|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 17:14:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave and Humbert, as far as I can tell, we are not communicating effectively. Either I'm not understanding points that you are making or you aren't understanding points I'm making, or a little of both, but either way, we are going round and round in circles and drifting into personal insults which none of us want.
I'm going to try to reboot here and make the main point I've been trying to make about what I see is an inconsistency in what you are both promoting. You have both made statements which suggest that you view the extension of rationalism thinking in all areas as equal - that is, they should be treated equally. You both have made statements suggesting that scientific inquiry has not only proven evolution to be factual (which I agree with), but it has also proven materialist worldviews to be factual.
Science proving evolution to be factual is why evolution should be taught in public schools and creationism should not. And when I say "should" I mean by force of regulation and law. Here, we totally agree.
If we also contend that scientific inquiry has proven all forms of theism, including deism, to be utterly false, it follows that this conclusion, too, should be taught in public schools, by force of regulation and law. That is only logical.
I'm arguing that true neutrality on religious beliefs, true secularism, means that when it comes to certain matters of faith (questions for which science doesn't or can't provide answers), the official stance is "We don't know." Science talks about what there is evidence for (such as evolution or the earth being round). That which there is no evidence for (claims of things existing outside of the natural world, gods, angels, souls, etc), science makes no verdict about what-so-ever. This is what marks the difference between secular government and a government which promotes a complete rationalist worldview.
The NCSE is taking a truly secular position. They are not promoting any one worldview over any other. They are providing a platform for and providing links to individuals whose faith fits with science to demonstrate to the public that accepting scientific conclusions does not necessitate an atheistic worldview. I agree with them that accepting science does not necessitate an atheistic worldview. You both, if I'm reading you correctly, seem to think that fully accepting science does lead to atheism. Am I reading you correctly? And if so, how does that argument not logically extend to exclusively promoting atheistic worldviews in public schools in the name of good science?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/09/2009 17:15:27 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2009 : 17:15:32 [Permalink]
|
NCSE:
In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes. |
Mooner:
That statement seems to me a clear advocacy of religious evolutionism. |
How so? By stating the obvious? If a person of faith asks you if he or she can have a God belief and also accept evolution, are you going to say no? No you can't? If you do, you will be sorely mistaken.
Where is the advocacy in that statement? How you arrive at that is downright baffling to me.
| But the above suffices in my mind to support my position. |
What? You think you have presented support that the NCSE does not allow atheists on to their witness list? I sure can't see how you have supported your allegation of that. Not at all. I know how you feel about the other stuff. But that isn't what I called you on.
Edited.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 17:26:58 [Permalink]
|
In reference to my speaking about "faith tempered with doubt" dglas wrote: | Interesting series of words. I wonder if they correlate to anything, indeed if they ever can correlate to anything. |
It correlates to all people with personal faith that do not put their faith above their reason and aren't so fool hearty as to accept conclusions based on faith alone as equal to facts based on evidence. Given that most religious people aren't clammoring in the streets to make their religion beliefs backed by the state and force of law, I'd say that most people's faith is tempered at least to some degree by doubt. Have a polite conversation with a religious believer who isn't a fundamentalist, see how many say something alone the lines of, "I believe in God, but I don't presume to understand God. And I believe Jesus was the Messiah, but I could be wrong and other religions could be right. Some of my beliefs might be right and some of them might be wrong, but this is what I've personally concluded..."
Sometimes I think I'm the only person on this forum who ever talks to anyone other than other atheists and fundamentalists about personal religious beliefs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 17:58:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | In short, marf, you're one of the victims of nonsense that we rationalists are fighting for. |
Oh for Pete's sake!
I am not a victim of anything because no harm came to me and no harm could have foreseeably come to me because of my actions. Unless you want to also say that financial harm was done to me when I first spent money on clinically proven anti-nausea remedies which were equally ineffective, which I did. Also, my actions were perfectly within the realm of what is the reasonable behavior of an intelligent and educated human being, which you seem to imply it was not.
The first person to bring up the sea band was my doctor. She looked skeptical herself but she said that there were some indications that it might help and that many of her patients found relief using it. This was perfectly reasonable for her to suggest given that I didn't have any other options left and sea bands aren't expensive.
I looked it up on Wikipedia and found this info:
| An acupressure wristband that is claimed to relieve the symptoms of motion sickness and other forms of nausea is available. The band is designed to provide pressure to the P6 acupuncture point, a point that has been extensively investigated.[7] The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of evidence-based medicine (EBM) reviewers, reviewed the use of P6 for nausea and vomiting, and found it to be effective for reducing post-operative nausea, but not vomiting [1]. The Cochrane review included various means of stimulating P6, including acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, acustimulation device and acupressure; it did not comment on whether one or more forms of stimulation were more effective. EBM reviewer Bandolier said that P6 acupressure in two studies showed 52% of patients with control having a success, compared with 75% with P6 acupressure[2]. One author of an article published in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine disagreed [3]. |
Had it worked for me, I would have tended to think it was a placebo effect or possibly something other than the official explanations given about how acupuncture and acupressure work since those explanations aren't substantiated by any evidence. But I sure as heck would have kept using the bands! Sometimes things which we have no reason to assume will work, do work. And given that I had nausea and intense vomiting for weeks with no relief I was willing to spend $5. to find out if this might work for me.
I'd be abandoning reason only if I blindly accepted unsubstantiated claims and explanations. And I'd be a victim only if harm had come to me for trying this out (such as if I didn't have $5. to spare and sacrificed buying something I really needed to get the sea bands). Since I spent the money perfectly well aware that what happened was the most likely outcome, I'm hardly a victim.
Katha Pollitt – a famous proponent of skepticism and secularism – writes of doing the same thing in the introduction to her book “Sleeping with Extraterrestrials.” She admitted that it was most likely that the homeopathic medicine was merely a placebo, but it was working for her without side effects within the range of what she can afford, so she kept with it. It is outright irrational to stop taking something that is working just because you don't know the reason why it is working!
| However, the irrationalists have a larger voice in Congress, and so such utter crappola can be legally sold in this country to the massively desperate, with few legal or ethical repercussions if the product fails. |
The packaging on the sea bands didn't |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/09/2009 18:00:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2009 : 20:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm going to try to reboot here and make the main point I've been trying to make about what I see is an inconsistency in what you are both promoting. You have both made statements which suggest that you view the extension of rationalism thinking in all areas as equal - that is, they should be treated equally. You both have made statements suggesting that scientific inquiry has not only proven evolution to be factual (which I agree with), but it has also proven materialist worldviews to be factual. |
That's a mistake in some category or other. I do not hold to a materialist philosophy. I'm an "agnostic" towards materialism, but with the caveat that pragmatism currently demands the tentative conclusion that material things are all we've got.
Rationalism and materialism are not synonyms. I am a rationalist and a pragmatist first and foremost. As such, materialism is largely irrelevant. It isn't a conclusion I need to reach anywhere between the premises I start with and the ethical guidelines I wind up with for day-to-day living and more.Science proving evolution to be factual is why evolution should be taught in public schools and creationism should not. And when I say "should" I mean by force of regulation and law. Here, we totally agree.
If we also contend that scientific inquiry has proven all forms of theism, including deism, to be utterly false, it follows that this conclusion, too, should be taught in public schools, by force of regulation and law. That is only logical. |
Can we mandate teaching that particular forms of theism have been disproven?| I'm arguing that true neutrality on religious beliefs, true secularism, means that when it comes to certain matters of faith (questions for which science doesn't or can't provide answers), the official stance is "We don't know." |
As far as the government is concerned, the official stance is actually "We cannot say, by law, whether we know or not." And a recent court case has extended that directly to six-day creationism, with a judge ruling that it is impermissable for a science teacher to call creationism "nonsense" even though scientific inquiry has and continues to disprove all of its testable hypotheses. The standard is ridiculous.| Science talks about what there is evidence for (such as evolution or the earth being round). That which there is no evidence for (claims of things existing outside of the natural world, gods, angels, souls, etc), science makes no verdict about what-so-ever. |
Baloney. For one thing, the idea that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence is false. We've had hundreds (if not thousands) of years to find evidence of unicorns, Bigfoot, the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. The fact that there is no evidence after all that time and uncounted herds of people searching for such things, plus good factual evidence that these things are made-up, is evidence of absense. The Bigfoot hypothesis has been tested and it has failed. The verdict is in.
(If, of course, new evidence arrives sometime in the future, the scientific verdict may need to be revised, but such is the way of science - all science.)
