Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster

[kestra]

I'm pretty much opposed to any form of faith, religion, doctrine, or policy that is a threat to my livelyhood or life.
Pat Robertson is a real concern to me, considering that the president listens to him.
This is a man who also believes feminism causes women to kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

When I think about this guy, I think religious fanatic!! KOO KOO!!

[Gillan]

That's a pretty broad statement, and I would assume that most people do not like things that threaten them. That sounds like human nature to me, however, I think it is incredibly closed minded to think that someone elses' belief/doctrine/etc is a threat to your livelyhood simply because you do not like it.

But finally, Robertson is a nut job.

[Malacasta]

Pat Robertson and the Discovery Institute crowd ARE a threat to my way of life. They wish to destroy natural science and replace it with a theistic understanding (sic) of the world. How do I know they wish to do this? Because the Discovery Institute stated as much in their wedge document:

“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

It is natural science using scientific method that has formed the basis for every scientific advance we are lucky enough to have today. ID is not natural science. ID is explicitly supernatural. ID argues that if something is not currently understood then that is because something intelligent (that we cannot understand, predict, isolate etc) designed it. ID is a form of anti-science that cannot invent, predict, or expand knowledge. It is a surrender to the dark ages.

If the Discovery Institute, and other fundamentalist religious organizations succeed in convincing people of their lies (about scientific data, scientific debates and their own dubious credentials) and natural science is replaced by theism, then I’d like to say “I told you so” except that by then I’d probably have been burned as a heretic.

[Gromgor]

I think religious nut jobs should stop using technology to spread their messages. Because science is responsible for the invention of television, radio, computers, the internet, etc.

It's convenient for them to scream about shit until it comes time to throw their hat in the ring and prove they don't believe in the scientific methods of discovery, advancement and understanding.

And let's not forget penicillin. I say we quit giving Christians penicillin. I mean, it was a scientific discovery and just as God has been cast out of the city, so too do the Christians cast aside science. Fucking hypocrites.

[Jolen]

What I'm interested to know is how these radicals view other religions and their opinions on how the world was formed. By forcing these opinions, have you invalidated the faith of several other extremely large and major religions? Or is that just a subject they don't talk about?

"We'll just ignore it like the giant squid.."
Peter

[Savaric]

"A prayer... A prayer in a public school! GOD has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within an organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers, Simpsons

A duckbilled platypus and a gravity bong used in the same sentence, hahaha!

I really don't think religious organizations will be satisfied until they can toss humanity back into the dark ages again. They just push easy answers that were easy to swallow 1000's of years ago.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Savaric
"A prayer... A prayer in a public school! GOD has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within an organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers, Simpsons

...

I really don't think religious organizations will be satisfied until they can toss humanity back into the dark ages again. They just push easy answers that were easy to swallow 1000's of years ago.

Savaric, that's a great Simpsons quote. I think you might have missed the point though. The quote is an indictment of organized religion as well as our out of control obsession with trying to delete religion and spirituality from our lives.

[Malacasta]

The Dover case has been ruled on, but there’s still a lot of stuff going on in Kansas.

From the Chicago Tribune:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- In a broad and blistering landmark decision, a federal district court judge Tuesday ruled it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, a concept critical of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, in the nation's public school science classrooms.

Using scathing language that described the defendants as liars and their actions as "breathtaking ianity," Judge John Jones III rendered what many consider a watershed decision in the culture wars over the teaching of evolution, also ruling that intelligent design, or ID, is not a scientific theory but a religious belief.

[Lokrian]

Kind of bizarre. I.D. as it is written up is a study of statistics, not a religious teaching. It does not say, as Malacasta seemed to suggest, that what is not understood must be from intelligent design. It attempts to identify a statistical breakpoint of probability below which something should normally be considered designed as opposed to naturally occuring.

At least that's what the book said. I don't know what version of it eventually made it to court. I guess I will have to look it up and see what about it the judge could possibly call an out and out lie.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Lokrian
At least that's what the book said. I don't know what version of it eventually made it to court. I guess I will have to look it up and see what about it the judge could possibly call an out and out lie.

The judge wasn't saying ID was a lie. It was fairly well established during the case that the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS lied when they claimed that their motives for ordering the inclusion of ID in the classroom curriculum wasn't religious, but rather educational. The judge ruled that they were motivated by a desire to promote a religious belief in creation, despite their claims to the contrary. Using the public schools to promote creationism had already been ruled unconstitutional, so the judge merely followed that precedent in ruling the same way in this case.