UGH
Offline This is an email I got from a friend of mine, which was in response to an email I had sent out to some friends in which I made the statement that anyone who didnt believe in evolution was an idiot:
"Ed, you have no right telling anyone how to believe. when you get your doctorate in some sort of science. You will a creditable expert. For every book you read I can give you another one to read that tells you different. My dad always taught me "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read". The belief in something other than what is on this world is not all together crazy. It at leased gives you some sort on base for morals and laws. The US Constitution was base on Christian beliefs. Now granted they didn't really believe that every man was created equal. They did create a great document. There are some crazy people in this world and the belief in god or gods sometimes makes the world a little less crazy. If someone say "what would Jesus do" before they do something or if they say "what would my mother or father do" is kind of the same thing. People also need some kind of moral base to teach children right from wrong. That's really all it comes down to right now. A lot of people need a reason to or not to do things. Where you find that reason is up you. you no have right to judge. So I won't tell you how to believe and I won't tell you how I believe. Keep you opinions to yourself. You make decisions all the time that I don't agree with. But I keep my mouth shut. When you get into these discussions you sound like one of those religious freak yourself. You have no give or take. You are so passionate about it that you don't understand how anyone could differ from your belief. That makes you a Fundamentalist" So many misconceptions and hypocritical statements, so little time.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
- Login to post comments
Offline jmm wrote:Quote:Evolution is a fact, and should in fact be crammed down the throat who would argue it's not.
Continental drift was a "fact" less than 100 years ago, yet it's a mere punchline now in virtually all geological circles. Evolution is a probability, not a fact, and should certainly not be crammed down anyone's throat.
(I am an evolutionist by the way, just so you don't think I agree with the guy's response.)
Are you telling me that continental drift isn't a "fact" anymore that is explained by plate tectonics?
That's precisely what I'm telling you.
They both attempt to explain the same phenomenon, but they are in no way the same theory. Continental drift offered no means by which continental crust moved through the much more dense oceanic crust - which was patent absurdity. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, separates land not by continent but by different plates, which contain both continental and oceanic crust. More importantly, this theory offered a mechanism of plate movement - convection currents.
I imagine that in a few hundred years people will be laughing at plate tectonics just as hard as we laugh at continental drift.
- Login to post comments
Offline zntneo wrote:jmm wrote:Quote:Evolution is a fact, and should in fact be crammed down the throat who would argue it's not.
Continental drift was a "fact" less than 100 years ago, yet it's a mere punchline now in virtually all geological circles. Evolution is a probability, not a fact, and should certainly not be crammed down anyone's throat.
(I am an evolutionist by the way, just so you don't think I agree with the guy's response.)
Are you telling me that continental drift isn't a "fact" anymore that is explained by plate tectonics?
That's precisely what I'm telling you.
They both attempt to explain the same phenomenon, but they are in no way the same theory. Continental drift offered no means by which continental crust moved through the much more dense oceanic crust - which was patent absurdity. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, separates land not by continent but by different plates, which contain both continental and oceanic crust. More importantly, this theory offered a mechanism of plate movement - convection currents.
I imagine that in a few hundred years people will be laughing at plate tectonics just as hard as we laugh at continental drift.
Um they don't try to explain the same thing. Continental drfit just says that the contents use to be all 1 huge contient, which is still a fact. Whereas plate tectonics explains that plus volcanos, plus a marid of other things, it is the grand unifing theory of geology. So no you are wrong cotinental drfit is still a fact.
- Login to post comments
Offline jmm wrote:zntneo wrote:jmm wrote:Quote:Evolution is a fact, and should in fact be crammed down the throat who would argue it's not.
Continental drift was a "fact" less than 100 years ago, yet it's a mere punchline now in virtually all geological circles. Evolution is a probability, not a fact, and should certainly not be crammed down anyone's throat.
(I am an evolutionist by the way, just so you don't think I agree with the guy's response.)
Are you telling me that continental drift isn't a "fact" anymore that is explained by plate tectonics?
That's precisely what I'm telling you.
