here is a link to a funny site that lampoons arguments ID advocates spout. I posted this to my facebook account and one of my closest friends (from when I was still a fundy) took great offense at it. Here is the dialogue that has already ensued. check out the word document I attached since the discussion was too long to paste here. names (except for mine) have been disguised for privacy.


original link that set off the discussion:   http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/








Tags: Creationism, Design, Intelligent, evolution

Views: 13

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here is the first installment from the discussion:

SJ: Tim I read the first one, and I really thought, wow that is cool to see someone with Tim's worldview posting something like this, he is being intellectually honest. Then I read on to the rest of them, and I got really offended. In all honesty are you trying to be funny or just a jerk? Do you hate Christ, Christians, and Christianity that much? My wife wanted to know what happen to you? STUPID things like this do nothing to help either side of the issue, they do nothing to prove one side or the other, nor do they do anything to make the other side want to listen. Why is it that liberals seem to glory in attacking people, insulting, and making fun of others and there views? People like Christopher Hitchens, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Chuck Schumer, Janeane Garofalo, and there ilk, are just nasty people! Please Tim do not be like that. You are better then that, more intellegent then that, and a better person then that. I really hope that you are just not aware of how offensive and insulting this is to intellectually honest Christians like myself.

TO: I'm sorry that you were offended by it, really. I don't see what's so offensive about it. It doesn't advocate clubbing seals, torturing babies, genocide, female oppression or terrorism. is it offensive because it is satirical? the way i see it, it points out, with humor, the fundamental problems in the ID argument for teaching ID in schools when it has nothing to do with science. the first one is actually funny to anyone who understands the scientific use of the word 'theory'. I also do not think this link should be considered aggressively atheistic. It's satirical tone is a direct response to attempts to teach religious viewpoints in public schools. Do you advocate teaching ID in public schools? I hope you are just not aware of how offensive and insulting that is to intellectually honest secularists like myself.

I'm honestly curious as to which specific ones offend you so much. give me a list of numbers so I can get a better idea of what it is you find so offensive. number them starting from the top left and working your way right like reading a book. then we can talk about things in more specific terms.

btw, have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh's anti-liberal skits and chuckled?
Second installment of the FB discussion: (my atheist friend jumps in here)

KN: Also, I don't find it particularly intellectually honest to a) state that only one side of the political spectrum engages in ad hominem attacks...that in itself is an ad hominem attack and to b) take offense on behalf of the 38,000 or so different Christian denominations and billions of private individuals, many of whom do accept the facts of Evolution.

TO: and how do you interpret hate into it?

SJ: Tim O. - It would be less offensive from a stranger, but is much more coming from a former believer. It is not offensive to me because it is satirical, I love satirical things on both sides when they a honest. It is offensive because it is not intellectually honest, it misrepresents what most Christians believe. I think the comment about "it has nothing to do with science" is a copout. Science studies the natural, not the supernatural. In addition to science, we have to look at logical and or illogical reasons for support or opposition to intelligent design and or evolution. There is also the matter of what is true. On the subject of whether I support intelligent design in government schools, yes I do. I think honest, sincere representations of both sides should be taught. I realize how offensive and insulting issues can be to both sides, but as I mentioned earlier it is about what is true. That is why I can laugh at some of the satirical barbs made at Christians, Republicans, Intellectuals, etc. when they are true. Just like I am a Republican, but I have voted for both parties when I agree with them. I am not going to dissect the list, but they get progressively worse after the first.

Tim O - I do not know what happen to you in your life to lead you down this path. I have backslidden more than once in my life, but I never forgot what is was like to be a Christian. My wife and I recently left our local UPC congregation, because of abuse, misuse, and neglect of Bible base, exegetical teaching. We did not walk away from God or His word. We found another non-Pentecostal church that teaches the whole Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter. Do we agree with everything they teach, no. But we are working it out.

Yes, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I do find some of his material funny. But Rush is much more accurate in his characterizations. People I do listen to daily are Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager. Hugh Hewitt is very informative, but I do not like it when he gets personal or is just a jerk. Dennis Prager is almost never offensive and he strives to be truthful in everything, as well as giving credit where credit is do. He is one of my role models and I highly recommend him.

SJ: KN - I do not know you and I do not mean this as insulting in any way, but I do not have the time or desire to respond to everyone on here. I am an old friend of Tim's that is in part why I responded to his post. I will respond to your post, but mostly likely not to yours or others after this. I just do not have the time.

