In the past I had come across a blog that had written a piece about evolution and its beneficial impact on humanity. Undoubtedly and most unfortunately some religious zealot full of pious indignation decreid the piece and began to spout religiousity as if his very stream of consciousness had began to retch uncontrolably. I then posted a moderate and unbiased response that refused to scrutinize or even consider the vitiole that permeated his mindless rant, which was most likely not his own but a regurgitation of what he had been indoctrinated to believe and say by his “religious leaders.”
This is what I said:
Science has provided humanity with such ‘natural miracles’ as modern medicine and all of its discoveries such as antibiotics, the development of vaccines, modern techniques of surgery, anesthesia, pharmacology, and biogenetic engineering. I could go on and on about the great discoveries, inventions, and innovations that are the direct product of science but that would encapsulate far too much space. Science has improved and impacted virtually every aspect of our lives and not even the pious Amish are able to avoid modern science and technology. The religious zealots that decry evolutionary science and modern psychology surely wouldn’t dare decry the innovations produced from such sciences. Through evolutionary biology we have developed advanced sciences such as genetics, phylogeny, and increased our knowledge within virtually all other sciences such as molecular biology and theoretical psychology. Evolution has extensive support for it through most of the various sciences; there are volumes upon volumes of scientific research and testing that support evolution through sciences such as biology, paleontology, archeology, geophysics, geology, theoretical psychology, genetics, planetary science, and phylogeny to simply name a few. To decry either evolutionary science or psychology is to illustrate ones inherent ignorance and inability to reconcile ones ‘faith’ with that of science (how dejected).Now in light of all that science has provided humanity what has religion given us? The answer to this will undoubtedly vary from person to person but the best they can assert is that religion provides comfort and the hope that life will be better in a suspected afterlife. The real answer is that the best religion has given us is a blind and misguided sense of the world, the worst it has given us is continual bloody “holy wars” as in crusades, pogroms, and jihads; it has fostered hate, bias, ignorance, slavery, murder, genocide, tyranny, poverty, and evil (to use religious language). Religion has effectively improved absolutely nothing where as science has and will continue to do so despite religious opposition.
21 comments:
This is a great essay JD. I think that most of the people who reject science in favor of religion, and cannot even go so far as to reconcile the two is because they have been INDOCTRINATED with fundamentalist thinking since they were tiny kids. They keep going to their churches into adulthood where biased messages are constantly drilled into them repeatedly and they are told what to think and they believe they are thinking for themselves, when in fact they are ROBOTS. They are too afraid of hellfire and damnation to think for themselves or to consider other possibilities...and yet almost all of them USE SCIENCE on a daily basis...they go to doctors, drive cars, have all the latest modern gadgets...wearing clothes, perfume, deoderant, etc which were all formulated by SCIENCE. Cell phones, computers, televisions, microphones their pastors scream into...I could go on and on. But what would they say..."god gave scientists the ability to create these things"... but scientific evidence for evolution, it is wrong and evil. Just like their bible...they are full of contradictions. (But they say that is because they are only human...they make up answers for everything you throw at them because they are brainwashed!)
Speaking of "religious zealots full of pious indignation" and "spouting religiousity as if his very stream of consciousness"...our friend JJordan is at it again dissing atheists on his blog...particularily Freethoughtmom and Yours Truly again...quoting us out of context again. It was after a discussion on Freethoughtmom's blog about the bible...we stood firm and told him what we believe AGAIN...and our summary of the bible as we see it...and he returned to his blog to write another big long dissertation to make himself feel better. You might find it humorous (or get really really mad).
A wonderful essay, JDHURF. I agree with Stardust that people who reject science for religion are brainwashed.
A huge problem is that so many of these brainwashed sheep aren't content to believe what they want and mind their own business. They also have to influence our federal and state laws with their antiquated, often bigoted ideas, and so many politicians cater to them. That's the only way to explain how the teaching of evolution in science class is even an issue.
