Yahoo News (AP): Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell'

[Koolblue13]

I'll answer you with....you....

By pointing out that I said I was an American citizen?

[Jumbo]

Ok group, time out!

<edit> where is the rule that says I have to remain associated with some idiot who doesn't know what he's talking anout when it comes to the Christian faith, or that I have to remain connected at the hip with Klnasmen who would pervert my faith to justify their hate? <edit>

There is no such rule, and in my book (no, not The Book of Jumbo) you don't get associated with them in any substantive sense (being very particular with wording---otherwise, speaking more casually, I would leave out "substantive"). You are as different from that guy as I am from a psychiatrist who believes he can cure "the ghey."

Been down this road before, but crazy is not a matter of opinion, crazy is divergence from the norm, and the norm is theism.


I do have to fuss with you there, but not going into detail (don't think it's needed), nor saying "the norm" is not a component in determining sanity.

Just because you speak like Yoda, although a strong and admirable move, doesn't mean it's not crazy.

From the inside looking out, I'm sure you'd like to remove yourself from extremists like this guy, but from my seat, it's just different ramblings from the same group.

Understood, and it's a valid comment. I'm not as extreme in this grouping choice you make, nor do I think it's either accurate or productive. But I understand how an intelligent (or not) person can "get there."

crazy as determined by whom? A minority group who says that 90% of the world is wrong? Really?

I'll just say that Christians were once (speaking figuratively---no pun intended ) the 10% who were essentially saying 90% of the world was wrong. Now they're only saying 67% are wrong. (playing ). I only add this cuz I resist attaching right/wrong or even crazy/sane too much to majority/minority.


Only because you haven't bothered to see and understand what differentiates the groups. By your logic a new convert who goes out speaking and acting like his old self should then speak or all, and that's absurd.

I also appreciate that there are teachings and understandings from various individuals and within various denominations of Christianity that allow for the that faith to be properly upheld without the kind of nonsense spewed by the representative featured in the OP. And I happen to think that's VERY important. Go "you guys"!

I believe that there is an infinite number of things that we as humans don't know and simultaneously there is almost nothing that we know absolutely. That said, I find it distressing when we run away from facts and believe denial is good discourse.

If you don't want to believe in evolution or geology, or something else... it should be replaced with something with equal weight and not ephemeral hope.<edit>

Just quoted you Burg to thank you for bringing it back more to the OP (and I do mainly agree).

So, should I now post pictures of religious lunatics from the last few hundred years thebluefood? What's your point?

No, don't post pics.

Now I read the rest of the posts to see where we are in the thread, and have this to politely add: it is usually (almost inevitable) that any remotely similar thread will include or become absorbed by the basic pro/anti religion at large theme. In this instance, I think the initial plunge has been allowed to carry on enough to make it clear that the two main tangos here and now (amigos KB13 & ASF) are basically on record for this thread on that angle to a sufficient degree. IOW, some OT tangents are expected, normal, and accepted in this topic (and most others) up to a point and on this one we reached it.

So let's move back to more about such extremists (or wingnut types) in the demographic, or this guy in particular, in our political system or society at large to an extent.

If there's no more interest related more closely to actual OP stuff, then let the thread die. I didn't expect it to have legs (which is fine and not that my expectations matter even if I had), I just wanted to bring it to your guys' attention as I will usually do in such cases.

[alexey]

Not popularity that makes it sound arbitrary (again chocolate/vanilla), but if we say that 82% of people (subtracting atheists) have some inclination about a higher being, whether through teaching or personal experience that should be taken into account. Especially considering that the rules by which you determine reality are so narrowly focused as to exclude anything you cannot prove by your rules. Which as we've established in other topics is not how people actually live, because people don't live their lives in doubt and skepticism although you probably think they should.

Everybody has an ability to have transcendental experiences and to feel that there is "something more". Interpretations of these experiences are culture-specific, so it is not accurate to extrapolate your cultural interpretation about a "higher being" onto other people and other cultures.

As for people living their lives... Having skepticism and doubt about belief systems is very different from living a life in a way that is full of skepticism and doubt. Religious monopoly on wonder and amazement is similar to religious monopoly on morality.