They both attempt to explain the same phenomenon, but they are in no way the same theory. Continental drift offered no means by which continental crust moved through the much more dense oceanic crust - which was patent absurdity. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, separates land not by continent but by different plates, which contain both continental and oceanic crust. More importantly, this theory offered a mechanism of plate movement - convection currents.
I imagine that in a few hundred years people will be laughing at plate tectonics just as hard as we laugh at continental drift.
Um they don't try to explain the same thing. Continental drfit just says that the contents use to be all 1 huge contient, which is still a fact. Whereas plate tectonics explains that plus volcanos, plus a marid of other things, it is the grand unifing theory of geology. So no you are wrong cotinental drfit is still a fact.
Yes, they attempt to explain the same phenomenon - the differing positions of the earth's crust throughout history - but through vastly different means. It's not even like there's any such thing as "continental drift" anymore. The continents didn't "drift", but the tectonic plates moved.
The continental drift theory says that continental crust plowed through the much more dense oceanic crust, which would have been impossible. We now know that crust is not separated into continental and oceanic, but is rather made up of several plates which contain combinations of both. Continental drift certainly led to plate tectonics, but looking back on it as any sort of "explanation" for anything is little more than a laugh now.
I imagine we'll see similar advancements in evolutionary biology.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes, they attempt to explain the same phenomenon - the differing positions of the earth's crust throughout history - but through vastly different means. It's not even like there's any such thing as "continental drift" anymore. The continents didn't "drift", but the tectonic plates moved.
The continental drift theory says that continental crust plowed through the much more dense oceanic crust, which would have been impossible. We now know that crust is not separated into continental and oceanic, but is rather made up of several plates which contain combinations of both. Continental drift certainly led to plate tectonics, but looking back on it as any sort of "explanation" for anything is little more than a laugh now.
I imagine we'll see similar advancements in evolutionary biology.
It seems to me that Wagners theory that you mention was not accepted by most scientists but the fact that continents "drfit" is still an accepted facts. Wagners idea of why just isn't accepted any more, but plate tectonics is.
from here
Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents and land bridges.
So until plate tectonics came around the fact that contients moved and drifted wasn't accepted.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wegener's initial theory got people thinking in the right manner, and had the right basic idea, but was full of flaws - particularly on the issue of a driving mechanism. He posited that the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation coupled with tidal drag was responsible for the movement of the continents. This was an inadequate explanation of how we got from a supercontinent to many continents, because continental crust is far less dense than oceanic crust, and it would have crumbled into billions of pieces in the hypothetical event of it attempting to somehow plow through oceanic crust.
Plate tectonics came along later in the 20th century though, and offered a radical new re-thinking of the phenomenon. We now know that the earth's crust is not divided into continental and oceanic, but like I said, several plates which are comprised of a combination of the two. Below earth's crust is the asthenosphere, made up of liquid rock. This liquid rock behaves in a manner similar to boiling water - it moves through the center of a given pocket, and disburses outwardly toward the top, like this:
So at an extremely slow rate, the plates are simultaneously pulled from and toward each other (as two are pulled together, two are simultaneously pulled apart), resulting in subduction and seafloor spreading, which are in turn responsible for mountain building, volcanoes, and also the many continents we have today.
So to say that "continental drift is still a fact" is a bit simplistic. Sure, the continents are in different positions now than they were millions of years ago, but so is the oceanic crust. A more accurate way to say it is "plate movement is a fact".
My point being: Wegener's theory was accepted as fact less than 100 years ago, but we now know that it was monumentally wrong on almost every front.
- Login to post comments
Offline If you read my last post i showed it wasn't accepted as fact. so No your point is incorrect.
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, whatever. I don't have time to give you a geology lesson. Go flip through an intro geology book sometime, though.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have i took intro to geology. and it wasn't entirely accepted as fact until plate tectonics was discovered.
- Login to post comments
Offline Christianity views on some subjects are changing all the time mate, notice that Earth is no longer flat for them and evolution is accepted by some of groups. They have to or will lose believers.
Funny thing is that from moment when something was accepted they pretend that their older pathetic views never existed.
Gestapo learned Inquisition methods of torture I sure commies could learn some propaganda from them as well.
