The Shrine

Good stuff at 2:34, or you can click here. She later asked again and sounded even more stupid.

As if all the other shit didn't destroy her Senate chances, this did it. And yet, equally crazy senator nominees still have good chances of winning!

BTW, if I was there, I would have laughed. Laughed hard. And later feel sad inside that this dumb bitch was voted in the primaries.

I read about this earlier but didnt see the video, good link. The sad thing is, i am generally left, but the tea party makes sense to me, too. Its unfortunate that even they are backing complete f-tards.... ugh! i weep for our politics.

Flip wrote:I read about this earlier but didnt see the video, good link. The sad thing is, i am generally left, but the tea party makes sense to me, too. Its unfortunate that even they are backing complete f-tards.... ugh! i weep for our politics.

Why? What does it stand for? As far as I can tell, the tea party stands for populism, racism, stupidity, astroturf "fake grassroots" sponsored by billionaires, and a NIBMY-like attitude that the govt should cut taxes for everything, except the Social Security and Medicare that these leeches are using. (Or, "I've got mine, so fuck yours.")

The tea party's main platform is about fiscal responsibility. As much as we would like to, we cant continue to spend the amount of money we have the last decade. Yes that means less government and less programs, but at some point that is what needs to happen to tackle this trillion dollar deficit.

The video only pointed out her ignorance of the Constitution. There should a religious course(s) in schools that encompasses every POV.

Classic Evolutionists vs Creationists. This will never be resolved, no one will be happy.

Unfortunately, she embodies the mentality most used by the right wing nut jobs, the ones intelligent Republicans fear: blind faith with complete ignorance of facts to back her point up. Anyone who vote for her who isn't a) her relative or b) having sex with her right now (she's kinda cute) should be quarantined from the rest of society and made sterile so they can no longer breed.

Besides, someone should tell her the real facts to help her argument: there is no theory of evolution, there's just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live

Flip wrote:The tea party's main platform is about fiscal responsibility. As much as we would like to, we cant continue to spend the amount of money we have the last decade. Yes that means less government and less programs, but at some point that is what needs to happen to tackle this trillion dollar deficit.

How is that different than the Republican platform? Besides, social security and the military encompass 1/3rd of the money used in the govt budget. And yet, the teabaggers don't want to cut any of that. They don't want to cut anything. Hell, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Carly Fiorina SEVEN TIMES what she was going to cut out of the budget, and how she would support the Bush tax cuts when it's filling up our debt.

Mully wrote:The video only pointed out her ignorance of the Constitution. There should a religious course(s) in schools that encompasses every POV.

Classic Evolutionists vs Creationists. This will never be resolved, no one will be happy.

Coons was completely right. Religion has no place in public schools. Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious doctrine with no basis in scientific fact. You can teach that in churches, but the public school system should stick with the facts, and with the First Amendment's separation of church and state. I could say that many people believe that aliens colonized Earth and are continuing to influence the government today, but that has no place in science or history books until such a fact has been proven and analyzed and debated by science.

Evolution is not a theory, at least in the layman's sense of the word. Without evolution, half of the medical professions wouldn't exist. Next time a doctor asks you for your family history of illness, just tell them that you don't believe in evolution and genes and any of that, so that shouldn't matter. Science didn't really clone sheep, because there's no such thing as evolution. Viruses and bacteria don't really develop an immunity to antibiotics and medicine by evolving into more drug-resistant viruses/bacteria, because there is no such thing as evolution. For that matter, don't get a flu shot, because it's based on science that doesn't exist. Or grocery food based on bug-resistant plants, because there is no such thing as evolution.

And this is coming from the same lady that said "Why are monkey's not evolving into humans right now?" Ugh, that is NOT how evolution works!

Technically, KMT is a "theory" as well (yes, Kup, you explained the diff) so do the religious nut jobs have their own theory to oppose that?

Zeus wrote:Technically, KMT is a "theory" as well (yes, Kup, you explained the diff) so do the religious nut jobs have their own theory to oppose that?