[Koolblue13]

In a time that we are watching people champion politicians for their style and what they say, even if it completely disregards any actual fact or bases to reality, is it really surprising that a Congressman like Dr. Braun, would be falling back on religion to prove his science?

Is that better Boss?

[Jumbo]

In a time that we are watching people champion politicians for their style and what they say, even if it completely disregards any actual fact or bases to reality, is it really surprising that a Congressman like Dr. Braun, would be falling back on religion to prove his science?

Is that better Boss?

I love it when we don't have a failure to communicate.

[Koolblue13]

And here I was just thinking about eating some eggs.

BOT, when somebody makes claims like this, even if they are politicing to a focus group that it strangely and unfortunately applies to, should some serious red flags go off?

How is he involved in any kind of science group, seeing as how he is just making his own science up? Should he be removed from that panel? Why wouldn't another member of the group point this guy out? Why wouldn't they just point at him and laugh really?

[twa]

Should we allow people that do not hew to mainstream or accepted concepts on committees such as that or to even represent us????

or is that actually a strength of our system

I'd like the earlier context of his speech to see if it changes my perception, but just watching the clip was bad enough

I am curious if he views the concepts themselves as a attack on believers or just some peoples usage of them.(but pretty sure where he falls from the clip)

[mistertim]

How is he involved in any kind of science group, seeing as how he is just making his own science up? Should he be removed from that panel? Why wouldn't another member of the group point this guy out? Why wouldn't they just point at him and laugh really?

Because the other people in that committee are politicians first and foremost. They probably mostly think the dude is a loon but they also know that if they pipe up about it it will quite possibly backfire because if there is anything guys like him love more than getting science out of classrooms it is claiming religious persecution loudly and publicly.

[Koolblue13]

Because the other people in that committee are politicians first and foremost. They probably mostly think the dude is a loon but they also know that if they pipe up about it it will quite possibly backfire because if there is anything guys like him love more than getting science out of classrooms it is claiming religious persecution loudly and publicly.

He sits on the committee of science, space and technology and he thinks scientists are making up lies from the pit of hell and people are worried about pointing this out. You're right, it's just "crazy"

[alexey]

Should we allow people that do not hew to mainstream or accepted concepts on committees such as that or to even represent us????

or is that actually a strength of our system

Let's not confuse lying and heroism.

[twa]

Let's not confuse lying and heroism.

you will need to expand that

Do you think he is lying?...seems a true fundamentalist from what little I've seen(a trait shared by some athiests)
I value skeptics and contrarians,though I don't think he fits

[alexey]

you will need to expand that

Do you think he is lying?...seems a true fundamentalist from what little I've seen(a trait shared by some athiests)

Yes I think he ls lying.

Even if he managed to convince himself that he is telling the truth, I think he is still sufficiently aware that he is willfully and knowingly lying to people.

[Jumbo]

Should we allow people that do not hew to mainstream or accepted concepts on committees such as that or to even represent us????

or is that actually a strength of our system

I'd like the earlier context of his speech to see if it changes my perception, but just watching the clip was bad enough

I am curious if he views the concepts themselves as a attack on believers or just some peoples usage of them.(but pretty sure where he falls from the clip)

The game is already killing me tension-wise (had this almost all typed earlier)

Good stuff, twa, and I suspect he find the actual ideas threatening and even "satanic." That's the key to me. A wide-spread societal belief in some form of God or a specific religion need not be regarded as some inherent threat to a healthy society by those who don’t have such beliefs. Nor should a wide-spread societal lack of belief in some form of God or specific religion be regarded as some inherent threat to a healthy society by those who have such beliefs. This guy does not think this way.

It’s how belief or non-belief is expressed that matters---how harmful and dysfunctional versus how benign and productive to society at large and with careful regard to individuals within that society. An ASF or TB is not going to be the same in such dynamics as this guy and his like-minded brethren. Nor is a twa or a SHF. A Thiebear or a Bang or a Corcaigh is not going to be the same in such dynamics as any noted extreme militant atheist of choice.

What’s important here is separating ideas that we may absolutely disagree with, or simply find unbelievably stupid, or sad, or crazy, etc., from ones that are truly dangerous and thus suppressed in aggressive fashion.

