Poll: Majority of Americans dumb as rocks

[sharkman]

Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process.

55 per cent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form. 65 per cent want creationism taught in schools. And we're supposed to trust these people with nuclear weapons?

I couldn't help but butt in, even though I know Argus would be quite capable of pointing out that BD's opening remarks scorn all those who believe God created humans and believe in creationism. And since the context is Americans, it's plain that his remarks are bigoted towards Christians. Geez, with a title that says, "Americans dumb as rocks, support for creationism in the stratosphere", there is no guess work.

I know, I know, you are probably ready for this response, BD, but your title betrays you.

[Black Dog]

I couldn't help but butt in, even though I know Argus would be quite capable of pointing out that BD's opening remarks scorn all those who believe God created humans and believe in creationism. And since the context is Americans, it's plain that his remarks are bigoted towards Christians. Geez, with a title that says, "Americans dumb as rocks, support for creationism in the stratosphere", there is no guess work.

You're contradicting yourself. on the one hand, you say my remarks "scorn all those who believe God created humans and believe in creationism." One sentence later though, this morphs into "Chrisitians." So which is it. "all" or "Christians?"

And here's another question: most western countries have nominally Chrsitian majorities, yet few have the same degree of belief in creationism as thE United States. In a country like Canada, for example, I'll wager support for creationism (not to mention other socially conservative causes) is proportinately higher among non-Chrsitian religions. And guess what? They're chumps too.

[Rue]

Getting back to the original postulation, many of us believe there is something behind that which we see or something intelligent beyond our understanding that created. Many of us believe the act of creation is indefinite and originated from a source that decided to put into a motion an infinite cycle of seperation into indefinite parts and then reunification of those parts as an act of love or perhaps simply to keep itself company from being lonely. Some of us belief in this concept using fundamentalist religions and dogmatic approaches, others such as myself get quite mystical and pagan like, etc. The fact that we believe in something intelligent or positive behind everything does not mean we want the world to be blown up with nuclear weapons. So this inference that people who believe in a spiritual power are all dumb Americans makes no sense.

If anything its just a generalization and a negative one at that. Americans are no more retarded then anyone else. We all have our share of retards.

[Argus]

When someone sneers at and denigrates Christian religious people yet at the same time champions minorities - who happen to be extremely religious, even moreso than the Christians he's sneering at - well, it opens up the question of how hypocritical he is.

Which in this case is pretty darned hypocritcal

Again: where did I specifically denigrate Christians?

Stop being cute.

If you want to sneer at Americans for being "dumb as rocks" when it comes to being observant Chrstians then it would seem to me that you need to sneer at Muslim Canadians and Hindu Canadians and Sikh Canadians for also being "dumb as rocks" and do so openly without regard to whether or not people might call you a bigot or racist.

IOW: be like you and knock any religion that's that's not lily-white.

I think if you check you'll find that the only reason I've knocked religions have been because of the violence and bigotry of the members of those religions.

But I have a feeling if I was to start a post complaining about how ignorant and stupid Hindu, Sikh and Muslim Canadians are and mocking their religious beliefs you'd be among the first to post nasty things about me.

Well you do, and you have with posts mocking clothing, rituals (I remember the great one a while back where you insinuated that all devout Hindus are big into honour killing). And I've kept silent. So, basically: you're full of shit. (and, given your defence of Christianity and stated loathing of nearly every other religion, you're also a hypocrite.)

First, I don't believe I have defended Christianity so much as pointed out the insuferable hypocrisy of self-righteous, two-faced critics like you who defend worse groups because - and we all know why - most of their adherents have brown skins - then openly mock and ridicule anyone you see as White who is devoted to their religious beliefs. Basically, you're a racist, with two different sets of standards for people depending on their skin colour.

[Riverwind]

Getting back to the original postulation, many of us believe there is something behind that which we see or something intelligent beyond our understanding that created.

So do to many scientists including the likes of Einstein. The problems with these kind of beliefs only arise when religious fundamentalists seek to undermine legitimate science (i.e. the theory of evolution) because it conflicts with the creation myths in their musty old books.

[BubberMiley]

I think if you check you'll find that the only reason I've knocked religions have been because of the violence and bigotry of the members of those religions.

Then why say nothing about the violent bigots among the judeo-christian crowd? And we atheists can get pretty racist and rowdy at times too.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Debating spirituality with an atheist is like an environmentalist arguing with an oil company about global warming. Interesting excercise, but a comlete waste of time because you simply will never convert them to your beliefs.