No, because there is no concept of atoms or molecules in the Bible.

SineSwiper wrote:

Flip wrote:The tea party's main platform is about fiscal responsibility. As much as we would like to, we cant continue to spend the amount of money we have the last decade. Yes that means less government and less programs, but at some point that is what needs to happen to tackle this trillion dollar deficit.

How is that different than the Republican platform? Besides, social security and the military encompass 1/3rd of the money used in the govt budget. And yet, the teabaggers don't want to cut any of that. They don't want to cut anything. Hell, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Carly Fiorina SEVEN TIMES what she was going to cut out of the budget, and how she would support the Bush tax cuts when it's filling up our debt.

Well, repubs have been anything but frugal with the wars and bailouts. The recent government size has been much bigger than traditional Republican views even during the Bush years. Im independent, because i believe in helping people to an extent, but also feel like government spends too much and is too involved in everything recently. I know its on the line, but the extremely one sided views of the dems and repubs bother me, too.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Technically, KMT is a "theory" as well (yes, Kup, you explained the diff) so do the religious nut jobs have their own theory to oppose that?

No, because there is no concept of atoms or molecules in the Bible.

I'm unclear, what's Intelligent Design again? Isn't it trying to squeeze faith into science to explain that one small little detail science hasn't yet been able to? Why can't that be extended to KMT?

Flip wrote:Well, repubs have been anything but frugal with the wars and bailouts. The recent government size has been much bigger than traditional Republican views even during the Bush years. Im independent, because i believe in helping people to an extent, but also feel like government spends too much and is too involved in everything recently. I know its on the line, but the extremely one sided views of the dems and repubs bother me, too.

Keeping a society glued together is hard work. And one thing to remember is that capitalism run amok doesn't work. Some amount of regulation needs to happen.

The Republicans obviously will dump the govt budget and steep us in debt for political gain. They did it when (Saint) Reagan was in power (which Bush Sr. and Clinton needed to clean up) and they did it with Bush (which Obama is trying to clean up). The Democrats are trying to get things done with jobs and the economy.

Remember that: Who fixed the economy in the 90's? Clinton did. Who fucked up the economy twice? Republicans. Who's trying to fix the economy now? Democrats. Who's blocking every bill ever while Obama is in office? Republicans.

People thought that HCR was a distraction, but it needed to happen and part of it was saving money for the people, since health care is so damn expensive. The Republicans mantra was "fuck it, it's not a problem, millions of people who don't have HCI should get a damn job."

Meanwhile, all of this bullshit about Obama raising taxes is stupid. He hasn't in his two years as president. He's given tax CUTS to poor/middle class this year. Nobody paid attention to it because it was part of your paycheck, and not some big fat check that said "HEY! WE ARE CUTTING YOUR TAXES! VOTE FOR ME!" like the Bush Jr tax cuts did. (BTW, those tax cuts are doing more damage to the debt than both wars combined.) Now that those tax cuts are expiring, Republicans keep calling it "raising taxes" as if they are passing a bill, or like the Democrats manufactured the Bush tax cuts to expire in 10 years.

Republicans are good at unifying a voice and saying no all the time. The Democrats don't seem to have a backbone most of the time, and they're fractured into different opinions (you know, like a real party), so they can't all vote the same way. Harry Reid gives them permission to dual-track the bills and it's killing the Senate. (Regardless, replacing him with Sharon Angle is madness.)

And the Tea Party is just an extension of the Republican party. The Teabaggers just don't understand it. They don't understand anything at all. They'll vote for whoever says that they'll keep their Medicare and SS and cut everything else, even if they don't, even if they are so extreme as to be fucking insane. They'll vote for a polar bear, as long as that bear says it will cut taxes.

SineSwiper wrote:

Mully wrote:The video only pointed out her ignorance of the Constitution. There should a religious course(s) in schools that encompasses every POV.

Classic Evolutionists vs Creationists. This will never be resolved, no one will be happy.

