Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Which is really quite irrelevant.Which is really quite irrelevant. Which is really quite irrelevant. I'm not talking about believing in God, I'm talking about you dishonestly equating Creationism and Christianity. What you're doing is talking out of your ass, and using this as an excuse to make bigoted comments about Christians because you don't like their political views on things like abortion, gay rights and marriage, etc. And all those who are suggesting that someone who is a devout Christian shouldn't be trusted to hand out grants to scientists, because somehow or other science is the antithesis of religion, clearly haven't bothered to wonder about who invented gravity or any of the other scientific accomplishments made by men of great belief over the centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 No I don't. Rejecting moronic ideas is not bigotry. If this guy wishes to have religious beliefs in defiance of reality, then it is hardly bigotry to point out the ludicrousness of his ideas. And no less than St. Augustine agrees with me:It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. big⋅ot /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht] Show IPA –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 No I don't. Rejecting moronic ideas is not bigotry. If this guy wishes to have religious beliefs in defiance of reality, then it is hardly bigotry to point out the ludicrousness of his ideas. Are you saying devout Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus should not hold public office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 big⋅ot /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht] Show IPA –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot So tell me, how do you feel about anti-Semites and the Taliban? Are you a bigot because you reject their beliefs? At any rate, as I've repeatedly said, Creationism is not a default position in Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Are you saying devout Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus should not hold public office? No, I'm saying you don't put someone who rejects science in charge of a portfolio that doles out science funding. Would you put a Fundamentalist Muslim in charge of the women's portfolio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 What you're doing is talking out of your ass, and using this as an excuse to make bigoted comments about Christians because you don't like their political views on things like abortion, gay rights and marriage, etc. And you keep lying. Christianity is not synonymous with Creationism. And all those who are suggesting that someone who is a devout Christian shouldn't be trusted to hand out grants to scientists, because somehow or other science is the antithesis of religion, clearly haven't bothered to wonder about who invented gravity or any of the other scientific accomplishments made by men of great belief over the centuries. I never said science was antithesis of religion. Science is antithesis of Creationism, but since we've already established that Christianity does not, by default, mean Creationism, you're objection is nothing more than pathetic, immoral demagoguery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 And you keep lying. Christianity is not synonymous with Creationism.I never said science was antithesis of religion. Science is antithesis of Creationism, but since we've already established that Christianity does not, by default, mean Creationism, you're objection is nothing more than pathetic, immoral demagoguery. and you keep distorting the fact for some it is, it itheir religious beleif. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 and you keep distorting the fact for some it is, it itheir religious beleif. If one's religious beliefs fly in the face of reality, then those beliefs are faulty. It isn't bigotry to point that out, any more than it's bigotry to tell a Fundamentalist Muslim that women are equals to men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuzzin E Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 It's scary when people find it perfectly acceptable to lynch mob people because of their personal beliefs Imagine if your coworkers suddenly started prying you on your personal beliefs (or lack thereof), then started pressing your boss on firing you for having beliefs contrary to their own. Sounds quite 3rd Reich-like. Instead of attacking the man's personal beliefs, why not focus on examples of how what he believes affected his job performance in a negative way. The libs aren't going to win any friends with this stunt and likely to offend many of their own if Kinsella starts attacking Christians again (funny how he will sue if anyone slags jews, but christians are open game). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I never said science was antithesis of religion. Science is antithesis of Creationism, but since we've already established that Christianity does not, by default, mean Creationism, you're objection is nothing more than pathetic, immoral demagoguery. From what we know about Goodyear, he may only believe that his Christian faith (creationism included) and the theory of evolution are somehow entirely compatible. To me, if that is what he believes, he is entirely right: new emerging properties in nature are events pointing in the direction of a creator of an openness to love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 No, I'm saying you don't put someone who rejects science in charge of a portfolio that doles out science funding. Would you put a Fundamentalist Muslim in charge of the women's portfolio? I don't trust devout people from any religion. But at least I'm not two-faced about it. Those Muslims you talk about being okay with don't probably believe in evolution either. Science is virtually dead in the Muslim world. The largest subject studied in every Muslim university is Islam. Do we get to question them on their religious beliefs before an appointment? Or should we just ban them from running for office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 At any rate, as I've repeatedly said, Creationism is not a default position in Christianity. So what gives you the authority to make this judgement for everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 So what gives you the authority to make this judgement for everyone? What authority? It's an observation. The churches that cover the bulk of Christianity (population-wise) do not reject evolution. That's simply a statement of fact, not some statement from an authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I don't trust devout people from any religion. But at least I'm not two-faced about it. Those Muslims you talk about being okay with don't probably believe in evolution either. Science is virtually dead in the Muslim world. The largest subject studied in every Muslim university is Islam. Do we get to question them on their religious beliefs before an appointment? Or should we just ban them from running for office? Where did I ever say such a thing. But there is this notion that a cabinet minister be at least somewhat appropriate to the portfolio (I realize ministers of state, being sort of junior members of cabinet often aren't as heavily vetted as "full" members of Cabinet). Like I said, it would be highly inappropriate to declare that someone whose religious beliefs were that women were inferior and should have less rights than men be given a portfolio involving women's rights. No one said they shouldn't be electable, or that they shouldn't even hold a cabinet position (though if I was a women, I probably wouldn't want to work under a guy like that), but when you discover your minister responsible for science funding pretty much holds an opinion on a major branch of science that almost every scientist in the country thinks otherwise about, appropriateness does come into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 From what we know about Goodyear, he may only believe that his Christian faith (creationism included) and the theory of evolution are somehow entirely compatible. To me, if that is what he believes, he is entirely right: new emerging properties in nature are events pointing in the direction of a creator of an openness to love. I'm reminded of a Monty Python song: All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat, All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all. Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid-- Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did! All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small, Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all. Amen. ... At any rate, if Goodyear is indeed simply just a theistic evolutionist, then I'm way off base. But I've been debating Creationists for going on two decades now, and his words clearly indicated he thought evolution was a matter of religious principle, which is pretty much the norm for Creationists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 What authority? It's an observation. The churches that cover the bulk of Christianity (population-wise) do not reject evolution. That's simply a statement of fact, not some statement from an authority. Nor do they reject creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Like I said, it would be highly inappropriate to declare that someone whose religious beliefs were that women were inferior and should have less rights than men be given a portfolio involving women's rights. But it's okay for them to hold other portfolios? Edited March 18, 2009 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Nor do they reject creationism. Thanks you beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Nor do they reject creationism. Creationism took place in an instant - evolution took place in an instant. A billion years is but a second and a second a billion years - God or what ever you want to describe IT as - has no time - we have a sense of time because we have created a clock out of our solar system - and the clock works fine - this is child's play to God - IT does not have a clock - nor does IT need one - we need one. Evolution is creationism and intelligent design - my body and brain is intelligently designed - If it was not I would be a rock.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 But it's okay for them to hold other portfolios? So we find your line in the sand. It's okay for a science minister to disbelieve evolution because of his religious beliefs, but inappropriate for someone who believes women are inferior because of his religious beliefs to hold any cabinet position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Nor do they reject creationism. Actually, that's quite false, at least as far as the Vatican is concerned. It has made several clear statements that evolution is not incompatible with Christian doctrine, and that Creationism and Intelligent Design are inherently bad theology. Remember, the Church fundamentally believes that there is no difference between Divine Truth and Natural Truth, that, inherently Scripture cannot be in defiance of natural law. What do you suppose the point of quoting St. Augustine was? Other major churches, such as the Anglican Church, have also made positive pro-evolutionary statements, and have rejected Creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Argus, I am getting tired of you trying to turn this into a left-right issue. I started this thread and I am a conservative. I would have jumped all over this irregardless of political affiliation because I don't think that the minister of science should be someone who doesn't have a clue about science. This was also not an anti-christian thread, it was an anti-ignorance thread. I don't care what religion this minister is - even if he were a muslim I will still call him out if his statements show complete ignorance of the department he is in charge of. Goodyear himself is the one who brought religion into this: Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology It was not a religious question. It was a science question and he is the minister of science. Since he proved he doesn't know the first thing about science, he should be out of that position. And I would say the exact same thing no matter if he was liberal, ndp, muslim, hindu, jew, or atheist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Since he proved he doesn't know the first thing about science, he should be out of that position. And I would say the exact same thing no matter if he was liberal, ndp, muslim, hindu, jew, or atheist! Indeed, if the minister was an atheist and stated "Evolution shows God does not exist", I'd want him out, as that kind of statement, too, shows a genuine ignorance of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Indeed, if the minister was an atheist and stated "Evolution shows God does not exist", I'd want him out, as that kind of statement, too, shows a genuine ignorance of science. Sure you would now you are back tracking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Sure you would now you are back tracking. Good grief. Have you so thoroughly lost the debate that now you're resorting to the most pathetic of tactics; creating strawmen? Where did I ever back track? An atheist claiming that science can disprove God no more understands science than a Creationist who insists that evolution isn't science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.