Creationist Wendy Wright is an automaton

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Creationist Wendy Wright is an automaton

Creationist Wendy Wright is the perfect example of "You can't fix stupid"

Creationist Wendy Wright is spearheading another campaign to get American schools to teach (what they've attempted to label) "The Controversy" (Intelligent Design) as a legitimate theory that is on equal scientific footing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Creationist Wendy Wright is insidiously trying to culture (indoctrinate) her religious beliefs into new generations of American children, and dishonestly claims otherwise. That the religious beliefs she has, should be categorized as 'science', and 'based on facts'.

Which if course is a non sequitur, since all religious beliefs (that contradict hers) claim exactly the same, based on the same naked assertions, which they falsely categorize as 'evidence'.

She advocates that science has created a bias against 'religious evidence of a creator' (non sequitur), and that she wants it removed from the schools.

 

Creationist Wendy Wright is a perfect example of the insidious passive aggressive religious automaton.

And she wants more of America to be just like her.

Here she debates with evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in a 7 part series, in a display of obtuse, oppositional, and trancelike drone behaviour, eerily reminiscent of a 'Stepford Wives" character, where she clearly reveals her religious agenda.

A truly brainwashed individual. A religious fanatic.

Creationist Wendy Wright is a perfect example of why it's vital that schools and governments remain completely secular.

Because there's no 'reasoning' with an 'unreasonable' person (religious fanatic).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&feature=related

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Was she born in Stepford,

Was she born in Stepford, Connecticut?

<you might be too young for the reference>

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Anyone that describes

Anyone that describes themselves as a Creationist automatically looses about 50 IQ points in my eyes.  It's probably something I need to work on, but I just can't help it.  Someone that describes themselves as an Intelligent Design proponent, to me is a creationist that put on glasses and stole a lab coat from a science lab.  Probably carries around a beaker and a pocket protector because we all know that's what all real scientists do.  I can't believe such idiocies actually get the school's board attention and time... it's such a waste of tax dollars.

 

The 'missing link' between Creationist and Intelligent Design idiocies can be found here "cdesign proponentsists".  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Was she born

jcgadfly wrote:

Was she born in Stepford, Connecticut?

<you might be too young for the reference>

The eerie similiarity between some of these creationists and the housewives of Stepford are rather uncanny.

I believe they actually tried to do a re-make of that old classic, but I bet it wasn't as good as the original.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I have an idea.... wanted to

I have an idea.... wanted to know what folks here think...

 

That we teach Religion in schools like math, english and science... but *all* religions, and their beliefs.... That would put "creation" where it beliongs, out of the science class room.... and I am of the mind that when young people are exposed to this lunacy... they are more likely to turn away from it...


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:I have an

Rich Woods wrote:

I have an idea.... wanted to know what folks here think...

 

That we teach Religion in schools like math, english and science... but *all* religions, and their beliefs.... That would put "creation" where it beliongs, out of the science class room.... and I am of the mind that when young people are exposed to this lunacy... they are more likely to turn away from it...

My understand is that is how Sweden does it, and it seems to work well for them.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Rich Woods

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I have an idea.... wanted to know what folks here think...

 

That we teach Religion in schools like math, english and science... but *all* religions, and their beliefs.... That would put "creation" where it beliongs, out of the science class room.... and I am of the mind that when young people are exposed to this lunacy... they are more likely to turn away from it...

My understand is that is how Sweden does it, and it seems to work well for them.

 

I have proposed this a number of times.  I've yet to have a creationist take me up on it.  Comparative religious myths 101.  For some reason, they get all insulted ---

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Rich, I am of like mind.

 

Rich, I am of like mind. I think that that idea may even pass Constitutional muster.

 

The only difference would be that comparative religions is a course itself. Which is worthwhile as a subject. However, special creation should be a course apart from that. If you do it that way, then we can teach kids why “cancerous thought” is an issue...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Rich Woods

mellestad wrote:
Rich Woods wrote:

I have an idea.... wanted to know what folks here think...

 

That we teach Religion in schools like math, english and science... but *all* religions, and their beliefs.... That would put "creation" where it beliongs, out of the science class room.... and I am of the mind that when young people are exposed to this lunacy... they are more likely to turn away from it...

My understand is that is how Sweden does it, and it seems to work well for them.

We do indeed do this. Everyone has to take a course called Religion A in high school, and it is a prerequisite course to get into any program at the university. We learned about all major religions. It is a good thing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:I have an

Rich Woods wrote:

I have an idea.... wanted to know what folks here think...

 

That we teach Religion in schools like math, english and science... but *all* religions, and their beliefs.... That would put "creation" where it beliongs, out of the science class room.... and I am of the mind that when young people are exposed to this lunacy... they are more likely to turn away from it...

I have no problem with that. We were taught about religions in history class. We started with prehistoric man, and then learned about how civilizations evolved from nomads and tribes, and we learned of heirarchies, and monarchies, and learned about the different structures of ruling over the various cultures and civilizations throughout the world.

Whne you learn it from such a scientific method of analysis, it's easy to see that religions used the fears of gods as a method of ruling over people, and a justification to kill any threats to them, by those under their 'rule'.

They were 'thugs'.

It wasn't difficult to determine that on your own.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised RD

 

Was able to keep a straight face through that interview. She is just a classic moron. "A loving creator who gave us not just a physical body but an immaterial soul."

It's enough to make jesus weep.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck