "Man's Reason" as inaccurate, inferior to Divine Revelation as a source of knowledge, causing all of man's modern problems, and harboring some shadowy godless agenda. It's tone was defensive throughout, and it lashed out at those who disagree. It described Voltaire as an "infidel;" it took some not-so-subtle swipes at Catholicism; it maligned Charles Templeton, an ex-Fundamentalist Christian; and it imputed all manner of wicked motives to Charles Darwin. It espoused the Hamite theory of racial origin, which acted as justification for slavery for centuries. It invented wildly solutions to the many problems created by Noah's Flood - even creating something called "floating forests" to account for the observed increase in complexity in geologic strata. This of course is all absent any scientific evidence. Most egregious, however, was the toy dinosaurs available in the gift shop. They vended small plastic animals sold at many other museums in the country, but there was one small problem: the plastic booklets fastened to the toys with rubber bands included information on each species, including its age in millions of years. They had actually gone in with scissors and individually removed those sections that described scientifically known facts that were disagreeable to them, while leaving the prices intact. In short, they flew in the face of science and presented their myths as incontestable reality in spite of all evidence.

Quite simply, the Creation Museum is an assault on science, while the Museum of the Native American is not.

[Deep13]

9. Some see it as moderates or liberals protesting extremism.

I see it as people telling the truth protesting liars.

[Goblinmonger]

48. It's turtles all the way down, bitches. n/t