Bill O'Reilly...tell me you can do better than this... you can't be this stupid...

[dame theory]

Mo Matik wrote:

---

The 1.4 billion thing wasn't to make it a popularity contest, it was to put things in perspective.  But it flew over your head.  Instead, you picked out what most critics do, the idea of sheep or a follower.  The argument can be made for both theists and atheists.  http://www.huffingtonpost...merican-re_b_814038.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-perlo/the-vanishing-american-re_b_814038.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-perlo/the-vanishing-american-re_b_814038.htmlThis says nothing. You brought up the number to make it sound like if all these people practice Islam then I must be wrong... Why else would you bring that number up unless you felt there wasn't some strength in the number of followers... your insecurity is showing. Come better than that. 
I said this about the 1.4 billion people and I quote:


"Of those 1.4 billion, how many of them live above the poverty line? How many of them are functionally literate? Religion lives on in the ignorance of its people. When most people are worried about what to eat tonight who has time to really understand that religion is at its core faulty? Plus, you're just joining the popularity contest with a phrase like that. So would you be a muslim if 5 people practiced it? Nah, you wanna do what everyone else you know is doing. "

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Whatever contradictions you have picked out you need to research and see for yourself if they are legitimate or not.  We live in a world where all the information you need is available to you as you sit in that chair.  I'm not going to hand deliver any more info to you when you won't take me seriously despite all my attempts to steer you towards scholarship.  I did my best to not enter this discussion.  I knew where it was going before I even began, and yet here we are.

...Research contradictions...HOMIE THATS WHAT I JUST DID!!! You delivered your strongest arguments and they ALL had fallacies in them. SHEER BLATANT BIASED ILLOGICAL PROPOSITIONS. Yet you still claim i'm not reading the information. bruh, I read EVERY link you put up and showed you your OWN history and yet i'm still the one that doesn't know anything? ... 

 miss me with that. You are tripping. 

Mo Matik wrote:

---

You studied neuroscience and behavioral biology.  Why you still won't concede the significance of thorough research given your background is beyond me.

BECAUSE I'M NOT A MUSLIM AND DONT SEE THE NEED TO STUDY TO BECOME ONE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO SAY WHY YOU DID IT AND WHY I SHOULD DO IT. 

And I said what i did in school because YOU said what you did in school. You bragged about being a senior Bio major like I give a +%@+. 

 I've studied enough to know that...hey this muslim +%@+... ain't for me! Why? Cause none of it makes sense!

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 

 

[kbweezy24]

my mind is blown at how ignorant Bill acts in these videos. someone with a degree from harvard cannot possibly be asking what "what makes the tides roll in and out" or "where the sun and moon originated". Just because he cannot explain it himself doesn't mean it hasn't been proven or explained by others with actual knowledge in the field of physics or astronomy. its sad that he gets to get on tv and spew this nonsense to millions of viewers everyday. and people wonder why so much of america is ignorant about real issues like this, yet seem to be experts on sports figures and entertainers. our priority is backwards, and that might explain why most dont know a lick about anything relative to real life

 

[kbweezy24]

my mind is blown at how ignorant Bill acts in these videos. someone with a degree from harvard cannot possibly be asking what "what makes the tides roll in and out" or "where the sun and moon originated". Just because he cannot explain it himself doesn't mean it hasn't been proven or explained by others with actual knowledge in the field of physics or astronomy. its sad that he gets to get on tv and spew this nonsense to millions of viewers everyday. and people wonder why so much of america is ignorant about real issues like this, yet seem to be experts on sports figures and entertainers. our priority is backwards, and that might explain why most dont know a lick about anything relative to real life

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 



Real talk...if it wasn't for the pope how would christianity have been as modernized as it is now? We'd be with the majority of modern muslims probably. I mean that whole-heartedly. The pope is the one that kinda gets to accept or deny the realm of religion even for non-catholic christians. If this dude says no to condoms, no one uses condoms. Its incredible. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 



Real talk...if it wasn't for the pope how would christianity have been as modernized as it is now? We'd be with the majority of modern muslims probably. I mean that whole-heartedly. The pope is the one that kinda gets to accept or deny the realm of religion even for non-catholic christians. If this dude says no to condoms, no one uses condoms. Its incredible. 

 

[toanotherlevel]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

 

[toanotherlevel]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 



Real talk...if it wasn't for the pope how would christianity have been as modernized as it is now? We'd be with the majority of modern muslims probably. I mean that whole-heartedly. The pope is the one that kinda gets to accept or deny the realm of religion even for non-catholic christians. If this dude says no to condoms, no one uses condoms. Its incredible. 
Not really arguing, just answering your question.  

 

[youmadyoubad]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Name ONE proposition/notion/idea that a secular society or person can't do or achieve that a believer in a higher power can. ONE. 

The Pope 



Real talk...if it wasn't for the pope how would christianity have been as modernized as it is now? We'd be with the majority of modern muslims probably. I mean that whole-heartedly. The pope is the one that kinda gets to accept or deny the realm of religion even for non-catholic christians. If this dude says no to condoms, no one uses condoms. Its incredible. 
Not really arguing, just answering your question.  

 

[|A-Man|]

 

[|A-Man|]

 

[mo matik]

...Research contradictions...HOMIE THATS WHAT I JUST DID!!! You delivered your strongest arguments and they ALL had fallacies in them. SHEER BLATANT BIASED ILLOGICAL PROPOSITIONS. Yet you still claim i'm not reading the information. bruh, I read EVERY link you put up and showed you your OWN history and yet i'm still the one that doesn't know anything? ... smiley: eyes miss me with that. You are tripping.


This, here, is not research.

I am not a scholar.  Neither are you. You spent way more time criticizing me rather than criticizing Islam. All the times you mentioned contradictions in Islam were broad and general. Never did you cite specifics that I could actually formulate a response from.

So if Judaism and Christianity were at one time Islam...why are they so different?


There are similarities and differences. There are many similarities which you are disregarding here.

You say god never left and civilization without the opp. to worship him... so did God get it wrong the first two times??


I don't understand the question. Are you referring to the Christians and the Jews? They were guided by God.

How many "true" paths did he make then?


Islam is the only true path. The purpose of Muhammad receiving messages from God was to send down the final transmission from God to man until the day of judgment.

He already failed twice at it and changed it.


No, that's not the argument. According to the scripture, God is all knowing. This is just the narrative. The way things were supposed to turn out. The various tests of man.

How old is the earth buddy?


There is no conflict between Islam and science in this matter.

So if the oldest man is in the Quran...and modern islam as followed by the Quran is only 1400 years old...then the Quran can't have the oldest story of a man in it.


I didn't explain this well. The Abrahamic texts all contain the story of Adam and Eve, although they have differences. God talks to Adam in the Qur'an, and Adam is a follower of God. Adam is also the first man. Therefore, Islam has been in existence since the beginning of man.

Plus you're just flat out wrong here ALL ancient texts claim to have the word of God


Not true. Yes, there are many sections of the Bible and the Torah where it'll say "And God said..." but only the Qur'an out of the 3 Abrahamic faiths claims to be the word of God throughout.

All these little questions are avoiding the big picture of religion as a whole. They have absolutely zero significance in the broad scheme of things. I can talk to you for hours and hours and hours. And I might be able to convince you that, yeah, Islam does have a pretty good model for society.

But that doesn't make it the right religion. It just makes it a pretty good model for society.

You will not be able to go through Islam and find logic to everything. For example, all Muslims must pay a Zakat, which is a mandatory charity. 2.5% of the money you made. You're never going to be able to find the logic behind that value. And that's where an element of faith comes in.

If you have time, this is a good documentary that explains the beginnings of Islam.

 

[mo matik]

...Research contradictions...HOMIE THATS WHAT I JUST DID!!! You delivered your strongest arguments and they ALL had fallacies in them. SHEER BLATANT BIASED ILLOGICAL PROPOSITIONS. Yet you still claim i'm not reading the information. bruh, I read EVERY link you put up and showed you your OWN history and yet i'm still the one that doesn't know anything? ... smiley: eyes miss me with that. You are tripping.


This, here, is not research.

I am not a scholar.  Neither are you. You spent way more time criticizing me rather than criticizing Islam. All the times you mentioned contradictions in Islam were broad and general. Never did you cite specifics that I could actually formulate a response from.

So if Judaism and Christianity were at one time Islam...why are they so different?


There are similarities and differences. There are many similarities which you are disregarding here.

You say god never left and civilization without the opp. to worship him... so did God get it wrong the first two times??


I don't understand the question. Are you referring to the Christians and the Jews? They were guided by God.

How many "true" paths did he make then?


Islam is the only true path. The purpose of Muhammad receiving messages from God was to send down the final transmission from God to man until the day of judgment.

He already failed twice at it and changed it.


No, that's not the argument. According to the scripture, God is all knowing. This is just the narrative. The way things were supposed to turn out. The various tests of man.

How old is the earth buddy?


There is no conflict between Islam and science in this matter.

So if the oldest man is in the Quran...and modern islam as followed by the Quran is only 1400 years old...then the Quran can't have the oldest story of a man in it.


I didn't explain this well. The Abrahamic texts all contain the story of Adam and Eve, although they have differences. God talks to Adam in the Qur'an, and Adam is a follower of God. Adam is also the first man. Therefore, Islam has been in existence since the beginning of man.

Plus you're just flat out wrong here ALL ancient texts claim to have the word of God


Not true. Yes, there are many sections of the Bible and the Torah where it'll say "And God said..." but only the Qur'an out of the 3 Abrahamic faiths claims to be the word of God throughout.

All these little questions are avoiding the big picture of religion as a whole. They have absolutely zero significance in the broad scheme of things. I can talk to you for hours and hours and hours. And I might be able to convince you that, yeah, Islam does have a pretty good model for society.

But that doesn't make it the right religion. It just makes it a pretty good model for society.

You will not be able to go through Islam and find logic to everything. For example, all Muslims must pay a Zakat, which is a mandatory charity. 2.5% of the money you made. You're never going to be able to find the logic behind that value. And that's where an element of faith comes in.

If you have time, this is a good documentary that explains the beginnings of Islam.

 

[kix4kix]

Which "side" is the one posting pics and gifs. Sad. 

 

[kix4kix]

Which "side" is the one posting pics and gifs. Sad. 

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

 

[|A-Man|]

It's my understanding for quite some time that Christianity is a bastardization of Judaism and Islam is a bastardization of both.

What's this talk of the two earlier ones originating from one that came at a later time? Never understood this pissing contest of who was first when Hinduism is the oldest.

 

[|A-Man|]

It's my understanding for quite some time that Christianity is a bastardization of Judaism and Islam is a bastardization of both.

What's this talk of the two earlier ones originating from one that came at a later time? Never understood this pissing contest of who was first when Hinduism is the oldest.

 

[toanotherlevel]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

Wow. Irrespondible!? Your way or the highway, huh?  That's all I come up with after reading your last one.  I guess I naively expect people to have open minds about beliefs that are not their own..

  

 

[toanotherlevel]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

Wow. Irrespondible!? Your way or the highway, huh?  That's all I come up with after reading your last one.  I guess I naively expect people to have open minds about beliefs that are not their own..

  

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

Wow. Irrespondible!? Your way or the highway, huh?  That's all I come up with after reading your last one.  I guess I naively expect people to have open minds about beliefs that are not their own..

  

Come on guy.   It's not subjective.    It IS irresponsible to give religious beliefs the same amount of credibility as proven science.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by ToAnotherLevel

I just don't understand the "importance" of condemning someones faith in religion or condemning someones non-belief in religion. That's where my "live and let live" attitude kicks in.

I mean think about, if a person in a position of influence were perpetuating the outright denial and non-acceptance of religion, let's say the president, how would you expect religious individuals to feel? How would you feel? I just think that accepting that others have different beliefs, skin tone, sexual orientation, economic backgrounds, etc. is the best way to go. We're not all 'cut from the same cloth".

SN: the questions I asked are rhetorical, no response is necessary.

It's important to condemn because denying science in the name of religion hampers the advancement of society as a whole.  It's promoting ignorance.
Yes, religious people may be offended by people in power stating facts that are against their beliefs, but who cares? 

Our politicians should deny or be skeptical of evolution and pander to creationist so as to not offend them?  That's ridiculous.

I'm unclear of the meaning of your last sentence but I'll try to respond...

I'm not suggesting that politicians should deny and/or be skeptical about evolution to appease religious followers. My point was that religious individuals could make your same arguments if the "tables were turned" and a person of non-belief was placed in a position of "power" or "influence." 

It's odd how believers and non-believers feel like you're promoting ignorance if you're on opposite sides of the fence.  Why does one perspective overshadow the other?  Why must one perspective be regarded as the absolute truth for us all? This conversation that you and I are having is another example of a statement I made earlier - our inability to believe that scientific theories and religion can co-exist. 

Isn't this world, this country, this planet, and this universe big enough for both theories/beliefs thrive? (This sentence was a little dramatic but hopefully you get my point, lol).

  

One perspective overshadows the other because one is based on empirical evidence, peer review and falsifiability, and the other is based on nothing.  
They do not have the same amount of credibility, and should not be treated as equally or deserving of the same amount of credence. 

When it comes to certain things, such as the origins of modern man, there is one right answer, and a bunch of wrong answers.  They can not co-exist, and it's irresponsible to entertain other perspectives on this topic.

Wow. Irrespondible!? Your way or the highway, huh?  That's all I come up with after reading your last one.  I guess I naively expect people to have open minds about beliefs that are not their own..

  

Come on guy.   It's not subjective.    It IS irresponsible to give religious beliefs the same amount of credibility as proven science.