The distinction you're trying to make is a poor one. "Scientific" questions are those that are testable in principle, whether we have evidence for them already or not. If someone defines his god in such a way that we could detect its existence, and after rigorous testing we detect nothing, then we've scientifically disproven that poor sap's god. But because it's that guy's religion, we are forbidden, by law, from simply stating that his god doesn't exist. Instead, we must teach (if we teach about it at all) that "certain scientists believe they have disproven the existence of that guy's god," which is a non-judgemental factual statement which leaves the question open only for political reasons.| This is what marks the difference between secular government and a government which promotes a complete rationalist worldview. |
I never claimed that the government was rational. It should be, in my opinion, but that's going to be an extraordinarily steep uphill battle while rationalism is rejected by most of the population in a variety of subjects. We can begin to talk about removing the religion clauses from the First Amendment only as soon as they become irrelevant for decades.| The NCSE is taking a truly secular position. They are not promoting any one worldview over any other. |
But they are. They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. It's in direct conflict with my worldview (and my dictionary), so they're necessarily promoting one worldview over another.| They are providing a platform for and providing links to individuals whose faith fits with science to demonstrate to the public that accepting scientific conclusions does not necessitate an atheistic worldview. I agree with them that accepting science does not necessitate an atheistic worldview. |
Absolutely correct.| You both, if I'm reading you correctly, seem to think that fully accepting science does lead to atheism. Am I reading you correctly? |
Nope. Fully accepting pragmatic rationalism necessarily leads to atheism, but we're not asking the NCSE to promote pragmatic rationalism, we're asking them to promote science and science alone. The philosophical position that they are advancing with the "Faith Project" isn't science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:13:10 [Permalink]
|
Marf:
So long as products aren't allowed to make false claims in their marketing they aren't victimizing anyone. |
Not meaning to derail your conversation, but yes, while the FTC does come down on products that make false claims on their labels, the FTC has its hands full, so usually a lot of people have to complain about it before the FTC takes action. Also, the manufacturers often get around the labeling issue by providing the vendors with pamphlets that make this or that claim about an herb, or what have you, that just happens to be sold in the store, often right under or very near the pamphlets. So yeah, it might be illegal, but there are ways around it.
I believe, as Dave does, that efficacy should be established before a curative is sold. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. |
I forgot. Are they saying that science and religion are compatible or are they saying that they are not mutually exclusive, as I contend? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
That statement seems to me a clear advocacy of religious evolutionism. |
How so? By stating the obvious? If a person of faith asks you if he or she can have a God belief and also accept evolution, are you going to say no? No you can't? If you do, you will be sorely mistaken.
Where is the advocacy in that statement? How you arrive at that is downright baffling to me. |
I nowhere said people could not believe in both science and religion. In fact, I said it was good that some religious people support science. My point is that a statement in the NCSE web site that science and religion are compatible flies in the face of many atheist scientists, and in my face, too. At the very least, that's an advocacy of Non-Overlapping Magesteria. I think it also implies that both religion and science are correct.Originally posted by Kil
| But the above suffices in my mind to support my position. |
What? You think you have presented support that the NCSE does not allow atheists on to their witness list? I sure can't see how you have supported your allegation of that. Not at all. I know how you feel about the other stuff. But that isn't what I called you on. |
Recall that I reluctantly accepted Dave's observation that NCSE doesn't and shouldn't call the likes of Dawkins as witnesses. That being the case, I don't consider proving they don't call atheists an important point. (I asked you much earlier if you knew of atheists NCSE did call, however, so if we are going to "call out" one another, that challenge also remains unanswered, as far as I'm aware in all the text that has gone before.)
No, I think NCSE's "Faith Project" clearly illustrates an non-neutral stance that is in contradiction to the organization's basic standards. If NCSE was fully neutral about religion, there would also be a "Freethinking Project," or far better, simply no such "projects" at all. If you can look at the Faith Project statements and not instantly see a serious contradiction between that and NCSE's avowed neutrality, I simply don't know how to convince you otherwise.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/09/2009 21:36:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:40:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. |
I forgot. Are they saying that science and religion are compatible or are they saying that they are not mutually exclusive, as I contend? |
Compatible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. |
I forgot. Are they saying that science and religion are compatible or are they saying that they are not mutually exclusive, as I contend? |
Compatible.
|
Hmmmm. That can be problematic.
