"you appear,and please correct me if i am wrong,to pigeon hole anybody who claims a religion as being a fundamentalist"

I hereby correct you, I did no such thing, and did not mention fundamentalism.

"to say religion has not produced a single novel or new idea,totally ignores the massive contributions in regards to:philosophy,math,astrology,physics.the list is pretty extensive."

Extensive, huh? I'd like to see that list, in fact, enlighten me, and mention just ONE idea that was actually helped along by religion? Do you mean any idea that comes from a person defined as religious in any way? Can you show, in no uncertain terms, that it was the persons religious beliefs that helped solve a particular problem?

The closest I can think of is someone like Mendel, a monk, because his monastary allowed him to spend lots of time growing and studying pea-plants. But you can hardly call it a result of religious studies. If anything, Mendel must have skipped some biblereading to count all his peas.

What I'm talking about is when a proper good idea or concept has emerged from studying or following religious scripture or teaching.

Sadly many Americans are actually this misinformed.

I read an article once by a Professor of Religious Studies, where he said he regularly has students raise their hands as he's explaining the origins of Christianity, and say, "Excuse me, I thought Jesus was American."

Sadly it's no joke, and these are the top of the education ladder, since they're in a university level course, and presumably they have an actual interest in religion.

Thank you Jesus!

Chris rewrote his letter with cleaned up language. His reasoning here:

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/08/out-of-bounds-blog-no-8-inquisitive-kitten-pawing-at-yarn/


The letter here (former curse words in all caps):

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

p.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.

>> ^kir_mokum:

a BA in art history and an MA in religious studies doesn't sound hyper-educated to me.


To be fair, that certainly ain't under-educated.

>> ^kir_mokum:

a BA in art history and an MA in religious studies doesn't sound hyper-educated to me.


It sounds like something useless people do.

>> ^kir_mokum:

a BA in art history and an MA in religious studies doesn't sound hyper-educated to me.


It is if you believe wemens shouldn't have no schooln'.

a BA in art history and an MA in religious studies doesn't sound hyper-educated to me.

First of all, we can all tell that you are an absolutist at heart. Especially, when it comes to religion and science in second as of course you've allowed religion to trump scientific findings. You even go as far as contending the possibility that an evil force was working on my behalf while I was a believer (to make it clear to all i was a Mormon, which is of course off limits according to @shinyblurry ).

I already explained to you that I was willing to accept the conclusions of science about evolution and the long history of the Earth after I became a Christian, but after I investigated them I found the evidence to be totally insufficient to hold either view. It's funny that atheists like to repeat the tired old line of "you don't understand anything about science" and actually never demonstrate any scientific knowledge at all. I actually know a lot more about evolutionary theory than most atheists I meet, because I have extensively researched both sides of the issue. If you think that you're so schooled in the theory, let's see how much you actually know.

Yes, I believe in absolute truth. If you don't believe in absolute truth, could you tell me if you believe that absolutely?

The scientific side is hilarious. The book linked to is , right off the bat, intelligent design--they claim to know all and complain that science doesn't know it all. Second, when I hear the terms micro and macro evolution or transitional fossils on the Internet I can be guaranteed that an evolution debate versus those that do follow the scientific theory and principles behind it and the furiously religious with their "alternative evidence" is very close at hand.

You accuse me of ignorance yet here you are judging the book to be unworthy of your time, and dismissing it utterly. That is pretty ignorant. As it has challenged evolutionary biologists, I am 100 percent certain it will challenge you. If you are so dogmatic as to dismiss any other viewpoint, you're the one who doesn't understand science. Clinging to a particular theory with a religious fervour is exactly what science isn't. btw, you do know that micro and macro evolution are terms used by evolutionary biologists to distinguish between changes in allele frequencies on or above the species level, right?

I've spent more of my life learning about the natural world than I ever did about religion. One, because it's useful, I can use it in a practical way. Two, it gives me insights into things I would have never had otherwise. I don't get involved in scientific versus religious "science" debates on the Internet for a few reasons. One, the argument WILL end at the same spot it started. Two, to truly learn science you NEED to practice it and read about it--as much as you would spend on your religious studies and activities. Three, you must learn that you are standing in a valley with no view of your surroundings (understanding wise); but, if you try hard you can stand on the shoulders of giants (like Einstein) and see beyond the valley, even to the horizon. This is why it is so easy for so may scientists to easily dismiss EVERY critique from the religious side--you truly have no idea how little sense some of what is said makes. It's why I dismiss what you have said @shinyblurry (science wise); you are not the first to make the insinuations you have, they've already been dealt with elsewhere.