[Argus]

I think if you check you'll find that the only reason I've knocked religions have been because of the violence and bigotry of the members of those religions.

Then why say nothing about the violent bigots among the judeo-christian crowd? And we atheists can get pretty racist and rowdy at times too.

Bring up abortion murders or bombings sometime and tell me how it's God's work, and see how I respond. Tell me how Robertson is God's greatest visionary and we must all live our lives by Roman Catholic law. Fact is, this is a discussion forum - well, an argument forum, if you like. We don't seem to have anyone here who wants to push arch-Christian values on everyone or defend the violence used by the very few who do.

We do, however, have people who like to attack Chrstians who are notoriously "tolerent" of the religious beliefs and rights of Muslims, Siksh, Hindus et al.

Which brings up the possibility of discussion.

I mean, if you say all religious folk are idiots and "dumb as rocks" then shouldn't we stop all immigration of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, who are, after all, notoriously observant? But if you said "We should stop Muslims from coming to Canada because they almost all have wierd religious beliefs and are dumb as rocks, well, the same people who habitually sneer at Christians would call you names.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A true Christian would turn the other cheek right?

[Black Dog]

I think if you check you'll find that the only reason I've knocked religions have been because of the violence and bigotry of the members of those religions.

It just so happens that every religion you knock is made up of non-whites. Which reminds me of an anecdote someone once told on this forum: how did that go? Oh yeah:

We used to have a guy on another discussion group who would post nothing but crime stories about Black criminals. But I'm not racist, he would say. I'm just posting crime stories. But it wasn't coincidence every single story featured a Black criminal.

First, I don't believe I have defended Christianity so much as pointed out the insuferable hypocrisy of self-righteous, two-faced critics like you who defend worse groups because - and we all know why - most of their adherents have brown skins - then openly mock and ridicule anyone you see as White who is devoted to their religious beliefs. Basically, you're a racist, with two different sets of standards for people depending on their skin colour.

Okay you tw-t: show me where I've defended religion. Ever. You're full of shit, as usual.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Defence is one thing offense is another. Especially in religious matters.

[Argus]

I think if you check you'll find that the only reason I've knocked religions have been because of the violence and bigotry of the members of those religions.

It just so happens that every religion you knock is made up of non-whites. Which reminds me of an anecdote someone once told on this forum: how did that go?

Gee, that couldn't be because the whole world, outside Europe is non-White could it? And that this is where the mad wars and violence and brutality comes from? In fact, I don't believe I've ever "knocked" any religions but Islam, so screw off with your insinuations.

First, I don't believe I have defended Christianity so much as pointed out the insuferable hypocrisy of self-righteous, two-faced critics like you who defend worse groups because - and we all know why - most of their adherents have brown skins - then openly mock and ridicule anyone you see as White who is devoted to their religious beliefs. Basically, you're a racist, with two different sets of standards for people depending on their skin colour.

Okay you tw-t: show me where I've defended religion. Ever. You're full of shit, as usual.

You're using the same weasel words you did above, claiming you didn't mock "Christians" but only Americans, so it doesn't count. Your knee-jerk political correctness causes you to rush to defend every minority, ignoring their religion-inspired bigotry, racism, homophobia and sexism.

[Black Dog]

Gee, that couldn't be because the whole world, outside Europe is non-White could it? And that this is where the mad wars and violence and brutality comes from? In fact, I don't believe I've ever "knocked" any religions but Islam, so screw off with your insinuations.

Gee, how quickly we forget. Very little about mad wars and brutality in there, but an awful lot about how them foreigners sure look "weird" with their crazy outfits.

As an added bonus we even get you talking about black crime, the same red flag you spotted in your little anecdote before.

And then, there's this classic of the genre where you imply that all orthodox Sihks are violent bride-burners. And in a thread lamenting the decline of civility no less!

You're using the same weasel words you did above, claiming you didn't mock "Christians" but only Americans, so it doesn't count. Your knee-jerk political correctness causes you to rush to defend every minority, ignoring their religion-inspired bigotry, racism, homophobia and sexism.

Obviously, you've repeated that lie so many times you believe it yourself. But you've yet to show any instances where I've defended any such religions. Not one. So: put up or shut up.

[Argus]

Gee, that couldn't be because the whole world, outside Europe is non-White could it? And that this is where the mad wars and violence and brutality comes from? In fact, I don't believe I've ever "knocked" any religions but Islam, so screw off with your insinuations.

Gee, how quickly we forget. Very little about mad wars and brutality in there, but an awful lot about how them foreigners sure look "weird" with their crazy outfits.

Try getting your cite right next time.

And then, there's this classic of the genre where you imply that all orthodox Sihks are violent bride-burners. And in a thread lamenting the decline of civility no less!

I made a reasonably careful distinction between Sikhs and ultra orthodox sikhs. I distrust orthodox anything, be they born-again Christians waving their arms wildly in the air, or costumed Sikhs waving swords in the air. And it appears that thread was civil - until you and others chose to carry over an argument from another thread to show how uh, civil you were.

You're using the same weasel words you did above, claiming you didn't mock "Christians" but only Americans, so it doesn't count. Your knee-jerk political correctness causes you to rush to defend every minority, ignoring their religion-inspired bigotry, racism, homophobia and sexism.

Obviously, you've repeated that lie so many times you believe it yourself. But you've yet to show any instances where I've defended any such religions. Not one. So: put up or shut up.

You want me to go searching through back posts of yours? I can barely tolerate reading you once. I see nothing that's likely to inspire me to go on a search through posts made by you. You are what you are. No point in denying it, though I can see why you'd be ashamed.

[Black Dog]

Opps: threadbot didn't work before. here you go. Link.

I made a reasonably careful distinction between Sikhs and ultra orthodox sikhs. I distrust orthodox anything, be they born-again Christians waving their arms wildly in the air, or costumed Sikhs waving swords in the air.

You made the clear distinction between Sihks who dressed like white folk and Sihks who dressed "weird" (their "weird" garb, in your view, being an indicator if their tendancy to burn their daughters alive). I am also curious why, if you distrust orthodox anythings so much, you are so valiently leaping to ther defense of the 55 per cent of Americans who harbour absurd beliefs about creationism. I wonder white...er...why.

And it appears that thread was civil - until you and others chose to carry over an argument from another thread to show how uh, civil you were.

Well, big man, you can always indulge your "hobby." (No, the other one.)

(And I'm the hypocrite?)

You want me to go searching through back posts of yours? I can barely tolerate reading you once. I see nothing that's likely to inspire me to go on a search through posts made by you. You are what you are. No point in denying it, though I can see why you'd be ashamed.

In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on and you know it. Thanks for demonstrating once again what a contemptable little fraud you are.

[Argus]

Opps: threadbot didn't work before. here you go. Link.

Still not working. Give it up and stop whining.

I made a reasonably careful distinction between Sikhs and ultra orthodox sikhs. I distrust orthodox anything, be they born-again Christians waving their arms wildly in the air, or costumed Sikhs waving swords in the air.

You made the clear distinction between Sihks who dressed like white folk and Sihks who dressed "weird"

(their "weird" garb, in your view, being an indicator if their tendancy to burn their daughters alive).

So?

I am also curious why, if you distrust orthodox anythings so much, you are so valiently leaping to ther defense of the 55 per cent of Americans who harbour absurd beliefs about creationism. I wonder white...er...why.

Believing in the bible does not make you an orthodox or born again type.

And it appears that thread was civil - until you and others chose to carry over an argument from another thread to show how uh, civil you were.

Well, big man, you can always indulge your "hobby." (No, the other one.)

Are you actually snivelling because I sent a couple of complaints to the moderator? I can see why that would concern you, what with your habit of substituting insults and obscenities for debate, but I don't believe I've even complained about you.

(And I'm the hypocrite?)

Many times, and worse.

[jdobbin]

Are you actually snivelling because I sent a couple of complaints to the moderator? I can see why that would concern you, what with your habit of substituting insults and obscenities for debate, but I don't believe I've even complained about you.

Hope you include your own remarks. I apologized for my outburst. You haven't.

[Black Dog]

Still not working. Give it up and stop whining.

It works. Seems your computer skills are as skewed as your ethics.

So?

Just shows your true colours.

Believing in the bible does not make you an orthodox or born again type.

Split hairs much?

Are you actually snivelling because I sent a couple of complaints to the moderator? I can see why that would concern you, what with your habit of substituting insults and obscenities for debate, but I don't believe I've even complained about you.

Noooo. I'll explain it to you slowly. You started an entire thread as a righteous complaint about the deteriorating level of debate on this board, and proceeded to make a big show of how you were sick of insults and were going to complain to the moderator. And then you went off hurling insults left right and centre. So, that makes you a hypocrite.

Many times, and worse.

Coming from you, that is worth absolutely nothing. Your own hypocracy is on display right here for all to see (if anyone gives a crap about sad little bigot like yourself has to say). Toodles.