BTW There is a Church movement which deny Inquisition Witch Hunt as well. World is so funny place.
Ecrasez l'infame!
- Login to post comments
First off, I don't think that evolution is something you believe into. It's an observation, not a belief system.
Secondly, you have every right to say that you think what you think.
And I'm tired of people like that who have the kind of speech : "Don't tell me that what I think is stupid, it's not nice of you. We all should shut up and only say nice things to people."
That's a big pile of crap ! Ideas are made to be confronted to other ideas, not to be sealed in separate topperware boxes.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I'll keep my opinions to myself when you keep your religious beliefs out of my government.
Oh, and he called you hypocritical? Perhaps he should re-read his entire email.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
No, no, that last line was me. I should have separated that from the email better.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
Aha!! So your real name is Ed, is it?
when you get your doctorate in some sort of grammar. You write complete sentences.
actually hooked on phonics will do...
and you believed him?
I agree. The possiblity of life on other planets is "not all together crazy" at all.
i could go on, but UGH...
What do you expect? When you send out annoying forwards calling people idiots for having beliefs that run counter to your own, you're just begging for an angry response.
Evolution is not a belief, and requires no faith. It's a fact, period, and I have zero tolerance for weak-minded, ignorant fools that either can't, or choose not to, understand it. That includes friends of mine. They can believe in god all they want, but for fuck's sake there's some things that we have to chalk up to being a mystery at this point(did the universe always exist? was it created somehow?), and some(how did humans in their present state get here?) that we don't.
That being said, yes, I expected a passionate response, but not one so chock full of false facts, straw men, and hypocrisy.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Isn't telling someone "Don't believe everything you hear" a self defeating statment? Like saying "Trust me when I tell you not to trust anyone!"
Damn you! Now everyone will know!
WTF!?!?!
I can't believe my eyes. Did I just see a theist defending the actions of atheist activism?
Before you wrote this, jmm, did you ask yourself: "Why would Roisin Dubh send out a message 'attacking' religion?"
Are you saying that it's okay for the religious to send out mass mail announcing the 'second coming' or 'See the Gaithers in concert' BUT WE SHOULDN'T???
He sends a bulletin and gets an 'angry response' (your words. not mine. I didn't think it was angry, just defensive.) YET I can open my e-mail to spam offering me discounts on boxed sets of Gaither gospel music 'homecoming' dvd's and I'm supposed to just let that slide right on by.
Why couldn't the person that responded to Roisin Dubh just let it go by?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
All I'm saying is that forwarding/spamming of any sort is annoying, so if you're going to take part in it, don't get upset when people fire back.
I don't think THAT he fired back was the problem here. Maybe you're missing the point of the entire post, or perhaps I am. But I thought it fairly obvious that it was the contents, the method of delviery, the bad english, and the stupid statements made that were the comical and perhaps annoying parts of the his response.
But perhaps you missed all the those things.
Perhaps not.
All I'm saying is this: his original forward was probably just as idiotic and inflammatory to the Christians he sent it to as their responses were to him. We all have a few fundamentalist friends or family members who insist upon flooding our inboxes with poorly-written propaganda.
You guys are assuming that just because the original poster is an atheist that he's somehow immune to being ill-informed. I'd like to see the original forward in its entirity. Something tells me that it was simply an atheist version of the classic Christian forwards we've all seen and grown to hate.
This is not about theism or atheism to me, by the way. It's about being annoying and cramming ideology down other people's throats. You just shouldn't do it.
The Christians have been cramming ideology down people's throats for way longer. Every time I empty my school mailbox, I have five pounds of mail and 90% of it is labeled Campus Ministries. If an atheist started slipping little fliers into mailboxes, the CM kids would be the first to start bitching. That's just my own experience with Christian spam, but I know that I'm not alone.
I agree with you that spam, no matter where it comes from, is annoying. But the unfortunate reality is that the Christians aren't going to stop spamming, so the only choice we have is to fire back with spam of our own.
It would be nice if the world would agree to be spam free, but we don't live in a perfect world.
