Flu Shots and Faith

[glenn1]

The OP's "argument" is as stupid as making someone sign a pledge that they believe in God before being allowed in the Louvre because it has works of religiously inspired art. Is this type of self-congratulatory aggrandizement what passes for wit in agnostic/atheistic circles nowadays?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: glenn1
The OP's "argument" is as stupid as making someone sign a pledge that they believe in God before being allowed in the Louvre because it has works of religiously inspired art. Is this type of self-congratulatory aggrandizement what passes for wit in agnostic/atheistic circles nowadays?

No, it's a statement of supreme frustration.

 

[glenn1]

No, it's a statement of supreme frustration.

If evolution is a true fact, then what do you care what the ignorant rubes think? If I see a crazy person in the street arguing that the earth is flat, it doesn't disturb me as I know otherwise and I feel no need to argue the point with an obviously wrong person. Those comfortable in their positions don't need to argue the obvious. Seeking to squelch any dissenting (if wrong) views from your own is a sign of weakness in your convictions, not strength. I don't need to state my position on the evolution vs. creation debate (just do a thread search) but statements like the OP leave you open to the impression that you're afraid of having your orthodoxy challenged. That's a sign of weakness, not conviction.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
For example, there are birds which were considered to be seperate species which are in fact regional variants. Different, yet the same. They can interbreed.

Would this eventually lead to a new species? Under the right conditions probably.

You put your credentials in your sig. You should know that the influenva virus has variants, but it is still the influenza virus. My friends at Cold Spring Harbor, and the NIH haven't called me and said that there is a new "species" of virus.

You can beat up on the creationists if you like, but the whole OP's tongue in cheek slam isn't really a basis for valid criticism.

Nowhere did Meuge state anything about evolution entailing speciation, only that evolution is a change in gene frequencies in a population from one population to the next.

You might want to check with 'your friends at CSH', because they've been well aware of species concepts issues for at least the last forty years. There is no such thing as a species, there are only pragmatic, yet artificially imposed descriptions of groups of organisms with varying levels of basis in reality contingent upon the questions being asked by biologists working in different specialties (about two dozen last time I checked). For example, Meuge's definition of a species (as an immunologist dealing with microbes) is probably much different than my own (as a paleoanthropologist). Hence, he cautions against paying attention to 'micro- & macroevolutionary' arguments. They're the same thing... Evolution, either by means of natural selection, or genetic drift, or simply non-adaptive (neutral) mutation. Don't dis the OP when you yourself don't really know whatchoo talkin' 'bout.

Originally posted by: glenn1
If evolution is a true fact, then what do you care what the ignorant rubes think?

Aside from a deeply-held belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, the more pressing concern is that ignorant rubes can incubate & transmit disease and I dislike being sick.

Instead of outright refusing to issue flu vaccines to those who deny evolution (which while amusing to those frustrated by Medieval America, isn't exactly ethical), I propose we instead offer vaccines which hopefully work against constantly evolving virii, or cranial trepanation to release the demons responsible for debilitating illness.

Which would you choose, glenn1?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
For example, there are birds which were considered to be seperate species which are in fact regional variants. Different, yet the same. They can interbreed.

Would this eventually lead to a new species? Under the right conditions probably.

You put your credentials in your sig. You should know that the influenva virus has variants, but it is still the influenza virus. My friends at Cold Spring Harbor, and the NIH haven't called me and said that there is a new "species" of virus.

You can beat up on the creationists if you like, but the whole OP's tongue in cheek slam isn't really a basis for valid criticism.

Nowhere did Meuge state anything about evolution entailing speciation, only that evolution is a change in gene frequencies in a population from one population to the next.

You might want to check with 'your friends at CSH', because they've been well aware of species concepts issues for at least the last forty years. There is no such thing as a species, there are only pragmatic, yet artificially imposed descriptions of groups of organisms with varying levels of basis in reality contingent upon the questions being asked by biologists working in different specialties (about two dozen last time I checked). For example, Meuge's definition of a species (as an immunologist dealing with microbes) is probably much different than my own (as a paleoanthropologist). Hence, he cautions against paying attention to 'micro- & macroevolutionary' arguments. They're the same thing... Evolution, either by means of natural selection, or genetic drift, or simply non-adaptive (neutral) mutation. Don't dis the OP when you yourself don't really know whatchoo talkin' 'bout.

Originally posted by: glenn1
If evolution is a true fact, then what do you care what the ignorant rubes think?

Aside from a deeply-held belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, the more pressing concern is that ignorant rubes can incubate & transmit disease and I dislike being sick.

Instead of outright refusing to issue flu vaccines to those who deny evolution (which while amusing to those frustrated by Medieval America, isn't exactly ethical), I propose we instead offer vaccines which hopefully work against constantly evolving virii, or cranial trepanation to release the demons responsible for debilitating illness.

Which would you choose, glenn1?

You really don't know as much as you think. People DO discuss these things. People whom are long in degrees and years. You don't lack knowledge so much as understanding. The educated can be remarkable in their ignorance.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Three ad hominem attacks and not a single real argument for your position. You're not very convincing.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: glenn1

No, it's a statement of supreme frustration.

If evolution is a true fact, then what do you care what the ignorant rubes think? If I see a crazy person in the street arguing that the earth is flat, it doesn't disturb me as I know otherwise and I feel no need to argue the point with an obviously wrong person. Those comfortable in their positions don't need to argue the obvious.

Would you still be comfortable if there were millions of these people... and they demanded that in science class, the flatness of the Earth be taught as an "alternative theory"?

Originally posted by: glenn1
Seeking to squelch any dissenting (if wrong) views from your own is a sign of weakness in your convictions, not strength. I don't need to state my position on the evolution vs. creation debate (just do a thread search) but statements like the OP leave you open to the impression that you're afraid of having your orthodoxy challenged. That's a sign of weakness, not conviction.

That's a well-disguised attack, and not a good one. We are not afraid of having our views challenged factually, we are afraid of these people doing it in far more underhanded ways. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts... and certainly not in the classroom.

The attack on evolution is a huge step back for the American society... and a sign that religious fundamentalism is taking hold, threatening everything that separates us from the very people we claim to be fighting.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
I heard this one the other night and I really like it!

Each year the influenza virus evolves and each year it becomes resistant to more and more drugs. The flu virus is an example of evolution in action . . .

So this guy on the Colbert Report put forth an interesting idea:

Each person who receives a flu shot should have to sign a contract pledging that they believe in evolution, or else they are denied the vaccine.

If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe the flu virus can become resistant to drugs and therefore you have no need for the new vaccine.

My only addition would be that each person should be allowed to receive a vaccine once in his or her lifetime without signing the pledge. After that, you better sign to survive! Ha! Ha! Haha! Ha!

I think this is the most humorous thing of all... you all want to be free capitalist aethiests...
who can make money and believe there is no god. What? you dont worship the beast? You will have six hundred, threescore, and six on your right hand or forehead or you will not be able to buy or sell. And if you refuse to worship him...they will kill you. you can ignore god all you want... but Satan... he's gonna get you.
now thats worth LOLing about.

 

[glenn1]

Aside from a deeply-held belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, the more pressing concern is that ignorant rubes can incubate & transmit disease and I dislike being sick.

Instead of outright refusing to issue flu vaccines to those who deny evolution (which while amusing to those frustrated by Medieval America, isn't exactly ethical), I propose we instead offer vaccines which hopefully work against constantly evolving virii, or cranial trepanation to release the demons responsible for debilitating illness.

Which would you choose, glenn1? [/quote]

The entire so-called point of this thread begins with a premise that those who disagree with the theory of evolution are coming in for a vaccination which you'd deny them unless they relented in that belief. That makes your concern about ignorant rubes incubating and transmitting disease a red herring, since we're not talking about those refusing vaccines. Your point would only make sense if the OP advocated the opposite position, that those refusing vaccines on religious grounds be forced to submit to vaccination regardless of their belief or disbelieve in evolution.

Your second paragraph is a straw man argument, as you've presented no evidence that those who disagree with evolution wish to prevent work on vaccines.

Would you still be comfortable if there were millions of these people... and they demanded that in science class, the flatness of the Earth be taught as an "alternative theory"?

Appeal to popularity combined with another red herring, as it makes no difference to the truth or untruth of evolution whether 1 person disagrees with it or a billion. And what is taught in science class has nothing to so with whether or not belief in evolution should determine who gets, or does not get a vaccine.

That's a well-disguised attack, and not a good one. We are not afraid of having our views challenged factually, we are afraid of these people doing it in far more underhanded ways. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts... and certainly not in the classroom.

Again, another red herring. You're substituting teaching ID in classrooms for the position in the OP.

The attack on evolution is a huge step back for the American society... and a sign that religious fundamentalism is taking hold, threatening everything that separates us from the very people we claim to be fighting.

I see. And it's so important that you stop the "attack on evolution" you're willing to entertain thoughts of a loyalty oath in order to support the truth. Why not simply implement a Star Chamber and burn the heretics at the stake?

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Aside from a deeply-held belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, the more pressing concern is that ignorant rubes can incubate & transmit disease and I dislike being sick.

Instead of outright refusing to issue flu vaccines to those who deny evolution (which while amusing to those frustrated by Medieval America, isn't exactly ethical), I propose we instead offer vaccines which hopefully work against constantly evolving virii, or cranial trepanation to release the demons responsible for debilitating illness.

Which would you choose, glenn1?

The entire so-called point of this thread begins with a premise that those who disagree with the theory of evolution are coming in for a vaccination which you'd deny them unless they relented in that belief. That makes your concern about ignorant rubes incubating and transmitting disease a red herring, since we're not talking about those refusing vaccines. Your point would only make sense if the OP advocated the opposite position, that those refusing vaccines on religious grounds be forced to submit to vaccination regardless of their belief or disbelieve in evolution.

Your second paragraph is a straw man argument, as you've presented no evidence that those who disagree with evolution wish to prevent work on vaccines.

Would you still be comfortable if there were millions of these people... and they demanded that in science class, the flatness of the Earth be taught as an "alternative theory"?

Appeal to popularity combined with another red herring, as it makes no difference to the truth or untruth of evolution whether 1 person disagrees with it or a billion. And what is taught in science class has nothing to so with whether or not belief in evolution should determine who gets, or does not get a vaccine.

That's a well-disguised attack, and not a good one. We are not afraid of having our views challenged factually, we are afraid of these people doing it in far more underhanded ways. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts... and certainly not in the classroom.

Again, another red herring. You're substituting teaching ID in classrooms for the position in the OP.

The attack on evolution is a huge step back for the American society... and a sign that religious fundamentalism is taking hold, threatening everything that separates us from the very people we claim to be fighting.

I see. And it's so important that you stop the "attack on evolution" you're willing to entertain thoughts of a loyalty oath in order to support the truth. Why not simply implement a Star Chamber and burn the heretics at the stake?



[/quote]

Entertaining a debate on evolution in a scientific arena is one thing. The battle has been fought and won by the evolutionists.

Debating evolution in the context of a two thousand year old piece of religious scripture is another thing altogether.

Evolution is real. It is all around us. I can't believe that people can't get that through their heads. Every credible scientist in America who has been brought to this debate has said 'Evolution not ID.'

There is no debate anymore. It's over people.

 

[glenn1]

Entertaining a debate on evolution in a scientific arena is one thing. The battle has been fought and won by the evolutionists.

Debating evolution in the context of a two thousand year old piece of religious scripture is another thing altogether.

Evolution is real. It is all around us. I can't believe that people can't get that through their heads. Every credible scientist in America who has been brought to this debate has said 'Evolution not ID.'

There is no debate anymore. It's over people.

And I agree with you totally - although I'm somewhat agnostic on abiogenesis, that the Theory of Evolution is factual is completely beyond debate. The question however becomes what to do about those who, for whatever reason, choose to think otherwise. To me taking that position is completely harmless, if somewhat akin to believing in the Easter Bunny. However, I don't get the hostility towards those who feel that way, which is what this thread started off life as. IMHO, bullying and belittling those with unorthodox views is hardly the way to win them over to your side.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Aside from a deeply-held belief that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, the more pressing concern is that ignorant rubes can incubate & transmit disease and I dislike being sick.

Instead of outright refusing to issue flu vaccines to those who deny evolution (which while amusing to those frustrated by Medieval America, isn't exactly ethical), I propose we instead offer vaccines which hopefully work against constantly evolving virii, or cranial trepanation to release the demons responsible for debilitating illness.

Which would you choose, glenn1?

The entire so-called point of this thread begins with a premise that those who disagree with the theory of evolution are coming in for a vaccination which you'd deny them unless they relented in that belief. That makes your concern about ignorant rubes incubating and transmitting disease a red herring, since we're not talking about those refusing vaccines. Your point would only make sense if the OP advocated the opposite position, that those refusing vaccines on religious grounds be forced to submit to vaccination regardless of their belief or disbelieve in evolution.

Your second paragraph is a straw man argument, as you've presented no evidence that those who disagree with evolution wish to prevent work on vaccines.

Would you still be comfortable if there were millions of these people... and they demanded that in science class, the flatness of the Earth be taught as an "alternative theory"?

Appeal to popularity combined with another red herring, as it makes no difference to the truth or untruth of evolution whether 1 person disagrees with it or a billion. And what is taught in science class has nothing to so with whether or not belief in evolution should determine who gets, or does not get a vaccine.

That's a well-disguised attack, and not a good one. We are not afraid of having our views challenged factually, we are afraid of these people doing it in far more underhanded ways. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts... and certainly not in the classroom.

Again, another red herring. You're substituting teaching ID in classrooms for the position in the OP.

The attack on evolution is a huge step back for the American society... and a sign that religious fundamentalism is taking hold, threatening everything that separates us from the very people we claim to be fighting.

I see. And it's so important that you stop the "attack on evolution" you're willing to entertain thoughts of a loyalty oath in order to support the truth. Why not simply implement a Star Chamber and burn the heretics at the stake? [/quote]

Somehow you've concluded that I agree with the OP. Please show me where you've seen that. Since you can't, I can assume that you're just putting words in my mouth because otherwise you have no counter-argument.

 

[glenn1]

Somehow you've concluded that I agree with the OP. Please show me where you've seen that. Since you can't, I can assume that you're just putting words in my mouth because otherwise you have no counter-argument.

Okay, I'll stipulate that you did not agree with the OP (although I certainly don't see any evidence of you disagreeing either). However, that makes your statement about me "having no counter-argument" nonsensical - since you pointed out yourself your lack of a stand on the OP, that means you have no position against which to form a counter-argument. I on the other hand HAVE advocated a position and so far there's been no counter-argument presented against it which hasn't been a logical fallacy.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I on the other hand HAVE advocated a position and so far there's been no counter-argument presented against it which hasn't been a logical fallacy.

You mean this position?

Originally posted by: glenn1
Those comfortable in their positions don't need to argue the obvious.

Good arguments turn the implausible into the obvious. Good thing Copernicus didn't think like you, otherwise we'd still think the Earth was the center of the solar system.

For someone who likes to argue, you don't seem to be a champion of it.

Originally posted by: glenn1
And I agree with you totally - although I'm somewhat agnostic on abiogenesis, that the Theory of Evolution is factual is completely beyond debate. The question however becomes what to do about those who, for whatever reason, choose to think otherwise.

Argue with them?

 

[glenn1]

You mean this position?


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: glenn1
Those comfortable in their positions don't need to argue the obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, my position was contained in my first post where I stated that the premise of the OP was stupid. And "argue" all you want, this thread was started on a premise that was a self-congratulatory circle jerk celebrating your wisdom, not a factual argument for evolution.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Is the OP's premise that those who deny evolution should be denied benefits from our understanding of it different from the widely-held Christian belief that those who deny Jesus as their Lord & Savior be denied access to Heaven?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: RichardE
There god will provide them with a flu shot

hehe, no shiat

 

[glenn1]

Is the OP's premise that those who deny evolution should be denied benefits from our understanding of it different from the widely-held Christian belief that those who deny Jesus as their Lord & Savior be denied access to Heaven?

Do you know how to debate without every single assertion being a red herring? Stop asking completely unrelated questions as the basis for defending whatever it is you call your position.

But to quickly get to your so-called point, God is responsible for his policy, you're responsible for yours denying vaccinations to those who don't swear fealty to evolution. You'd be doing better in the argument if you stuck to the ramifications of the idea you're sponsoring than questioning the Deity's decision on the question you posed.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Is the OP's premise that those who deny evolution should be denied benefits from our understanding of it different from the widely-held Christian belief that those who deny Jesus as their Lord & Savior be denied access to Heaven?

Do you know how to debate without every single assertion being a red herring? Stop asking completely unrelated questions as the basis for defending whatever it is you call your position.

But to quickly get to your so-called point, God is responsible for his policy, you're responsible for yours denying vaccinations to those who don't swear fealty to evolution. You'd be doing better in the argument if you stuck to the ramifications of the idea you're sponsoring than questioning the Deity's decision on the question you posed.

It's not about denying them the flu shot. It's about them not needing the flu shot because they do not acknowledge evolution or natural selection.

Someone who does not believe in natureal selection or evolution getting a flu shot is similar to a deaf man listening to an iPod or a blind man wearing sunglasses.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Do you know how to debate without every single assertion being a red herring? Stop asking completely unrelated questions as the basis for defending whatever it is you call your position.

Unsurprising you seem to think any creative interpretation or novel analogy is a red herring, I wouldn't expect anything less narrow from someone who believes their morals come from God and are above question. The two premises are perfectly analogous, but of course, in your dim opinion the latter is above question while the former is not.

Please do us all a favor and move to Iran.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Is the OP's premise that those who deny evolution should be denied benefits from our understanding of it different from the widely-held Christian belief that those who deny Jesus as their Lord & Savior be denied access to Heaven?

Well, the flu is objectively real, and heaven is not, according to what we can see and detect around us.

Furthermore, Christians are neither the first nor the only group to believe in a Heaven, and according to their faith, entrance is not granted based on what other Christians think of your scientific beliefs, so it would hardly fall to them to decide who gets in.

 

[glenn1]

Well, the flu is objectively real, and heaven is not, according to what we can see and detect around us.

Furthermore, Christians are neither the first nor the only group to believe in a Heaven, and according to their faith, entrance is not granted based on what other Christians think of your scientific beliefs, so it would hardly fall to them to decide who gets in.

I don't think that was a good faith question. The person who posed it is attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the two in order to obscure the fact that the position advocated by the OP is morally wrong. The entire premise of the OP is macho posturing, a gross hyperbole scenario that they wouldn't have the balls to implement even if they could, designed simply to show their superiority in believing the "correct" thing.

Unsurprising you seem to think any creative interpretation or novel analogy is a red herring, I wouldn't expect anything less narrow from someone who believes their morals come from God and are above question. The two premises are perfectly analogous, but of course, in your dim opinion the latter is above question while the former is not.

Please do us all a favor and move to Iran.

Unsurprising that you'd seek to ridicule anyone who casts doubt on your "superior" intellectual position - that's the entire point of the OP which is what I pointed out. And what I believe is completely immaterial to the point and you know it. Belief or disbelief in evolution or theology doesn't make the position one takes on unrelated subjects any more or less correct, as you have amply proved throughout this thread. You can't even defend your own position on its own seperate, discrete "merits" which is pathetic, instead you resort to the argument used by 4 year olds, "but little Johnny did something worse!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Well, the flu is objectively real, and heaven is not, according to what we can see and detect around us.

Furthermore, Christians are neither the first nor the only group to believe in a Heaven, and according to their faith, entrance is not granted based on what other Christians think of your scientific beliefs, so it would hardly fall to them to decide who gets in.

I don't think that was a good faith question. The person who posed it is attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the two in order to obscure the fact that the position advocated by the OP is morally wrong. The entire premise of the OP is macho posturing, a gross hyperbole scenario that they wouldn't have the balls to implement even if they could, designed simply to show their superiority in believing the "correct" thing.

Unsurprising you seem to think any creative interpretation or novel analogy is a red herring, I wouldn't expect anything less narrow from someone who believes their morals come from God and are above question. The two premises are perfectly analogous, but of course, in your dim opinion the latter is above question while the former is not.

Please do us all a favor and move to Iran.

Unsurprising that you'd seek to ridicule anyone who casts doubt on your "superior" intellectual position - that's the entire point of the OP which is what I pointed out. And what I believe is completely immaterial to the point and you know it. Belief or disbelief in evolution or theology doesn't make the position one takes on unrelated subjects any more or less correct, as you have amply proved throughout this thread. You can't even defend your own position on its own seperate, discrete "merits" which is pathetic, instead you resort to the argument used by 4 year olds, "but little Johnny did something worse!"

The interesting question to me is what is it about scientific, objective, non faith types that reduces them to 4 year old status in the face of more faith based belief. Not saying you, glenn1, have a faith argument here in this debate. In my opinion you make a great deal of sense, and are pointing our an important insight, and have won this argument here. (In my opinion) Why do people go nuts when others insist on a different point of view? I think that this happens because some aspect of the ego is deriving external gratification by identifying with the merit or glory or reputation of that external in the world. When anything in the world challenges that merit it becomes personal. I think you allude to this when you state that if you are comfortable in your belief you will not loose it when it is challenged. But I think the key is that the comfort has to lie in the fact that the external is not one to which the ego is attached.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Well, the flu is objectively real, and heaven is not, according to what we can see and detect around us.

Furthermore, Christians are neither the first nor the only group to believe in a Heaven, and according to their faith, entrance is not granted based on what other Christians think of your scientific beliefs, so it would hardly fall to them to decide who gets in.

I don't think that was a good faith question. The person who posed it is attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the two in order to obscure the fact that the position advocated by the OP is morally wrong.

I guess you missed my post where I clearly stated the premise of the OP is unethical. My 'red herring' as you call it, because you completely missed the point, is to illustrate yet another gross hypocrisy of those with a conservative religious mindset who use faith-based reasoning. I didn't say the OP's position is ok because Johnny Jesus' position is ok, I implied neither position is ok (you just assumed otherwise). You jumped all over the OP for being a horrible person, yet millions of Christians hold entirely analogous beliefs, and I don't see you defending that position - but since it's derived from on high, it's above criticism, right?

Originally posted by: glenn1
The entire premise of the OP is macho posturing, a gross hyperbole scenario that they wouldn't have the balls to implement even if they could, designed simply to show their superiority in believing the "correct" thing.

More like a gross hyperbole derived from supreme frustration with those who deny reality and progress because it flies in the face of some 6,000 year old mythology. It is possible to be "correct", and generally being right is something of which to be proud. Of course, to agree with this position you have to accept an objective, observable reality and not have a macerated ego.

Originally posted by: glenn1
You can't even defend your own position on its own seperate, discrete "merits" which is pathetic, instead you resort to the argument used by 4 year olds, "but little Johnny did something worse!"

Again, you (and Moonbeam) obviously missed the point - the fact that multiple other posters besides myself condemned the OP's suggestion while sympathising with their obvious frustration.

I agree with you on one thing you've tried to convey - treating ignorant rubes in such a fashion isn't going to convince them evolution is a fact. But when you say insane garbage like, 'those comfortable in their positions have no need to defend them', I can't take you seriously.

This thread highlights the very real, very tangible absolute differences between those who argue with empiricism and those who argue with faith (or in Moonbeam's case, some bizarre pseudopsychology) - the two sides play by different rules, and posts like the OP's are the result.

 

[Moonbeam]

Gigantopithecus:

"I guess you missed my post where I clearly stated the premise of the OP is unethical. My 'red herring' as you call it, because you completely missed the point, is to illustrate yet another gross hypocrisy of those with a conservative religious mindset who use faith-based reasoning. I didn't say the OP's position is ok because Johnny Jesus' position is ok, I implied neither position is ok (you just assumed otherwise). You jumped all over the OP for being a horrible person, yet millions of Christians hold entirely analogous beliefs, and I don't see you defending that position - but since it's derived from on high, it's above criticism, right?"

M: I didn't miss it nor do I have a traditional religious point of view. I simply was commenting on the reaction, the frustration, what you apparently feel is something only a horrible person would feel and which you therefore don't want to have any part in. But it is not very mature to be immature and pretend you are not, no? I simply agree with glenn1 that the reaction of frustration to religious belief is immature. By immature I mean psychologically unsophisticated, not insightful into ones motivations, and in denial of ones emotional motivations. You are the one who is creating out of the air a pejorative reaction to that. You think that because you don't know what you feel that this makes you bad. That itself, of course, is psychologically immature. This is then really all about the fact that a reaction you have which you call rational is really quite insane and your unwillingness to accept that fact.

glenn1 says:

"The entire premise of the OP is macho posturing, a gross hyperbole scenario that they wouldn't have the balls to implement even if they could, designed simply to show their superiority in believing the "correct" thing."

To which you reply:

G: "More like a gross hyperbole derived from supreme frustration with those who deny reality and progress because it flies in the face of some 6,000 year old mythology. It is possible to be "correct", and generally being right is something of which to be proud. Of course, to agree with this position you have to accept an objective, observable reality and not have a macerated ego."

M: Hehe, how on earth does one go about having a hyperbolic reaction to something that elicits, OMG, frustration over some silly 6000 year old myth, and then go on to be proud that you know the real real real objective truth and not have a completely immature ego or macerated ego if you will? Reminds me of Doctor Science who used to say, I have a Masters in Science and know more than you in a puffed up egotistical voice, no doubt trading on the well know fact that some educated people are truly full of themselves, well known, that is, by the emotionally more mature. Sad that you can't be a member, like me and glenn, of that ne plus ultra group.

And:

G: "Again, you (and Moonbeam) obviously missed the point - the fact that multiple other posters besides myself condemned the OP's suggestion while sympathising with their obvious frustration."

M: Again, and I can only really speak for myself, the point was missed by you. I focused exclusively of the immaturity of frustration of the type you exhibit in that I tried to see where it might come from, you know, my psychobabble.


G: I agree with you on one thing you've tried to convey - treating ignorant rubes in such a fashion isn't going to convince them evolution is a fact. But when you say insane garbage like, 'those comfortable in their positions have no need to defend them', I can't take you seriously.

M: Please define insane is some semi literate scientific way for me here please. You have slipped out of reason into rant. Be so good as to explain what is so insane that you can't take it seriously. You are here only reacting with emotion. Could it be you are not very comfortable with in your position and trying to prove glenn's point with defensiveness? Oh my!

This thread highlights the very real, very tangible absolute differences between those who argue with empiricism and those who argue with faith (or in Moonbeam's case, some bizarre pseudopsychology) - the two sides play by different rules, and posts like the OP's are the result.

Hehe, yes you have reach empirical truth by careful measure with your frustrationometer. You can determine a valid scientific hypothesis by whether it pisses you off.