Maybe one day you'll get to the top of the mountain:

Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow


>> ^kceaton1

@shinyblurry

I'll try to respond to a few of those.

First of all, we can all tell that you are an absolutist at heart. Especially, when it comes to religion and science in second as of course you've allowed religion to trump scientific findings. You even go as far as contending the possibility that an evil force was working on my behalf while I was a believer (to make it clear to all i was a Mormon, which is of course off limits according to @shinyblurry ).

The scientific side is hilarious. The book linked to is , right off the bat, intelligent design--they claim to know all and complain that science doesn't know it all. Second, when I hear the terms micro and macro evolution or transitional fossils on the Internet I can be guaranteed that an evolution debate versus those that do follow the scientific theory and principles behind it and the furiously religious with their "alternative evidence" is very close at hand.

I've spent more of my life learning about the natural world than I ever did about religion. One, because it's useful, I can use it in a practical way. Two, it gives me insights into things I would have never had otherwise. I don't get involved in scientific versus religious "science" debates on the Internet for a few reasons. One, the argument WILL end at the same spot it started. Two, to truly learn science you NEED to practice it and read about it--as much as you would spend on your religious studies and activities. Three, you must learn that you are standing in a valley with no view of your surroundings (understanding wise); but, if you try hard you can stand on the shoulders of giants (like Einstein) and see beyond the valley, even to the horizon. This is why it is so easy for so may scientists to easily dismiss EVERY critique from the religious side--you truly have no idea how little sense some of what is said makes. It's why I dismiss what you have said @shinyblurry (science wise); you are not the first to make the insinuations you have, they've already been dealt with elsewhere.

@shinyblurry As much as you do know in the religious; you lack an equal amount in the sciences.

Huge numbers of Israel's orthodox Jews get all their expenses (including their high fertility rate) supported by the Israeli state for "religious study," so they not only don't work on Sundays, but not on any day ever.

On the other hand, Israel builds things like particle accelerators and does a disproportionate amount of the world's scientific output, so it's easy to see that they still get a lot done, but they've got a lot of dead-weight to in the form of the parasites in this video.

>> ^heropsycho:

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu% on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.
I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?


You can "agree to disagree" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are things that are demonstrably true and things that are demonstrably false.

Besides, in the context of the video, this is not something where we can "all just get along". These are two particularly deranged individuals who are (potentially in Palins case) running for the most powerful position on earth. Hell, I don't even live in the US and the thought of wither of these two being president gives me nightmares.

As for teaching evolution in science class and creationism in religious studies/history/literature, I have no problem with that. In fact, I believe you cannot understand most great works of culture without understanding the society that gave rise to them and that means knowing the bible. And you should always seek to understand position you do not agree with, even if only to "understand the ways of ones enemy".

But it never ends there. Religions always try to push their agenda onto other parts of life, often using the tools of science to do so. (see the video of the WBC with iphones) People often deride Dawkins for being hostile and argumentative, but if an organised group spent millions trying to refute my lifes work with arguments that only an idiot like shinyblurry would believe, I'd be hostile too.

Only a little religious study will lead you to understand they took rafts from the middle=east
>> ^mgittle:

I'd like to see the explanation of how species made it to other continents if Noah let all the animals off the ark in the same place.
Also, there is no mention of plants. I guess they can't drown.

Thanks for following up, and happy new year.

Maybe we're looking at different ends of science. Your model makes sense during the initial R&D phases, and generating hypotheses. My model makes sense in the later phases, when deciding what constitutes scientific law and fact. I agree with your point on creationism; to be fair, why wouldn't Christians include all other religions' creation myths, and other philosophies' as well? It's better to leave the unsupported theories for religious studies.

