Wow,
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
53 comments
Secularism doesn't work that way.
Evolution doesn't work that way - it is independent of whether or not there is a god.
As for the video, I don't suppose that you are aware of dishonest video editing, nor the subject matter and his reasoning.
Um, that's exactly how it is. You're not allowed to teach atheism either.
However, schools ARE allowed to teach the science that is the best way to explain our current situation, which is evolution. So take your strawman and leave.
Omg, someone call Whine-One-One! We need a Whaaambulance!
Oh please, Stein misled Dawkins and the others about the nature of the movie he was making. That's because he doesn't have a grasp of the concept of evolution but he wanted to make Dawkins, et al, look like idiots. Ben Stein cheated.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
It isn't. Schools aren't allowed to promote atheism, either. But forbidding the teaching of Intelligent Design as science isn't "promoting" atheism. Evolution says nothing one way or another about God.
Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious.
And the proof that aliens didn't seed the earth is ... ?
@Joe Bob:
As long as you chose to disregard reality for the contents of a 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi book, you are a retard in my eyes.
"Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious."
Not as precious as you thinking it foolish, given that the idea is seriously put forward by ID proponents like William Dembski everytime ID is accused of being a religious doctrine.
"No, no, no," they say, "we haven't said who the designer is, so it needn't be God, it might be aliens!"
But of course, as deadbeat, Dembski and the whole of the Discovery Institute well know, that is not what any ID proponent means by an unknown designer. The gales of laughter directed at Dawkins just underline that ID is old-fashioned creationism without the explicit mention of God.
Keep laughing, deadbeat, because next time one of your anti-science pals tries to slip ID into the education system disguised as a science, every guffaw will one more reason to throw it out.
"Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth"
This is kinda funny - a letter from Dawkins was just published in my local paper, in which he addressed this very accusation. Typical creationist misinformation, taking things way out of context.
Taking some words from your post, and arranging them this way and that ....
"I considered RELIGION foolishness, and therefore I insists that God does NOT exist"
1. Ben Stein is an actor who admited that he did the movie because he needed the money. Although I think he's going to be able to milk this one for a long time on the fundie lecture tours.
2. Dawkins was misquoted and basically cornered into the alien answer.
3. ID is a religion. Atheism is not, but it is also not allowed to be taught. Religion, or lack there of, should be kept out of the classroom period.
4. Why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that Aliens, Unicorns, Elves, Pixies, Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist, without conclusive proof? Do you see how far this could go?
5. If atheism is a religion, can I stop paying taxes?
"Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious. "
No, he stated that he thinks it is MORE LIKELY that aliens seeded Earth, than if 'God made it'. And he's right.
"Wow, Ben Stein once again proves he is a genius."
*gnyurk*
My brain died after the first sentence. That does not bode well for the remainder of your post.
Look its very very simple.
Do you think doctors should learn elf medicine?
A simple point in case is this. ID claims an all powerful intelligent designer right? Then why are we filled with flaws?
I have no heart to post a picture of genetic defects that our "all intelligent creator" (who is supposed to be benevolent gave us. Down's syndrome is heartbreaking enough. But the other two are terrible as well. Look for Patau and Edward's syndromes. Either your God is not that intelligent. Or he is not that loving.
In the US, breathing is legally protected, and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, there for should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
Ben Stein once again proves he is a genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious.
It's actually pretty easy. Allow me to demonstrate:
God does NOT exist
And here we have you confessing that God does not exist.
Not invoking God to explain something is not the same as positively asserting that God does not exist.
Also, as has been stated, Dawkins does not believe aliens seeded the earth, he was merely presenting a hypothetical when asked what kind of scenario it would take for him to think of ID as legitimate. But it still left the question of where the aliens came from.
And they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot asserting that ID isn't religious. They claim the designer is an anonymous entity, but when someone suggests a designer other than the Judeo-Christian god, they get mocked just like in this case.
First off: atheism is not a religion. Deadbeat fails.
Thanx for playing.
Hey Deadbeat here (guess the name was taken). for the record, I think ID is silly, but this film does highlight as I said, the Atheistic bias in science and education. Atheists are busily running around claiming God is somehow proven not to exist, and like Dawkins, trying to claim that religious training of your own children is abuse. That is purely ridiculous, and in America flatly unconstitutional.