Coons was completely right. Religion has no place in public schools. Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious doctrine with no basis in scientific fact. You can teach that in churches, but the public school system should stick with the facts, and with the First Amendment's separation of church and state. I could say that many people believe that aliens colonized Earth and are continuing to influence the government today, but that has no place in science or history books until such a fact has been proven and analyzed and debated by science.

Evolution is not a theory, at least in the layman's sense of the word. Without evolution, half of the medical professions wouldn't exist. Next time a doctor asks you for your family history of illness, just tell them that you don't believe in evolution and genes and any of that, so that shouldn't matter. Science didn't really clone sheep, because there's no such thing as evolution. Viruses and bacteria don't really develop an immunity to antibiotics and medicine by evolving into more drug-resistant viruses/bacteria, because there is no such thing as evolution. For that matter, don't get a flu shot, because it's based on science that doesn't exist. Or grocery food based on bug-resistant plants, because there is no such thing as evolution.

And this is coming from the same lady that said "Why are monkey's not evolving into humans right now?" Ugh, that is NOT how evolution works!

Religion has every right to be in schools. Not in you should believe this one specific religion, but this is what people believe whether right or wrong. Banning the words "let's study religion" is just as bad as banning books. Religion exists, to not know it and understand it is very ignorant. This is not the point of separation of Church and State. The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here. Banning religion as a class, not worshiping the religion is not the original intent. Columbus "found" the "Americas" in 1492, which is history and we should teach that, but a lot of things in our world have religious based ideas and decisions that influenced history and people need to know the reasons behind those decisions aka the religion, again the studying the religion not as a practice of faith, but the actual study of the power of religion.

The original intent of the separation was clearly to protect the God-given religious freedoms of the people – a freedom that includes public expression. Only when a person’s religious expression involved acting with ill will toward another, does the government have a right to cross the wall of separation, and interfere.

I think I see your point with your bizarre paragraph about the doctors and the evolution and etc...however, I think that your missing the point. As you know, I am a Christian, and do not believe in the theory of Evolution, and I think I could generalize it as saying as Evolution the theory which runs in accordance with the Big Bang Theory and others. However, I do believe in evolution as things evolving. To clear up any further confusion, I believe in evolution like I believe in computer evolution...you know? The get better and faster over time. Yes, evolution like that does exist. I also believe that things change with environmental factors, like the potato bug (I can't for the life of me find what I'm looking for on this...I remember how farmers would spray their crops and kill these bugs, but then they got immune, and the farmers had to use heavier stuff...anyway). I mean, this evolution of things is proven, I don't think they got it right 1,000,000,000,000 years ago we are for certain "This" is what was going on, but I can't believe for the life of me that by chance primordial ooze, then by chance the big bang, then by chance the....this Simpson's Video best explains it.

Teaching religious beliefs is like teaching propaganda, it doesn't belong anywhere in our public schools. I shouldn't be paying for someone to try and push their personal beliefs and opinions on my children. And I'm not talking about Christianity, either. I'm talking all religions. That's personal belief and not a portrayal of facts which is what education is supposed to be. It would be the same as a teacher promoting his/her sports team constantly or a driving instructor pushing a specific brand of vehicle or a high school teacher trying to coerce the 18 year olds (at least when I was younger there was grade 13 and lots of 18 year-olds in high school) to vote for a specific politician. People entrusted with the education of young and impressionable minds should only be portraying facts known at the time and, to the best of their ability, leave all subjectivity out of it. The training teachers go through is, in theory, supposed to prepare them for those two things. Of course, teachers aren't exactly known as being the most morally inclined segment of the population, but that's a different argument.

You want your kids to learn about religion? Pay for them to go to a private school or become a member of the church and go to schools they pay for. But I ain't paying for it. I think it's a complete crock of shit that catholic schools get public funding while no other religion that runs their own schools can. None should get it, period. You want your kids to learn non-factual stuff? Pay for it.