I can't fault people for being religious. We have to use our internal rationale to decide what to think about reality and our existence. Whether people decide there's a god with an elephant head, or if they decide we're in one of an infinite number of parallel universes, or if they think we're just machines and consciousness is an illusion, I can't fault them for their choice. I can show them my rationale for my beliefs, and I can educate them based on what science shows. But my point earlier was that science doesn't show what some people claim, and that scientific "constructionism" (i.e., "only what we can prove exists, exists") is intellectually foolish, has been proven to be folly in the past, and is not accepted by the scientific community.

Science and knowledge may never be able to refute basic theism, and if people want to use that fact to justify their beliefs, they can do that. If theists want schools to teach people the world is flat, or that evolution isn't true, or that condoms spread AIDS, they can't do that, and those efforts should be resisted in full force. Religion and science need that firm dividing line, and if someone thinks they can get on in life without one or the other, there's no problem with that as long as they don't infringe on others' rights to make their own choices.
In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
Alrighy then. I'm sober and moderately coherent, so let's carry on.

We have a very different view of science. Science can't possibly work by ruling out things, because there the universe is infinite, or, as infinite as we are able to measure at this time. The experiment that produces a result never comes alone. It's always there to support a hypothesis, and to prove it, if successful.

There will always be things we can't perceive ourselves, and we will always work towards finding new ways to view the universe. If we would ever discover everything there is to know, the world would be rather dull, in my opinion.

This, however, does not grant anybody a license to invent facts, to make claims with no substantiating evidence and to basically invent a new universe and ask the rest of us to live in it.

Proving something by disproving every other possibility only works when there is a finite number of possible possibilities (I love that phrase, by the way). There is no finite group of Gods. Every person is free to come up with a new God every day. If someone were to ask 1000 Christians to describe their God, and then compile their replies into a profile, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't end up with at least 4-5 separate deities.

My problem with all religions, isn't about the nature of the faith, or of the God itself, but rather with the claim that they know something which they can't possibly know. Teaching Intelligent Design in a school and putting it on the same level as the science of Evolution, simply because a book tells you the world is 6000 years old, is ludicrous to me.

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

I think we sort of diverged from the original point, and I don't have an actual argument to make anymore. Have a happy new year

One thing that I think is funny about intelligent design and creation "science" is that it didn't exist 3 decades ago. It is all a desperate reaction to the elegant simplicity of evolutionary biology.

^ "The odds that evolution is true is astronomically low and getting lower all the time."

That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as time goes on the evidence for evolution just keeps stacking.

http://genomebiology.com/2001/3/1/research/0006
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=140308
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Every time there is new evidence, every time evolutionary biology is able to make a correct PERDICTION, creationist teem a new illogical god-based reaction in a pathetic attempt debunk the mounting evidence.

And FLIBOI, I don’t know why you listed D. James Kennedy as a doctor, while he techically has his docotrate, it was in religious studies from New York University, he got his masters in Chicago in Theology, and a became a Master of Divinity from Columbia Thological Seminary. That all sounds a little biased to me.

Christians do follow a poem (a theologist and priest dude told me that so it must be true)

Writing back then was very very very different, you can't judge it by modern standards. Even the word "poem" is wrong but we don't have a word for the style the authors of the Bible were using. We call it Biblical I guess.

This guy makes the mistake of taking the Bible literally, and then tries to use that as an argument against all Christians. It's the literalists he should focus on.

As for "it's stupid to believe in a poem" well.. AHA! You fall into my trap, said the spider to the fly. Yes it is stupid to literally believe in your personal interpretation of a poem, just as it is stupid to believe in Hawking when you have no idea wtf he is talking about and even Hawking himself refutes his own previous assertions (as any great and proper scientist SHOULD do when they encounter new information)

So the trap is, you think it's a polarized debate, and you made an assumption about my position.

My position is best summed up by the russian word XUJZNAET.

I refer you to this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Youre-too-stupid-to-be-an-atheist

I could also make one called "you're too stupid to be a christian" because when you actually look into it, unravelling the Bible is as hard as unravelling quantum mechanics.

But at least we know the Bible exists. Whereas Hawking's stuff is all particle mumbojumbo and blackboards that you couldn't possibly read.

btw I am not christian or atheist, and i don't take a firm position in debates where the finer points are too complex for any of us to understand.

As my Religious Studies teacher said... "You don't think atoms are actually balls spinning around other balls, do you? They're just maths."

Show me a graviton and I will show you Jesus' diary.