Justin, I know what you mean. I have been in this ongoing bullcrap discussion with this Jordan fellow over on Freethoughtmom's blog now for too long and am WEARY WEARY WEARY of it. Part of me wants to tell him to "sod off" but then I don't want to look "defeated" either. He is very aggresive and these are the kinds of people we are up against in political and science issues. They are PERSISTENT AND AGGRESSIVE. Though we are sick and tired of this nonsensical debate over a non-existent sky daddy...we can't back down.
stardust, i've had the same lengthy and exasperating discussions on many forums. it's hard to de-convert these people because they don't want to let go of the sense of security they get from thier beliefs. It is very bleak to think that when we die we're just going to be a pile of bones. They also think that to be an atheist you are automatically immoral and untrustworthy. Certain people are not worth the time and effort. They just don't get it.
Hopefully by continuing with our writings and outspoken comments we will eventually make a small dent in their closed mindedness.
Rusko - I know you are right. I've been wasting too much time in useless dialogue with him...as they say "the horse is dead."
stardust,
Thanks for the compliment; I’m glad that you enjoyed me post. It does seem wholly ironic and inconceivable for one to, at the same time, accept science and then also reject it.
I guess this Jim character truly is engaging with non-theists for contemptible reasons, for it seems obviously plain that if he were trying to create armistice or a shared agreement this would have been done with long ago. I shall not visit his blog, for it is nothing more than the meandering idiocy of a religiously intoxicated proselyte. Though I most definitely will visit freethoughmom’s blog and vocalize dissent.
melloncollie,
Precisely, religiosity would be of no great interest to me if it were left were it belonged, in the private sector. Those that will encourage and promote the Christian faith to be imbued into the United States federal and state governments are, as far as I’m concerned, perpetrating true unpatriotic and seditious treason; this is a secular and pluralistic nation and those that cry the contrary are apostates of our democracy and should be called out on it rather than affirmed. Also as far as the brainwashed sheep go I refer to them as “sheeple.”
justinother,
I relate to your sense of frustration and exhaustion, I too would enjoy leaving them to their own devices and idiosyncrasies but as you say they are influencing and impacting far too much of our secular society for us to be remain idle.
rusko,
Same here, I since given up arguing the points on theist blogs and sites I now only tend to my own territory so to speak.
stardust,
The horse surely is dead.
Thank you all for stopping by and leaving such great comments, I really do appreciate it.
JD- Just have to say THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for coming by Freethoughtmom's today and writing what you did. You have a great way of writing about stuff and explaining yourself and debating things with these pious xians. It appears he has left "AGAIN' and I hope he stays away now...and I hope I never cross his path again. If I do run into him again I am going to take your advice and IGNORE him. He is a really ignorant and pompously arrogant person. I think he can justly be put in the category of TROLL.
stardust,
You’re very welcome, I’m glad that my post was helpful to the situation. I agree, he most certainly embodies the definition of a “troll”, so well in fact that it seems impossible that he does not realize this himself and take effective steps in rectifying his image and presentation. Also thank you for the compliments.
I will maintain my stance of completely ignoring Jim’s posts unless someone else responds to him and I see a refutation in need; for if we all ignore him he will go away after being ignored for a while but when we respond we are encouraging him to post in the future and I think I speak for the both of us when I say I am very tired and worn out by his unbelievably transient, pious, foolish and botched position.
Your post can just as easily be about alternative medicine. People often believe what they want to believe.
True indeed.
Some people will never just be honest and ADMIT THEY JUST DON'T KNOW ANSWERS TO THINGS instead of making up fantasies about supernatural reasons for things they do not understand. This is primitive thinking.
These same people won't consider other possibilities and only WANT to believe their supernatural thinking instead of admitting that we don't have the answers to everything. With science we can research and experiment..question and explore so many possibilities. Science is flexible, inquisitive, and diligent in seeking answers to unsolved mysteries. Religion is the lazy way out and only considers ONE possibility for the foundation of the universe.