And before anyone brings it up, when learning specific subjects like history or even geography, you can talk about the importance religion played. You have to otherwise you're not portraying the facts (try and talk about society pulling out of the Dark Ages without discussing the importance of Catholicism). I'm talking about kids learning the specific teachings of religions, passages in their respective holy books. Keep that out of my public schools.

Good points Zeus. (Funny we just talked about religion and I said Zeus...which I do remember learning about Greek Mythology in public schools...but that also goes with your last point of the Dark Ages and Catholicism).

Mully wrote:Good points Zeus. (Funny we just talked about religion and I said Zeus...which I do remember learning about Greek Mythology in public schools...but that also goes with your last point of the Dark Ages and Catholicism).

Greek Mythology went from being a religion to becoming fully-accepted fiction. It's like learning about ancient Egyptian history and Ra and gods like him. What you learned was fiction, not religion, no personal beliefs or emotion involved. No one actually believes it's true anymore, it's not nearly as loaded a subject and can be taught in a purely factual or fictional manner

Religion should be taught in schools. I agree with what Mully says; if it is not taught it fosters ignorance and ultimately intolerance. In addition, a large part of the culture and history of western culture was born and raised in religious institutions or because of them.

Should the government ban the teaching of the renaissance? The birth of the modern world, in full honesty, simply because the Medici family was tied to the Papacy and focussed on religious subjects? Without including religion in these teachings, the story learned would be undeniably false. Much of what contemporary secular thought today is owes itself to Christianity in particular; that is nearly 1600 years of history. People should learn about Christianity, many MANY American Christians don't even know about Christianity; if they did, they certainly would not be supporting the libertarianism or any philosophy that pushes for a friendly environment for a corporate run America; which thrives on greed and exploitation.

I find that many of todays atheists are among the most intolerant people in civilized existence. If I am hearing someone bashing a group of people, it is usually an atheist bashing Christians, or recently they bash Scientology; and always through the same sort of faulty arguments, drawn from poor understanding, that make sweeping ignorant assumptions about the groups. I have seen no group of people who has tried harder to force their viewpoint on others than atheists. Not that I disagree with the philosophy of atheism; just that in practice, it is has become a gigantic excuse for people to be intolerant.

What shouldn't be taught in school? Belief. Belief will breed intolerance in about any group of people. Skepticism should be taught first and foremost. The voting population should be those with clear heads, not those who will be easily led because one political leader preaches to hate gays like they (the voting people) do, hate Christians like they do, hate Muslims like they do, hate the poor like they do. Beliefs are the most dangerous force in the world, and also one of the most exploitable.

One, people have every right to bash Scientology. It's not a religion; it's a dangerous cult that steals money from followers and literally brainwashes them. (What do you think auditing is?) Trying to equate Scientology to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or even Mormonism is a false equivalence.

Two, even public schools teach the basics of religion. That's not religion doctrine. It's history. However, creationism is unproven (disproven, actually) and religion doctrine. It is not scientific, so it should not be in science books at all. Teaching it does not add to a child's knowledge, except as a psychological lesson into why people believe things that aren't true.

Sine, what's the difference between a cult and a religion?

Before you answer that, I strongly suggest you do some research

SineSwiper wrote:One, people have every right to bash Scientology. It's not a religion; it's a dangerous cult that steals money from followers and literally brainwashes them. (What do you think auditing is?) Trying to equate Scientology to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or even Mormonism is a false equivalence.

Err. I am not really sure how to respond to this except: Thanks for providing primary source evidence for my point about prejudice among atheists.

SineSwiper wrote:Two, even public schools teach the basics of religion. That's not religion doctrine. It's history. However, creationism is unproven (disproven, actually) and religion doctrine. It is not scientific, so it should not be in science books at all. Teaching it does not add to a child's knowledge, except as a psychological lesson into why people believe things that aren't true.

I am not sure why you are arguing against creationism being taught in science books; I certainly never argued for it.

SineSwiper wrote:Two, even public schools teach the basics of religion. That's not religion doctrine. It's history. However, creationism is unproven (disproven, actually)

....really?!??!?! I didn't get the memo.

Zeus wrote:Sine, what's the difference between a cult and a religion?