[newbie]

deleted

[Gowch]

Getting back to the original postulation, many of us believe there is something behind that which we see or something intelligent beyond our understanding that created.

So do to many scientists including the likes of Einstein.

Horse hockey. Einstein spoke of his sense of wonder about

the universe, but he harboured no belief in the religionists'

view of a living, intelligent, anthropomorphic deity.

And don't even dream of citing that oft-repeated quote

of his that "God does not play dice" with the

universe, which was obviously metaphorical and not

a statement of belief in the supernatural.

Einstein was an atheist.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his

creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious

in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical

death is also beyond my comprehension." -Albert Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems

even naïve." -Albert Einstein

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His

children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself

can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence

could excuse Him." -Albert Einstein

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal

God is a childlike one." -Albert Einstein

Any questions?

-IG

[newbie]

Anyone can quote Einstein. Here are some that contradict your "atheist" theory. My favourite is the last quote.

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as 'pantheistic' (Spinoza).

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ527.HTM

[Liam]

Getting back to the original postulation, many of us believe there is something behind that which we see or something intelligent beyond our understanding that created.

What you're stating is a point of your religious belief. I am a firm believer that evolution is scientifically factual, but I also believe that *something* (God?) has triggered the evolutionary process. The problem is that I.D. supporters seek to replace evolution with I.D. in the classroom.

Evolutionary theory and science answer the question "What?" whereas I.D. and religion answer the question "Why?" The two are not the same. One is science, the other is religion.

[gnam]

Anyone can quote Einstein. Here are some that contradict your "atheist" theory. My favourite is the last quote.

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, one can describe it as 'pantheistic' (Spinoza).

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ527.HTM

The problem here is that you are equally guilty of doing that which might have truly angered Benedict de Spinoza (formerly Baruch Spinoza until excommunicated from the jewish community he was raised in). If you are going to quote Spinoza on religion you should be aware of the contents of his Theologico-Political Treatise as well as the historical context in which he did much of his writing. In point of fact Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise was a book dedicated to the defense of scientific enquiry as a method appropriate to undertake moral and political enquiry (previously morality and politics had been the all but exclusive realm of religion). Simultaneously he was convinced, thouroughly, that morality and politics must guide the gaze of science. In his Treatise, religion stands in as the word for morality (this kept him from being lynched by the religious authorities of the day as a heretic). However, he begins his treatise (you only have to read the introduction if you aren't interested in reading the whole thing) by pointing out that science (reason) can teach humans anything that is found in the bible that is worth taking undre consideration. The rest (and this most assuredly does include biblical creationism for Spinoza) of what is found in the bible (mostly the old testament - he touches on new testament scripture only a couple of times, and then very briefly) is dismissed as the superfluous, though entertaining, writings of ancient men with a surplus of imagination. He doesn't claim that there is anything wrong with these imaginitive methods for understanding the world except that they seem to 'get it wrong' as often as they 'get it right'; it is in this sense that he does not attempt to philosophically defend the atheist's position. As a 'pantheist' he is simply saying that one gets something akin to a religious (a sense for the sublime and the beautiful - or if you prefer, 'fear and trembling) feeling upon careful examination of the world around her/him. In all likelihood the closest approximation to Spinoza's philosophy one might point to in the religious world is the ancient Chinese Daoism - itself somewhat unclear concerning the manner in which it should be understood. A philosophy or a religion??

In any case, let me assure you that Spinoza is probably the last person you will want to bring to the defense of a belief in religion or creationism. Really, you would do just as well to quote Nietszche's The Anti-Christ.

Your post is a case in point for the unreliablity of electronic sources that do not quote the original material in full. Be more careful next time.

[gc1765]

Einstein spoke of his sense of wonder about

the universe, but he harboured no belief in the religionists'

view of a living, intelligent, anthropomorphic deity.

And don't even dream of citing that oft-repeated quote

of his that "God does not play dice" with the

universe, which was obviously metaphorical and not

a statement of belief in the supernatural.

Einstein was an atheist.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his

creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious

in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical

death is also beyond my comprehension." -Albert Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems

even naïve." -Albert Einstein

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His

children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself

can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence

could excuse Him." -Albert Einstein

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal

God is a childlike one." -Albert Einstein

I agree with your post, but I'd like to add one quote which shows that Einstein did have some sort of spiritual side, even though his views on religion/God are much different than most people's.

I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Wikipedia article on Spinoza

[newbie]

gnam, I refer you again to Einstein's last quote. It sums up what he believes and doesn't believe quite nicely. Your post went off on a Spinoza tangent. Read my post again.