Chase -- If this god exists, and is so eternally powerful and divine, and the message so crucial to his creations, why does this awesome and powerful god need simple and flawed humans to go around "advertising" for him??? These are the very same creatures for whom this great god had to create a son to sacrifice in bloody and torturous death because his creations were so very flawed and bad. AND even this horrendous act doesn't even convince many people! In fact, many find even the thought of such a thing repulsive.
I love my children, and want them to love me. But if they don't love me, I will not harm or kill them because they have rejected me...BECAUSE I LOVE THEM MORE THAN MYSELF.
In addition, none of these "messengers of god" give people the same message...it is only their "understanding" of the message that was written by other flawed humans in some ancient text.
If the message was so damn important, why would this "divine" and all-powerful entity rely on his flawed people who he couldn't trust in the first place?
These "messengers" can't even get the message straight amongst themselves! There are how many christian denominations? And there is even disagreement inside each denomination! Why doesn't this god "clarify" if the message is life or death?
It's all so ridiculous sounding when you look at it as an outsider. There are how many religions in the world? If we were born to Hindus we would be a Hindu and think that was the right religion, if we were born in Tibet we might be a Buddhist, if we were born in Iraq we would most definitely be muslim. If we were born in Sweden we most likely wouldn't care. So, Chase...why should we believe YOU are correct in what you say, and billions of other people have it all wrong?
Religious debate is sounding more and more absurd to me. Medieval thinking in 2006.
Chase,
This thread was about the scientific endeavor progressing despite religions persistent opposition to it, you must stick to the topic. No one here really cares what you say the bible means or represents, quoting biblical passages is certainly not impressive to any of us; most of us have read and studied the bible in some degree. Your posts are, at least to me, terribly monotonous, irksome, unintelligible and boring.
I will say that your charge that I am ignorant upon the history of science seems rather blatantly incongruous and ironic.
Christianity does not provide a philosophical foundation for science, science is only interested in the natural world and the mythology of Christianity would negate that.
I have never been dishonest and there has yet to be anything that presents any sort of blow to my worldview let alone a serious one.
I actually do view the majority of your posts to be rather spitting mad, though I wouldn’t put it quite that way. Though I am flattered that you read my blog and find interest in it in any way, that is great.
Please remain on the topic that the thread has specified, at least to a logical degree. Regressing into a debate about the authenticity of the Christian mythology or the accounts within it are surly not suitable for this thread. If you would like to debate and argue about how it did or did not stifle science that would be appropriate and you are free to do so, however if you insist on leading us into highly convoluted tangents then I will ignore you and I will ask that everyone else does the same.
stardust,
Thank you for responding to Chase’s post, you did a very good job. It is so true what you say about the messengers not being able to get the message correct. You made several valid points and what is unfortunate is that you will never get a direct response from Chase, I guarantee it, he will merely begin to quote the bible and lead you into tangents that are never ending with no purpose or goal in sight. This debate or unconstructive argument would most likely wage for ever, I had to end it at the blogsite that he mentioned. I have numerous questions and detractions left unanswered from the other blog and the same scenario is likely to play out here if we were to allow such a thing to happen. I for one do not care to argue with such effete unproductiveness, such meaningless, debased, fruitless, self-indulgent, carious and destitute inanity.
Chase, you claimed that I would refer to such debate as pointless and nebulous but you were wrong, obviously, I can do much better.
Thank you both for posting, please remain on topic.
When I said that obviously I could do better at describing the debate I was simply being humorous, although I would agree that the debate was as described.
I’m not sure that anyone has the slightest shred of interest in visiting Jared’s blog. Though the arguments that you are so fond of and believe to be so solid and ground shaking are nothing more than transient and hollow ones.
No, the reason that you quoted scripture is because you cannot give real answers that come from your own critical thinking they are always regurgitated carbon copies of what you have been told, what you have read and what you have been indoctrinated to believe by your religious leaders and materials. Relying so heavily on quotes to back up your position makes it readily apparent to everyone that your position is hardly your own rather it is someone else’s and you cannot construct or provide your own.
No need to apologize, simply stay on topic and everything will be fine. For you have some extravagantly faulty presuppositions but I am not going to lead you into a plethora of convoluted tangents attempting to “dispel” such notions. Furthermore if you truly must quote the bible rather than provide your own thoughts and ideas then you don’t actually have anything to provide us that we cannot or have not already heard, so if you are only going to quote the bible don’t leave even leave a post.
This will be my last response to you unless you respond to the topic at hand.
Sorry about the deleted comment, but I saw when I reread your comments that you would like us to remain on topic.
Have you heard that Astronomers have detected a new type of cosmic outburst that they can't yet explain. The eruption might portend an even brighter event to come, a supernova. Instead of writing it off as the twinkle in a god's eye, scientists from around the world are investigating.
Here's the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060224/sc_space/nasadetectstotallynewmysteryexplosionnearby;_ylt=AsrDPlzlJwGp2J7RU8AxgdeHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
By the way, how do you reason in a world of naturalism.
How do you reason in a world of delusion of an invisible being for which there is no evidence whatsoever? Give me ONE piece of evidence outside of your bible for the existence of a god.
Science is always questioning, always testing their findings, FLEXIBLE. Theories can be tested and retested. New theories are being tested all the time. A scientist is not afraid to investigate and say he is wrong when he is proven wrong. The scientist and naturalist will consider many many possibilities and test and investigate EVIDENCE.
But christians can only take the word of an old, ancient text as evidence for a claim of an invisible supernatural entity. That is "strictly determined" WITHOUT EVIDENCE if you ask me.
Chase,
A disciple of Michael Martin? What silly accusations, I actually do not know anything about Michael Martin but for the fact that he is an atheist and provided a rebuttal to the transient transcendental argument and I surely do not follow him as a disciple (what a silly religious allegory). I was also not the first to present complete arguments from others, maybe you need to reread the old posts, it was your friend Jared that did so (he presented John McArthur’s stance). Also you must remember that I was dealing with three to four of you at any given time and could not possibly respond to everything with my own arguments.
I see that you are determined to lead us into a tangent. You now want to debate the idea of reason and free will, well I do not and most certainly not with an extremist. Though I will say that free will (the ability to choose an action based on self-reflexive insight rather than on mere biological or environmental influences) is a current apex of evolutionary psychology within the species of Homo sapiens. Free will did not spring up over night and it was not some supernatural entities gift to humanity during a creation mythology that only a fundamental minority takes literally, it is the product of the gradual and incremental evolution of a highly advanced and sophisticated species biological and psychological components.
Have you not read my posts, I have asked you numerous times to stick to the threads topic and not lead into tangents that do not present an ending. Are you rude enough to disregard my simple request?
"feel free to come over to my blog and post a comment."
If you are any indication of the kind of people I will encounter on your blog, no thanks. Also, I am not a blog troller. I started blogging to find LIKE minds, not to go try to go fishing for people to deconvert. If they happen to come along to my blog, or make comments on fellow atheist blogs, you will hear the atheist viewpoint LOUD AND CLEAR. I feel no need to scout around for recruits. That is what annoying christians do.
Also, "open-mindedness" does not mean GULLIBLE.
The freethinker forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma.
You can't stand on your own in a discussion in atheist territory? You came here of your own accord. No one invited you.
Chase ~ One more point...you have no clue about who you are "preaching" to.
I was "open to christianity" for more than three decades...I have studied religion in college...world religions, Bible as Literature in Social Context (studying Hebrew bible in comparison to christian versions of the bible side-by-side), World Mythologies, Anthropology, World Cultures, Astronomy, History, Philosophy in Literature, Ethics and have a minor in psychology and an M.A. in Literature and Rhetorical Theory and Analysis.
I think that is pretty damned open-minded.
*sigh* All that religious learning and yet you still believe that Christianity teaches that God "created a son?" Perhaps you should get a refund. The bible says nothing of the sort.
"In the begginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
...well that clears things up.
I'd like to know if the translation from Aramaic may have meant something different in colloquial context...
Post a Comment