And the Seventh Circuit court did rule that Atheism is Equivalent to a religion.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
That's because ID starts off with the presumption that some parts of living systems are irreducibly complex and that they must have been built by a god-like being like Mr Smith .
Unfortunately for the IDists, they have not been able to come up with an irreducibly complex system that hasn't been debunked yet.
So when proponents of ID come up with an actual fucking prediction that ID can make (such as Yahwehs signature and a small dedication to eBay maybe. Even a prediction of the tools used would be something.), then they are welcome to join the competition.
Until then, no evidence, no theory, no science!
There is no scientific theory, even evolution, that includes a statement about God not existing. Even the Pope admits that evolution and religion are not incompatible. Atheism is not part of any present scientific theory and is never likely to be part of any theory.
@Geo: I do hope you are not kidding yourself. That history doesn't even include some of the most famous atheists in history. I suppose Christians might believe this since they already believed their pastor when he told them lies about other religions.
This actually is Deadbeat by the way....
Nirjuana - The term Atheism is just a shell game. It only states what you DO NOT believe, while leaving what you DO believe unspecified. Inside each and every atheist, there is a set of beliefs and faith, not necessarily supernatural or superhuman in origin, such as those about Love, Courage, Honor, Duty, etc. Not all Atheists have the same ethical and moral basis that are defined by these beliefs. If "belief" and "faith" offend, substitute "assumption" and "hypothesis", they are equivalent in nature.
So, the Seventh Circuit court (and rightly so I think) defended the right of a prisoner to hold an Athiest group meeting, under the same protection granted to religion. More because the ETHICAL AND MORAL system of the individual, as confusingly represented by the label of Atheist, functions as his religion would if he had one in that regard, and deserves the same protection that religion is constitutionally given.
Dawkins isn't the Atheist Pope, he's a trained scientist who is a science popularizer.
Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut were priests because they were members (presidents?) of the American Humanist Association.
Hang on, hang on . . . !
Atheism IS technically considered inappropriate for academic purposes - SECULAR education means you cannot say ANYTHING to be true (on the matter of God) in a public school system!
So you cannot say he exists or does NOT (and to say he doesn't exist 100 per cent is in fact against the whole scientific method, given that scientifically-based atheism would mean that the existence of God is ALMOST impossible, as with other scientific hypotheses).
In other words, you can't talk about it being true AT ALL.
Am I right? or am I right?
They day a religion adopts the phrase "God COULD exist, without conclusive proof" as a creed, verily, I shall I weep tears of joy.
Also, I see Ben Stein is now an official "genius"! Great news! I guess the "jewish conspiracy" that is "controlling the media" is now also a Good Thing?
It's funny, Ben Stein was fairly well respected by the general public before that movie and promotion of same (where he never went off script or on a probing news program)
Since the movie he's become a darling of creationists but has lost all respect among intellectuals. Because he's a lying piece of right-wing crap and carries all their failpoints
That's funny, I was unaware deceitful quote-mining qualifies you as a genius. Also, atheism isn't given any preferential treatment by the government. Evolution is science; it's not about whether it supports or denies someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth
That's not what he said.
why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Because atheism isn't a religion. Atheism doesn't worship anything (unless you twist the word so it loses all meaning), therefore it isn't a religion.
"Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?"
"Wow,
Not quite. He would have problems registering as an idiot, except for one thing; he manages to get gullible idiots to pay for his crap. He might not be an idiot, but he is definitely immoral and dishonest.
Wow, Ben Stein once again proves he is a fucking asshole. You know, lying through his teeth about the purpose of the movie he was making, and intentionally misrepresenting what Richard said to disparage him, while at the same time denigrating science.
What was it Stein said? "science leads to killing people"? Sorry, the crazies on the flights on 9/11 weren't fundamentalist scientists. Science flies men to the moon, while religion flies men into buildings.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
By itself it is not. We are secular and religion is inappropriate for academic purposes unless it is fulfilling a secular notion.
You are allowed to all you want. It is just your evidence isn't very convincing
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
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.
