[where do you guys come up with this stuff?]
From watching religious zealots like you defend calling your hateful, deceitful religion [evolution] 'science.'
37 comments
For Darwin so loved the world he gave it a bunch of books about different species and their simalarities in many aspects. He also gave it pictures of animals that he drew by hand, and expounded on the belief of evolution. He died so that we...Oh wait, he just died like normal. Wait, why is this a religion?
I have rarely heard an evolutionist call a creationist anything hateful. Probably because the evolutionist believes that he is no better or morally advanced than the creationist is.
I have, however, heard creationists frequently call evolutionists "evil," "warped," "perverted" "hateful," "deceitful," among hundreds of other hateful terms.
Evolution isn't a freakin' religion, and creationism is not science; evolution is science, and creationism is religion. There is no argument permitted here, any more than there is argument permitted about whether gravity exists or not; that's just how it is.
~David D.G.
Having seen creationism banned the U.S. classroom because it's considered religion under the First Amendment, they now try the same approach: getting evolution banned because it's also "religion" under the First Amendment.
Basically, they're saying "it's a religion because you haven't convinced me it's right" (and never will, because it conflicts with the Bible). By this logic, almost any knowledge could be labeled a religion, as long as anyone could concoct personal criteria for "sufficient proof" that were impossible ever to satisify.
John:
This is the convergence of several streams of stupidity into a mighty river of stupidity.
1: The fundies are trying to claim all knowledge is a religion, therefore there is no criteria for excluding any particular religion from classrooms.
This is both a political arguement and was also once an actual legal argument in a courtroom.
2: They are trying to do this in a more general way, trying to make people in general think the validity of their religion as a source of truth is on a par with other sources of truth like, say looking into a microscope.
3: This is a psychologoical limitation of fundies, they are unable to understand anything except as a twisted mirror image of themselves.
They understand their own beliefs are a religion, and can only understand their opponents beliefs as a different religion.
And you´re right. They´re ashamed to say that theirs is a cult or a religion, which per se is not bad(as long as they don´t use it to annoy everybody else), and they say that evolution is a "religion". Of course, I asume THEY ARE NOT BEING SARCASTIC, so I think this guy deserves a 5.
Sigh, yet another fundie who can't understand anything without putting it in the framework of their own beliefs.
Actually, Mr. Spak already said it better, so I'll just quote him.
This is a psychologoical limitation of fundies, they are unable to understand anything except as a twisted mirror image of themselves.
They understand their own beliefs are a religion, and can only understand their opponents beliefs as a different religion.
Libkitten: If I could pick a god to have in the real world, I'd pick a god I made up. Like the founders of any religion we have now, I know that a god I make up will do anything I'd want in a god.
Of course, there's a funny paradox here: A religion can never be based on a god that exists. It can only be based on a god that doesn't exist or is impossible to verify. If, for example, the Christian god existed, his existence would become an ordinary fact. People may be inclined to do what he says, but there would be no faith and no congregations where everyone gathers to prop up each others' baseless beliefs through sermons, songs, and hymns. If the existence Christian god were verified, most of Christianity would be rendered superfluous, since much of Christianity is about maintaining itself in the face of evidence.
Scientists challenge each other's hypotheses. They are trained to question everything. Every once in a while, someone discovers something pivotal, and the whole population of scientists in that field strive to take meaning from the discovery.
Religion is based on the premise that the most obnoxious asshole is the best mouthpiece for the very large but insubstantial asshole.
When did all this bullshit get to be so ubiquitous?
Despite being Jewish, I spent 7 years at an Anglican (aka Catholicsm Lite) private school in the 70s that never once pushed a religious agenda in science classes. We were taught evolution as part of our biology course. Sure there was a weekly religious studies class, too, but there was never any Biblical literalism to be found there. I chose to attend those classes because I was interested in exploring others' beliefs.
I didn't meet my first creationist until I went to college. She was the daughter of a Baptist minister and we became good friends. Our other two best friends were a Catholic and an atheist. We just all agreed to disagree on religion - something the current group of creationists seem incapable of doing - and find the common ground that allowed our friendships to grow.
Today, at work, I sit next to a Sunni Muslim guy who is a creationist, but we just stay off commenting on each other's religious belifs except to ask the odd question, in order to learn. But this is becoming less of the norm.
These days I keep running into people (frequently strangers in the street) who either try to convert me with kindness, or tell me I'm going to hell/deserve to die/etc. WTF? When did Christian fundamentalism get such a hold? It's definitely a growing force here in Australia, as well. And, frankly, these people scare me.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.