I would condone an atheist sending out "atheist spam", but it's only because I suspect the Christians, not I, have a double standard when it comes to spamming rights.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Or you could just ignore it like I do.
And you are basing this on what? You did not see the original message. Regardless of the original message, the reply Roisin Dubh received was ridiculous.
I have made no such assumption. I have read Roisin Dubh's past posts and I am comfortable with his 'track record'.
I will grant that there are many, myself included on certain subjects, that are 'ill-informed'. If given the opportunity to read the original forward would your opinion change and cause you to apologize if any incorrect judgment was made on your part?
Something tells me that it wouldn't, but that is only due to the fact that something akin to that is rarely witnessed.
Yet I have asked your opinion on where the first cause of an atheist's response is rooted.
As far as what shouldn't be done... could one not assert that your response posts in this thread are 'cramming ideology down our throats'. One could. However, I only ask you to stop making strawmen, but I think any critique is welcome. As well as any critique of your responses.
Would you concur?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
And enable it to persist unchecked? I don't think so. Askng for quarter and granting none is the epitome of hypocrisy in my opinion.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Of course I haven't seen the original forward. I was indirectly urging Roisin to post it on here in order to get perspective.
And if you think that me saying "spam is annoying and people should refrain from it" is cramming ideology, then I really don't know what else to say.
Just let it fade away and die.
Like my hopes and dreams.
But seriously thought, I don't think you can fight fire with fire in this situation. Sooner or later we're going to have a world full of inflammatory assholes who won't leave people be.
Oh, wait...
.... I have not come to bring peace (submission) but a Sword (intellectual debate) to divide the fools and hypocrites, from the rational and fearless.
RUMBLE mentally !
Yeah, go jesus (consciousness), that atheist prodigy !
ugh, .... yeah hardly no one gets it.
, yeah I'm giggling again .... me sorry
not
Atheism Books.
Wishful thinking that 'it' will fade away and die hasn't worked.
Reacting to 'it' has also failed.
Actively seeking change has just recently(relative to history) been given a chance.
Sometimes people get a whole bulk folder full of obnoxious bullshit and just 'let it go by' and the next day it is full again.
Sometimes it only takes one response for the spammer to say, "OH SHIT! I can't let any of my friends read this or else they might understand too." and then you never see another thing from them.
The other side of this issue is so rarley seen by all. The proof of this statement is given by the ridiculous number of similar e-mails received that have been answered the same way or a completely different approach was used to no avail.
Sorry, but I see no reason for your 'righteous indignation' with regard to whether one should respond to either solicited or unsolicited e-mail as an effective means of change.
I have to say thanks, by the way. I'll be asking Sapient if he can redirect the hatemail from the contact form to me so that we can go back to responding much more than just in the forums to the regular theist posters.
Have a great day and you're welcome to send me any spam that you have acquired or created, jmm.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
It wasnt a forward at all. A group of us have "conversations" via email throughout the course of a day, and the topic at the time happened to be who we were each voting for. Ron Paul came up, I said I didn't like that he was either a creationist or was a creationist-apologist, and someone responded that the they didnt understand why I would hold that against him, and then my statement came out that if you don't believe in evolution, you're too dumb to run my country.
I dont know where you got the idea that this was any kind of forward.
Evolution is a fact, and should in fact be crammed down the throat who would argue it's not.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Ah, gotcha. My bad.
Continental drift was a "fact" less than 100 years ago, yet it's a mere punchline now in virtually all geological circles. Evolution is a probability, not a fact, and should certainly not be crammed down anyone's throat.
(I am an evolutionist by the way, just so you don't think I agree with the guy's response.)
You're not helping in this thread, my little pearl in the rough and our tortured genius friar of freethought. Dialectics notwithstanding, the flow of communication was adequate without further complication.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Continental drift was a "fact" less than 100 years ago, yet it's a mere punchline now in virtually all geological circles. Evolution is a probability, not a fact, and should certainly not be crammed down anyone's throat.
(I am an evolutionist by the way, just so you don't think I agree with the guy's response.)
Are you telling me that continental drift isn't a "fact" anymore that is explained by plate tectonics?