They need to choose their words better, at least in that area.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:40:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave: | But they are. They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. It's in direct conflict with my worldview (and my dictionary), so they're necessarily promoting one worldview over another. |
At this point I'm just confused about how you are using the word "compatible." I thought maybe my automatic interpretation of the word was off so I looked it up in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compatible and the first definition fit what I was thinking all along: | capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know. |
Religion and good science are capable of existing together in harmony within certain individual's worldviews. That seems to be all the NCSE is pointing out with its Faith Campaign - that some religious people, particularly Christians, have a theological belief system which is not in conflict with their acceptance of science. How is the fact that some people find science and their religion compatible in conflict with your worldview? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/09/2009 22:41:41 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:51:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | The distinction you're trying to make is a poor one. "Scientific" questions are those that are testable in principle, whether we have evidence for them already or not. If someone defines his god in such a way that we could detect its existence, and after rigorous testing we detect nothing, then we've scientifically disproven that poor sap's god. But because it's that guy's religion, we are forbidden, by law, from simply stating that his god doesn't exist. Instead, we must teach (if we teach about it at all) that "certain scientists believe they have disproven the existence of that guy's god," which is a non-judgemental factual statement which leaves the question open only for political reasons. |
There is no need to talk about gods at all in science class. If we simply talk about scientific discoveries as facts and explain to students how we have come to these conclusions, that is enough as far as public schools are concerned. As a teacher, when my students have run into the room talking about ghosts in the bathroom and crap like that, I don't just tell them that ghosts don't exist. I ask them questions. I get them to come to rational conclusions on their own. If science is taught properly and made interesting to students I don't see how it would improve students' education and critical thinking ability for a teacher to say "this or that particular god doesn't exist." And if a student in a class asks about something which is in conflict with some religious belief, a science teacher is certainly permitted legally to say "well the scientific evidence which is this comes to this other conclusion." I'm sure there are science teachers especially in certain parts of this country who are pressured into wording it in a much more wishy washy manner, but science teachers in public schools are permitted to straight out teach facts which are in direct conflict with certain religious claims. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: | Not meaning to derail your conversation, but yes, while the FTC does come down on products that make false claims on their labels, the FTC has its hands full, so usually a lot of people have to complain about it before the FTC takes action. Also, the manufacturers often get around the labeling issue by providing the vendors with pamphlets that make this or that claim about an herb, or what have you, that just happens to be sold in the store, often right under or very near the pamphlets. So yeah, it might be illegal, but there are ways around it. |
Oh, I won't deny this. I was defending myself against the idea that I'm some sort of "victim" to irrationality and that I needed to be protected by the law banning these sea bands being sold at all.
| I believe, as Dave does, that efficacy should be established before a curative is sold. |
Frankly I don't think it matters because then the packaging will just change the wording to fit those new more strict laws. The alternative medicine gurus will find ways of selling things with packaging which has literal messages about it not being a "curative" but which have other language which lets people think it is.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 23:04:57 [Permalink]
|
For Mooner:
The people who speak for the NCSE
I can find two theists on this list. That's because it makes sense to mention that fact. I know Eugenie Scott is an atheist, and I rather suspect all but the two mentioned theists are also atheists. This is the second time I have provided this list to you.
Mooner:
I don't consider proving they don't call atheists an important point. |
Mooner:
And I agree with you, Dawkins won't be called. And that's a damned shame. It's a (perhaps necessary, for now) discrimination against good people by our own side. Like self-censorship, this is the worse and most insidious kind. Atheists should be part of the witness mix, if not now, then soon. But this tactical question is separable from the preferential highlighting of the religious beliefs of theist and deist scientists. |
Oh, well, hmmmm. Which is it?
Let me say it as I see it. I am having a problem with the "faith project" too. That's why I asked Dave about the "compatibility" thing. Yes, it differs from my view. But really, there were no problems with the statement that you quoted. A statement you offered as evidence for "a clear advocacy of religious evolutionism".
Mooner, I don't think the NCSE has been taken over by "accommodationists" as you claim. I do think they have made a mistake in both language and by including some of what is in the "faith project" section, as I have already stated. Why is it that I can do that without going off the deep end (my opinion of what you are doing) and making very serous allegations about the NCSE in general?
I mean, they are, they really really are on the front lines, fighting creationists every day. It's their job and they are very good at it. Mistakes are made. Apparently they were, at least on their website. But, excuse me if I don't get the sheer vitriol of your attacks on them. It's like this. If that's what it is to be a "new atheist" count me out. "Framers", "new atheists", "accomodationalists" and so on. Count me out. I'm not joining. What I am doing is getting disgusted by the whole thing. Like we don't have enough on our plates, we have to go pointing fingers at people who are basically on the same side as us but not doing it correctly, and we ain't gonna take it anymore. WTF? This is starting to remind me of a certain Southpark episode. You know the one.
And don't get me wrong. I'm cool with Dawkins and Myers and Hitchens and well, not as cool with Sam Harris. But hey! I thought it was fucked up when the "framers" jumped all over Myers. And I think this is fucked up too.
I'm a skeptic first. And that informs my worldview with regard to religion. What the hell else do I need?
Rant over.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 23:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
For Mooner:
The people who speak for the NCSE
I can find two theists on this list. That's because it makes sense to mention that fact. I know Eugenie Scott is an atheist, and I rather suspect all but the two mentioned theists are also atheists. This is the second time I have provided this list to you. |
Sorry, I missed your first mention of this. That's a damned good list of speakers.Mooner:
I don't consider proving they don't call atheists an important point. |
Mooner:
And I agree with you, Dawkins won't be called. And that's a damned shame. It's a (perhaps necessary, for now) discrimination against good people by our own side. Like self-censorship, this is the worse and most insidious kind. Atheists should be part of the witness mix, if not now, then soon. But this tactical question is separable from the preferential highlighting of the religious beliefs of theist and deist scientists. |
Oh, well, hmmmm. Which is it? |
I would rather see a mixed list of witnesses. But Dave's comments have convinced me that this may be tactically wrong (at least at the moment). So yeah, my wishes and what I'll accept are not perfectly attuned.| Let me say it as I see it. I am having a problem with the "faith project" too. That's why I asked Dave about the "compatibility" thing. Yes, it differs from my view. But really, there were no problems with the statement that you quoted. A statement you offered as evidence for "a clear advocacy of religious evolutionism". |
"Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes." To me, that's a very clear statement of a religious position. Your mileage varies from mine.| Mooner, I don't think the NCSE has been taken over by "accommodationists" as you claim. |
Please show where I claimed a "takeover" by accommodationists. I simply pointed out that part of what NCSE is doing is inconsistent with its religion-neutral stance.| I do think they have made a mistake in both language and by including some of what is in the "faith project" section, as I have already stated. Why is it that I can do that without going off the deep end (my opinion of what you are doing) and making very serous allegations about the NCSE in general? |
Again, please don't attribute claims to me that I haven't made. Straw is beginning to come out of my ears. I'm not making "serious allegations about the NCSE in general." In fact, I've repeatedly lauded NCSE for its great and successful work. I'm just pointing primarily to the Faith Project as a problem, as you agree it is. As such, it needs to be corrected. And we agree, dammit.| I mean, they are, they really really are on the front lines, fighting creationists every day. It's their job and they are very good at it. Mistakes are made. Apparently they were, at least on their website. But, excuse me if I don't get the sheer vitriol of your attacks on them. |
I think you've read a lot more "vitriol" into what I've written than what I meant to express.| It's like this. If that's what it is to be a "new atheist" count me out. "Framers", "new atheists", "accomodationalists" and so on. Count me out. I'm not joining. What I am doing is getting disgusted by the whole thing. Like we don't have enough on our plates, we have to go pointing fingers at people who are basically on the same side as us but not doing it correctly, and we ain't gonna take it anymore. WTF? This is starting to remind me of a certain Southpark episode. You know the one. |
All I'm insisting upon is the NCSE be as religion-neutral as it say it is, no more, no less. I'm not interfering with its fine work, I just want it to be as secular as it says it is.And don't get me wrong. I'm cool with Dawkins and Myers and Hitchens and well, not as cool with Sam Harris. But hey! I thought it was fucked up when the "framers" jumped all over Myers. And I think this is fucked up too.
I'm a skeptic first. And that informs my worldview with regard to religion. What the hell else do I need?
Rant over. |
So, let's get this clear: Are you of the opinion that the NCSE should get rid of its Faith Project and religious reading lists? If so, we are in perfect agreement.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
