1 of 2
1
Now Intellectualism Takes a Hit, Live Coast to Coast!!!!!
Posted: 04 April 2005 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Wheeewouee! Man oh man, can't you guys send in the big artillery when it comes to the Micheal Medvid show? You've all been embarassed on live radio, coast to coast today. It was like throwing a slab of beef to the lions!

So this reporter from Utah writes an article that Conservatives Fight Against Intellectualism. Medvid just had it too easy as the young reporter started fumbling all over the place. The underpinnings of the reporter's main premises were methodically shaved away, until the structure imploded.

The whole point, look at looks like Bill Bennett, a PHD and conservative commentator. Wrote 15 books. He is not an intellectual? Newt Gingrich, is he not an intellectual? Our founding forefathers were not intellectuals?

There are far too many right wing intellectuals, scientists, politicians, talk show hosts, military commanders and officers, doctors to count.

I guess the whole point is, don't throw meat to lions. Bring the big artillery if you're going on the Micheal Medvid show, ha ha. All left wing intellectuals should be embarrassed by the reporter from Utah today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2005-04-04

Why is it that any dissenting view of this radio show you listen to is automatically everyone’s belief on this forum?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Don’t give me that, all of the liberals have an agenda that is contrary to the religious folks in this country. You libs want to keep trying to remove every moral standard in the country, trying to make it look abnormal, when it has been the norm for over 200 years.

Leave God out and his moral standards, then expect to lose his blessings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2005-04-04

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Don’t give me that, all of the liberals have an agenda that is contrary to the religious folks in this country. You libs want to keep trying to remove every moral standard in the country, trying to make it look abnormal, when it has been the norm for over 200 years.

Leave God out and his moral standards, then expect to lose his blessings.

What you and millions of other faith based religious people don’t like to admit but is true is that morality can exist without faith based religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

But there is no foundation upon which to stand unless it has the authority from the Almighty.

I mean, go ahead and try to make your own morality. But, if it is good indeed, it will probably mirror aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is already out there. So basically, all you are doing is trying to remove God from the equation. Why? This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. John 3:19-20

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2005-04-04

[quote author=“TheChampion”]But there is no foundation upon which to stand unless it has the authority from the Almighty.

I mean, go ahead and try to make your own morality. But, if it is good indeed, it will probably mirror aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is already out there. So basically, all you are doing is trying to remove God from the equation. Why? This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. John 3:19-20

Can you say that the Jedeo-Christian ethic (morality) was not created by man? And God added to it later?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

syn ack, I sense a trap waiting for me here. And I shan’t be trapped lad. However, ultimately, I do not understand where you are going with this…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 12:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

There was a news media quote from a creationist/IDer recently that summed it up quite nicely. He said “We’re being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of society.”

I’ll see if I can’t find the source (I got it secondhand), but that pretty much says what you need to know—even if you’re just semi-intelligent, even without the benefit of much in the way of education. The problem is that we’re dealing with what I call religiostupidification, which is a pretty selective form of self-imposed stupidity. It’s just one of the more overt symptoms caused by the mental virus of faith (nod to Richard Dawkins).

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]
But there is no foundation upon which to stand unless it has the authority from the Almighty.

I mean, go ahead and try to make your own morality. But, if it is good indeed, it will probably mirror aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is already out there. So basically, all you are doing is trying to remove God from the equation. Why?

If morality comes from the word of your god as revealed in the bible, what kept humans from killing each other off before Moses came along? How did societies determine that stealing should be unlawful? Why did marriage exist before the bible? What made people treat their parents with respect? The same applies to bearing false witness against your neighbor. Adultery was not the norm. Pre-biblical history is full of stories about men being punished for lying with another man’s wife. The Trojan War is but one example.

The only moral prerequisites introduced by the 10 commandments that weren’t already commonly accepted in many already existing societies were the first 3 (or 4 depending on which version you use) regarding worshipping the judeo-christian deity.

The judeo-christian bible didn’t give the world it’s morality. They took their morality from beliefs that were already commonly held. It is only the conceit inspired by the first three commandments that provokes such a spurious claim.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“SkepticX”]
I’ll see if I can’t find the source (I got it secondhand), but that pretty much says what you need to know—even if you’re just semi-intelligent, even without the benefit of much in the way of education. The problem is that we’re dealing with what I call religiostupidification, which is a pretty selective form of self-imposed stupidity. It’s just one of the more overt symptoms caused by the mental virus of faith (nod to Richard Dawkins).