Before you answer that, I strongly suggest you do some research

Why? You obviously haven't done any research on Scientology. Besides, I've already done my research.

A cult uses mind control (like Scientology). A cult abuses their members (like Scientology). A cult isolates and entraps their members (like Scientology). A cult demands money or possessions from their members in order to stay (like Scientology). A cult punishes their members for leaving (like Scientology). A cult tells their members not to listen to doctors or authority figures (like Scientology).

No other "religion" is like Scientology, or goes as far as Scientology, because it is not a religion. It is a cult, a dangerous cult, that has cost lives and financially ruined millions. It was created by a sci-fi writer based on a bet, and the sole purpose of the CoS is to make money, not to help people.

There's no point in writing paragraphs on it, because several others already have. Do your own research. Same for you, Seeker.

Mully wrote:....really?!??!?! I didn't get the memo.

Dinosaurs.

SineSwiper wrote:

Mully wrote:....really?!??!?! I didn't get the memo.

Dinosaurs.

They are.

Christians don't deny dinosaurs at all, they're written about in the Bible. Leviathan or Behemoth (depending on the translation) was in Job and Isaiah and I didn't even have to look that one up, knew it.

You are taking two completely opposing viewpoints and trying to make since of it all.

A religion is a cult that got too big and has gained wide-spread acceptance in society.

I agree with Sine on Scientology, however. I'd call it more of a scam than a cult, however.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

The Ancestor's Tale again by Dawkins.

Yes, that Dawkins. But this is a book about evolution, not a polemic on religion. I find that most people have an incomplete notion of what evolutionary theory is (even those who "believe" it). Pointing to these saves me from spending an hour writing a synopsis.

Oracle wrote:A religion is a cult that got too big and has gained wide-spread acceptance in society.

I agree with Sine on Scientology, however. I'd call it more of a scam than a cult, however.

This is what I was getting at. What I meant by research, Sine, is if you look at the history of Christianity (mind my memory a bit, I'm getting old; I'm using quite broad strokes here). I believe it was a cult until Julius Caesar got into power, when it became more accepted in Roman culture mostly because of him (but not necessarily wide-spread, that happened later). It didn't have too much power until the Dark Ages when people looked to religion - specifically Christianity - to bring order to a chaotic world. That's why it started having serious influence and lead into today, where it's in the decline again. I'm too lazy to read the history, but you're free to test my memory (and historical accuracy) at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity).

But the point remains: a religion is nothing more than a cult that's gain mass acceptance. Remember, at one point Greek Mythology was the most important and influential religion around. Now we just view them as fun fictional stories. They way you look at Scientology now is the way a lot of people in the early ADs looked at Christianity. What's changed over the years other than the number of people that believe in it? Who knows, maybe in 100 years Scientology will become the new Christianity regardless of how crazy it seems to us (personally, I don't view a lot of craziness in the bible as any less ridiculous than many of these cults, including Scientology).

Kupek wrote:The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

The Ancestor's Tale again by Dawkins.

Yes, that Dawkins. But this is a book about evolution, not a polemic on religion. I find that most people have an incomplete notion of what evolutionary theory is (even those who "believe" it). Pointing to these saves me from spending an hour writing a synopsis.

A brief 5 sentence summary of your understanding (and pointing out where the common flaws are) would be much better than a Don-esque novella anyways

Blaise Pascal wrote:The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

Synthesizing the relevant information into a digestable form based on what has already been said is not a quick task, and would require the same part of my mind I'm using to write the introduction to my dissertation.

Kupek wrote:

Blaise Pascal wrote:The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

Synthesizing the relevant information into a digestable form based on what has already been said is not a quick task, and would require the same part of my mind I'm using to write the introduction to my dissertation.

Well, if you need a break from your dissertation, it would be fun to read

Kupek wrote:The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

The Ancestor's Tale again by Dawkins.

Goddammit, Kupek. This is turning into a bad joke.

A Christian, an atheist, and an agnostic walk into a bar. The Christian starts talking about creationism...

Mully wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:

Mully wrote:....really?!??!?! I didn't get the memo.

Dinosaurs.

They are.

Christians don't deny dinosaurs at all, they're written about in the Bible. Leviathan or Behemoth (depending on the translation) was in Job and Isaiah and I didn't even have to look that one up, knew it.

Wait, what? So, if those are dinosaurs they are talking about, where's all of the literature from other books talking about dinosaurs living together with humans. Out of the millions of ancient texts through history, somehow that factoid got left out of every book, save one, and even then only as a vague reference?

Even if they were talking about dinosaurs (which I doubt), and even if they were talking about dinosaurs that lived in their time (which I seriously doubt), there are no dinosaur bones dated in that era or anywhere NEAR that era. All of the carbon dating from all of the dinosaur bones point to areas of time from millions of years ago. And all of the carbon dating from all of the human bones we have point to a time much much later than that.

In fact, if the Empire State building represented the entire lifespan of Earth, dinosaurs would take up a floor or two, and humans barely be the dust on the rooftop. In other words, we are VERY young species in the grand scheme of things.

Mully wrote:You are taking two completely opposing viewpoints and trying to make since of it all.

What? Creationism and science? That's a false equivalence. They aren't "completely opposing viewpoints". One is a disproven story in a book, and the other is backed by over a hundred years of scientific studies and 20+ different scientific fields.

Science is NOT a belief system. It is a empirical model of experimentation and gathering facts. Theories are tested. Then tested again. Then tested again. Then data is observed. Then it's re-tested. Then a new experiment tries a different angle. And then it's observed by many people. And tested again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

This amount of rigor provides a solid framework for information and facts. There are new pieces of information to that framework that may come and go as those pieces of information are tested, but eventually they stick and form a bigger and more solid framework.

Take some of the more experimental knowledge of astrophysics. The theories we had 10 years ago about the future of the universe or the nature of the universe is different than today. However, it's because we discover new information from experimentation, apply that to the theories. And based on the experiments and fact finding of astrophysics (and physics in general) in the past several hundred years, we know an amazing amount of detail on how the universe works, from black holes to galaxies with trillions of stars.

Evolution as a whole is not one of those "experimental knowledge" theories. Again, it has way too much history of experimentation to be wrong. It's too ironclad to be disproven.

Sine, the misconceptions are so fundamental that I don't want to spend the time addressing them. Pointing to popular books that explain evolution seems appropriate, since it takes a book's worth of knowledge and understanding to fully address them.

This may help give a Coles Notes version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory

Kupek wrote:Sine, the misconceptions are so fundamental that I don't want to spend the time addressing them. Pointing to popular books that explain evolution seems appropriate, since it takes a book's worth of knowledge and understanding to fully address them.

Kupek, I understand that knowledge like this requires a lot of understanding, but even on a message board like this, we don't have to time to read through a book to get the answers, especially as biased as one from Dawkins. (And you're trying to get a Creationist Christian to read it? Ha!) Hell, I still haven't read the ones you gave me (and I'm sure you haven't read the ones I gave you).

The first step is to get enough of a hook to want people to learn for themselves, to understand that their world view is not exactly what they thought it was. I know you're busy with your PhD and all of that, but if you want to be the next Sagan or deGrasse or Kaku, you really have to do better than that in explaining matters in layman's terms.

Before Dawkins became a professional atheist, he actually did some biology. His recent works on religion are polemics. These are not.

If you can't be bothered to read a book on a subject that you're willing to argue about, then I'm doubtful anything I say will make a difference. Some ignorance is willful.

Kupek wrote:If you can't be bothered to read a book on a subject that you're willing to argue about, then I'm doubtful anything I say will make a difference. Some ignorance is willful.

You're missing the point, Kupek. But I doubt anything else I say will make a difference

Godwin's Law should have a slight addendum that involves the "Religion vs Evolution" and the like because most of the topics here boil down to that and not Godwin's actual law.

We could call it Shrine's Law.