A) I do not believe I said only one side engages in ad hominem attacks, but in the public sphere it is very lop sided to the liberals making the attack, at least in the United States of America. Also that would not be an ad hominem attack, but rather a generalization.

B) I do not believe that I said I spoke for all of any said group. I speak as a member of the group that I originally mentioned. As someone who has listen to many denominations over multiple decades, I think I have a basic understanding of the views of Christians on some issues. Also I do know what the Bible says on the issue. In addition to that, by your own logic, it would seem to be that you are presuming to speak for billions of private individuals and Evolutionist?
Third installment of the discussion:

AP: Can you accept that some of us have a problem with those who attempt to eliminate "natural" interpretations of events in favor of supernatural? As a PhD astrophysicist, I feel such forays into absurdity most keenly...

KN: A) You stated verbatim: "Why is it that liberals seem to glory in attacking people, insulting, and making fun of others and there views?" -- I believe you don't balance your statement in your original post. If you wish to backtrack on that and say such things are lopsided, which is a subjective assertion but at least less insulting, then sure. Otherwise, the description of "glorying" in attacking people is an ad hominem attack...as if liberals only are contrary to be disruptive rather than just disagreeing.

B) In your second post you again speak on behalf of other Christian beliefs "it misrepresents what most Christians believe." You never mentioned any specific "group" or denomination...just Christianity as a whole. This is an unequivocal statement of knowledge regarding the majority of Christian doctrines. As a former Catholic, I can tell you that there are a number a major doctrinal differences between, say, Pentacostalists and Catholics. I don't presume to speak for anyone's "beliefs", rather the facts of the matter at hand. The Vatican, which in a hierarchical religion actually speaks with authority, has accepted evolution as fact. Also, if polls in the United States show that half of the country accepts evolution and that 80% of the nation is Christian, it's safe to estimate that there are a large number of Christians who accept Evolution. Thus, I can say that not every Christian believes in ID or Creationism or Specified Complexity or the "Controversy" or whatever, and it is a valid statement.

Part of having intellectual honesty is actually discerning between hurt feelings and disagreeing with truth statements based on facts. Your feelings toward Tim's actions are your business, but making broad assertions of your unsupported opinions as fact makes me endeavor to point out that your problem, if there is any, is not with us liberals who are "intellectually dishonest" and "glory" in insults.

TO: arguing that ID has no scientific base is not a cop-out (even in light of your NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) argument). especially since ID claims to be scientific and worthy of as much credence as established scientific theories. also, you are missing the point. the link is not intellectually dishonest because it does not target Christians specifically—it targets those who argue that ID should be taught in schools. not all christians argue that point. This is what KN was getting at.

if you argue that the post is offensive but laugh at Rush Limbaugh’s work (Limbaugh being the Hitchen’s of the conservative camp) then you are being hypocritical, especially since the site is much much much less offensive than the stuff Hitchen’s is famous for spouting. and btw, I do not favor Hitchen’s tone.

you can laugh at satire when it is “true” (i.e. you agree that it is true) but not when it is not “true” (i.e. you don’t agree that it is true). very interesting.

SJ, I still love you like a brother; we have hearts akin though our views are quite at odds. there is no need, however, for you to take offense at my refusal to accept what you believe by faith. do you take personal offense at Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? i thin if you really understood the arguments made in the link from an anti-ID perspective then you would find them funny without needing to agree with them. Also, why do you assume that something special happened to me because I reject the authority of the bible? Perhaps it was the fact that nothing special happened to me.

I think the challenging nature of the post is a positive thing if you can understand that it is not meant as an attack upon you personally though it may be an attack upon beliefs that you personally hold very dear. as such you are entitled to defend them for dear life, but you are not entitled to imbue the attack as one upon your person nor as one that is hateful.
The "teaching both sides of the issue" argument is such BS. I wonder if the people who spout that kind of nonsense realize that there are usually more then two sides to an issue. And more importantly, where do they stop? Should children in a History class also be taught that the Holocaust didn't really happen, that Hitler was not the bad guy but the good guy for killing millions of people?

It seems that your fundy friend is at least reasonably intelligent, maybe he should spend a bit more time being critical of his own opinions. Like most Christians he is able to know what the bible says on the issue, which is arrogant as well as ignorant considering the many different and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the bible.
You said it. He is pretty intelligent but also very ingrained in a starkly biblical perspective. What think is so amazing is that he claims it is intellectually dishonest! The way I see it, Faith is the most intellectually dishonest position a person could adopt.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service