In the end, it’s the behavior that should be evacuated more than the thought in this framing. This guy and those like him (a notable number to my awareness--see Palin/Santorum as indicators for such support if not actual examples---no matter how you slice it) would take quite normal, well-established, even productive general concepts and make them something for repression (with scary possibilities of level) if he could get his way.

Many IME are of a similar mind and actually are part of seriously influential demographic. So the members of that larger demographic that absolutely refute such behaviors (as posters here do) as I see this guy preferring are the best allies of the real minorities IMO.

In some times and places, democracy and freedom for all has been held as “right” by less than 10% of the population. I don’t want to see religion at large persecuted any more than I want to se a lack of it persecuted. I don’t want the well-established ideas that permeate these matters roped off when not agreed with and considered dangerous to a level that they should be eradicated (which is what this guy would prefer I am sure).

Here, he’s frothing about casting these matters he’s targeted as non-Christian thoughts that are simply evil. But I have heard similar from the local religious folk taking in the same tone about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers. Don’t even ask abut Islam. It’s a “religion of violence” in the view of too many in my current locale. And I certainly hear some atheists go the “wee need to eradicate religion” route. So far not seeing them getting elected to many political offices, though. J

.I don’t want to “shut them up” (any of them) or see society treat “them” poorly simply in terms of basic rights/opportunities based on any of those views of course. I just don’t want their way to become the dominant way or a widely accepted way. Making sure they’re well seen by everyone matters to me.

[PeterMP]

You've been thinking that way? I'm curious as to why (we're going a bit OT I know)--I mean what studies or articles led you to that view other than this gallup poll? I ask simply because it seems to me that most folks I know in political studies, or sociology/psychology, or even related religious studies, have been thinking more like what I stated.

I was surprised at that gallop poll when I first saw it. I did some reading. I don't know of anybody else that has conducted a similar poll in the same manner as gallop over a period of years that would shed light on the issue on a national level

But my understanding is that at various times there have been other organizations that have conducted similar polls (e.g. Pew, FOX, etc.), and they see similar results. About 45% of the population has what I'd call pretty strong creationism beliefs.[/quote]

I haven't seen a poll that addresses COMPLETE creationism (as I've said before I know people that are old Earth and evolution for everything else, but humans were dropped onto the Earth by God how many ever thousands a year ago) or the idea

But hasn't that whole Jesus riding dinos theme (and related exhibits/parks/"museums"), and increased legislative efforts to teach it in science classes and the call for textbook revisions, etc etc been mainly peaking in the last few, or couple, decades? Oh well. Never mind.

Actually, there's quite a history of "creation" based museums in the US beyond the last few decades (unless you count the 1930s as the last few decades). The recent one got a lot of press, I suspect because it was "new". I think it was also well funded, but I believe that was essentially from one person. I'm not sure if was really more funded, but I don't believe one persons decision about what to do w/ their money is good evidence of a general population trend.

I believe the laws and lawsuits come largely from the restrictions on creationism being taught in areas where it was being taught. In fact, in much of the country laws related to teaching creatoinism were drafted and passed and not challenged in many areas of the country.

Essentially, prior to the 1960's, in the school districts where this ~45% is extremely dominant they were allowed to do what they wanted w/ respect to teaching evolution. Since then, there have been consistent limitations to what could be done.

This has resulted in the efforts to write laws that curcemvent the most recent court rulings and the resulting lawsuits.

I do want to point out I'm not defending the position of the guy in the OP or even more "neutral" positions w/ respect to creatoinism/intelligent design (e.g. both sides should be taught in school equally).

For my curiosity, can you post something that does say creationism and fundamentalism has increased in the US over the last few decades?

[twa]

Yes I think he ls lying.

Even if he managed to convince himself that he is telling the truth, I think he is still sufficiently aware that he is willfully and knowingly lying to people.

I think it is entirely possible he is simply speaking the 'truth' as he believes it, but I've had the advantage/misfortune to know entirely .too many fundamentalists of different stripes.
one mans heroics are anothers evil acts,and depends on the audience....lies depend solely on the heart/mind of the individual