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the premise that stupidity and ignorance is the explanation for an individual’s adamant support of religious beliefs that fly in the face of evidence. It is quite clear that many very well educated and brilliant people hold strong religious beliefs. For example, religious people are quite fond of pointing out that the fact that many of the Founding Fathers had deeply held personal beliefs that closely resemble the ones being defended today. I don’t believe, and I’m sure most people on all sides would agree that our Founding Fathers were neither stupid nor ignorant on the basis of their religious beliefs. I believe that a more reasonable explanation is conceit.

Once you decide that the bible is the revealed word of the creator of the universe, then suddenly you know everything and are right about everything. Not that this is a trait unique to religious beliefs. There are many secularists who have a similar attitude, including some great scientists.

The saving grace of science is that anyone who claims to be a true scientist is required to question even their most deeply held beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Not so with beliefs based on faith. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Such people are required to hold onto their beliefs, especially in the face of contrary evidence. This is the essence of conceit.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 01:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“bulldog”]I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the premise that stupidity and ignorance is the explanation for an individual’s adamant support of religious beliefs that fly in the face of evidence.


The notion of religiostupidification goes the other way around—the idea is that religion (which functions very much like a virus) causes selective stupidity. That’s why you find believers with otherwise highly functional minds believing in obvious utter nonsense.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 02:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“SkepticX”]
The notion of religiostupidification goes the other way around—the idea is that religion (which functions very much like a virus) causes selective stupidity. That’s why you find believers with otherwise highly functional minds believing in obvious utter nonsense.

Do you believe that everything they believe is utter nonsense? I see many things in religious teachings that are to be commended, rather than ridiculed. Some things may appear stupid (e.g. opposition to stem cell research, the earth is only 6000 years old), but these positions are completely rational if you insist, as they do, that your fundamental beliefs are beyond question. Their “selective stupidity” is a necessary consequence of the conceit induced by their faith.

In this forum, the primary advocate of these religious belief has dubbed himself (herself?) TheChampion. If that isn’t conceit, then I need to find a new dictionary.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 02:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“bulldog”]Do you believe that everything they believe is utter nonsense?


That would preclude “selective”—no?
 
[quote author=“bulldog”]Their “selective stupidity” is a necessary consequence of the conceit induced by their faith.


Exactly. Though I’d argue that conceit is an integral part of faith rather than a cause or a result.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 03:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“SkepticX”][quote author=“bulldog”]Do you believe that everything they believe is utter nonsense?


That would preclude “selective”—no?

Agreed.

[quote author=“SkepticX”] 
[quote author=“bulldog”]Their “selective stupidity” is a necessary consequence of the conceit induced by their faith.


Exactly. Though I’d argue that conceit is an integral part of faith rather than a cause or a result.

Well put. It would seem that we are in agreement on this.

My main point of contention is simply that it seems counterproductive, not to mention disingenuous, to dismiss certain of the beliefs of religious people as mere stupidity. If you accept the premises that these beliefs are based on, then the conclusions are rational and fully justified, not stupid.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that the fallacies in their arguments seem blatantly obvious to me, to the point of blindness on their part, I nevertheless refrain from thinking of them as stupid. To do so tends to shut down any reasonable debate, as it should.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 03:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

Sorry. Forgot to log in again.

[quote author=“SkepticX”][quote author=“bulldog”]Do you believe that everything they believe is utter nonsense?


That would preclude “selective”—no?

Agreed.

[quote author=“SkepticX”]
[quote author=“bulldog”]Their “selective stupidity” is a necessary consequence of the conceit induced by their faith.


Exactly. Though I’d argue that conceit is an integral part of faith rather than a cause or a result.

Well put. It would seem that we are in agreement on this.

My main point of contention is simply that it seems counterproductive, not to mention disingenuous, to dismiss certain of the beliefs of religious people as mere stupidity. If you accept the premises that these beliefs are based on, then the conclusions are rational and fully justified, not stupid.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that the fallacies in their arguments seem blatantly obvious to me, to the point of blindness on their part, I nevertheless refrain from thinking of them as stupid. To do so tends to shut down any reasonable debate, as it should.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2005 03:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

My main point of contention is simply that it seems counterproductive, not to mention disingenuous, to dismiss certain of the beliefs of religious people as mere stupidity. If you accept the premises that these beliefs are based on, then the conclusions are rational and fully justified, not stupid.


Is it stupidity or is it simply denial? Or are they one in the same?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed