Asshole of the century!
Enough said.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Pat May Be Right!! The End Must Be Near!
Lately, Pat Robertson has been in the news for spouting a lot of vile garbage. Nothing new there. But maybe, gulp...I really hate this....maybe Pat is right... this one time...maybe. There...I said it... hopefully for the last time in my life. Whew...what an awful taste that leaves in your mouth!!
Pat, and even Franklin Graham, have accused Islam of being an evil religion. I wouldn't quite go that far, but they do have a point. When a group that claims to be acting on behalf of Muslim people and following Muslim religious practices continues to use terrorism as a daily aspect of life and virtually NO ONE in there religion condemns them, what are we to think.
If these individuals are not doing Allah's work, then why aren't more Muslims - vast numbers of Muslims - openly reprimanding them for their actions. Standing by and saying nothing makes you an accomplice. I would think that letting a small group paint a negative picture of your religion would piss a few people off, but it seems only a very small few. What can Muslims expect the world to think? More people need to sound off like Dr. Wafa Sultan, but Muslims, not simple people of Middle Eastern background.
When the adherents of a religion stand back silently and say nothing while their religion is portrayed as a violent, evil force, perhaps they are, in fact, speaking loudly. Perhaps what they are saying is that they don't see a problem - that they agree with terrorism.
The deafening silence of this group lends support to Pat's statements. If he's wrong (and I truly hope he is -- I wouldn't want to ruin his losing streak), then Muslims the world over need to condemn the actions of a few and do it LOUDLY and CONTINUALLY. If they fail to do so, then we have to consider the possibility that the religion truly is evil and act appropriately.
As'salam Alaikum
Pat, and even Franklin Graham, have accused Islam of being an evil religion. I wouldn't quite go that far, but they do have a point. When a group that claims to be acting on behalf of Muslim people and following Muslim religious practices continues to use terrorism as a daily aspect of life and virtually NO ONE in there religion condemns them, what are we to think.
If these individuals are not doing Allah's work, then why aren't more Muslims - vast numbers of Muslims - openly reprimanding them for their actions. Standing by and saying nothing makes you an accomplice. I would think that letting a small group paint a negative picture of your religion would piss a few people off, but it seems only a very small few. What can Muslims expect the world to think? More people need to sound off like Dr. Wafa Sultan, but Muslims, not simple people of Middle Eastern background.
When the adherents of a religion stand back silently and say nothing while their religion is portrayed as a violent, evil force, perhaps they are, in fact, speaking loudly. Perhaps what they are saying is that they don't see a problem - that they agree with terrorism.
The deafening silence of this group lends support to Pat's statements. If he's wrong (and I truly hope he is -- I wouldn't want to ruin his losing streak), then Muslims the world over need to condemn the actions of a few and do it LOUDLY and CONTINUALLY. If they fail to do so, then we have to consider the possibility that the religion truly is evil and act appropriately.
As'salam Alaikum
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Unscientific Design
The recent court case involving the inclusion of Intelligent Design in Dover, PA science classes is yet another attempt to masquerade religion as science. While it may be suitable to discuss these issues in a philosophy or religion class, it is not appropriate for a science class. Intelligent Design is not science. It’s not even bad science. In fact, the basic premise of Intelligent Design is anti-scientific in nature.
Science attempts to explain the world through the rigorous analysis of observational data, peer review, and repetition of experiments. If experiments or new data prove that the original hypothesis is incorrect, theories are refined, adjusted, or perhaps discarded altogether. The process is not flawless. A rare few, either intentionally or through willful ignorance, will falsify, withhold, or otherwise fudge information. The process of science, however, eventually weeds these individuals out and reevaluates the results. The relentless pursuit of the truth marches on.
Unfortunately, it is only with rare exception(Buddhism being the prime example), that religion is as open minded. In general, religion is based on established, inalterable, supposedly infallible dogma. The practioners and proclaimers are more concerned about the propagation of propaganda than the pursuit of the truth. It is assumed that the Truth is already known. Such is the case with Intelligent Design.
Science and religion, although they view the world from different perspectives, should have the same goal of discovering the truth. Sometimes the search for scientific explanations must be put on hold while new techniques or technology catch up to the needs of the researcher, but the inexorable quest for the truth continues.
Intelligent Design starts its exploration of the truth by giving up. It assumes that the universe is simply too complex to have occurred without the help of a creator. It doesn’t attempt to use any form of scientific investigation. It simply assumes that humanity lacks the creative capacity to understand how the universe and life came to be and that we will always be in the dark about the matter. What if we had applied this approach to other issues of the past? We all would have been taught that the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the universe. All of the knowledge gained through the efforts of explorers of the truth such as Curie, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, and a myriad of others less well known would never have made its way into our classrooms. What kind of science is based on holding to the status quo?
Nothing called science deserves the name unless it is open to truth and willing to change in the face of new information. Likewise, religion should be open to truth and willing to change when information contrary to established doctrine is uncovered. Any religion unwilling to do so is unworthy of following. Intelligent Design fails on both counts, scientific and religious.
Science attempts to explain the world through the rigorous analysis of observational data, peer review, and repetition of experiments. If experiments or new data prove that the original hypothesis is incorrect, theories are refined, adjusted, or perhaps discarded altogether. The process is not flawless. A rare few, either intentionally or through willful ignorance, will falsify, withhold, or otherwise fudge information. The process of science, however, eventually weeds these individuals out and reevaluates the results. The relentless pursuit of the truth marches on.
Unfortunately, it is only with rare exception(Buddhism being the prime example), that religion is as open minded. In general, religion is based on established, inalterable, supposedly infallible dogma. The practioners and proclaimers are more concerned about the propagation of propaganda than the pursuit of the truth. It is assumed that the Truth is already known. Such is the case with Intelligent Design.
Science and religion, although they view the world from different perspectives, should have the same goal of discovering the truth. Sometimes the search for scientific explanations must be put on hold while new techniques or technology catch up to the needs of the researcher, but the inexorable quest for the truth continues.
Intelligent Design starts its exploration of the truth by giving up. It assumes that the universe is simply too complex to have occurred without the help of a creator. It doesn’t attempt to use any form of scientific investigation. It simply assumes that humanity lacks the creative capacity to understand how the universe and life came to be and that we will always be in the dark about the matter. What if we had applied this approach to other issues of the past? We all would have been taught that the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the universe. All of the knowledge gained through the efforts of explorers of the truth such as Curie, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, and a myriad of others less well known would never have made its way into our classrooms. What kind of science is based on holding to the status quo?
Nothing called science deserves the name unless it is open to truth and willing to change in the face of new information. Likewise, religion should be open to truth and willing to change when information contrary to established doctrine is uncovered. Any religion unwilling to do so is unworthy of following. Intelligent Design fails on both counts, scientific and religious.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
It seems pretty clear that those who favor teaching Intelligent Design in public schools don't understand what science is. Science deals with the natural world and natural processes. Science works by sifting through evidence, proposing theories, and gathering more evidence to either support or reject the original hypothesis. Intelligent Design offers no verifiable proof and is unwilling to alter its position based on new evidence.
By definition, any Creator would have to have worked through supernatural activities. Science will never prove whether God exists or not and science cannot confirm Intelligent Design. The two areas are mutually exclusive. Science may eventually fill in all of the gaps in evolutionary theory, but it still doesn't mean Intelligent Design is incorrect. Or science may never get a rock solid handle on evolution, but that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is correct.
There is no science in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply assumes that because science cannot currently answer all of the questions, that the universe is beyond our ability to understand because a "god" created it. It assumes that we mere mortals are incapable of putting together the pieces and solving this puzzle. What if we had gone along with this in the past and decided to give up on certain aspects of science? We would still think that the universe orbits the flat earth and that flies spontaneously appear in roadkill. We would have ignored progress in all fields of science and medicine because the problems appeared to intractable at the time.
Intelligent Design supporters simply say that if we can't give an answer NOW, then they must be right. That's like me asking a five year old to explain how a microwave works and when they can't tell me, I insist that my explanation (i.e., invisible radioactive hamsters on a treadmill) MUST be the right one. I have no proof (after all they're invisible), but they can't give me a provable answer NOW. It's not that they won't eventually be capable of understanding microwave radiation, rotational modes in water molecules, and other aspects of the process, its just that they currently don't have the necessary tools (education in this case) to discover the truth.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I'm willing to accept that it could be correct; it's just not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do believe in some form of evolution, but it could ultimately prove to be totally unlike the process that we currently accept. If another theory proves to be more in line with reality I will accept it. Are those who support Intelligent Design willing to be as open minded? So far, the evidence seems slim.
Let's leave science in the science classroom and religion (veiled as science) in the religion and philosophy classrooms.
By definition, any Creator would have to have worked through supernatural activities. Science will never prove whether God exists or not and science cannot confirm Intelligent Design. The two areas are mutually exclusive. Science may eventually fill in all of the gaps in evolutionary theory, but it still doesn't mean Intelligent Design is incorrect. Or science may never get a rock solid handle on evolution, but that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is correct.
There is no science in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply assumes that because science cannot currently answer all of the questions, that the universe is beyond our ability to understand because a "god" created it. It assumes that we mere mortals are incapable of putting together the pieces and solving this puzzle. What if we had gone along with this in the past and decided to give up on certain aspects of science? We would still think that the universe orbits the flat earth and that flies spontaneously appear in roadkill. We would have ignored progress in all fields of science and medicine because the problems appeared to intractable at the time.
Intelligent Design supporters simply say that if we can't give an answer NOW, then they must be right. That's like me asking a five year old to explain how a microwave works and when they can't tell me, I insist that my explanation (i.e., invisible radioactive hamsters on a treadmill) MUST be the right one. I have no proof (after all they're invisible), but they can't give me a provable answer NOW. It's not that they won't eventually be capable of understanding microwave radiation, rotational modes in water molecules, and other aspects of the process, its just that they currently don't have the necessary tools (education in this case) to discover the truth.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I'm willing to accept that it could be correct; it's just not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do believe in some form of evolution, but it could ultimately prove to be totally unlike the process that we currently accept. If another theory proves to be more in line with reality I will accept it. Are those who support Intelligent Design willing to be as open minded? So far, the evidence seems slim.
Let's leave science in the science classroom and religion (veiled as science) in the religion and philosophy classrooms.
Pat Robertson
As an atheist, I don't believe in heaven and hell; but if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll have a nice, warm room in hell awaiting me. Not that I'm a wild sinner, but it seems that God is more interested in worship and praise than actions. But there is one comforting thought; if I'm going to hell, I'm certain that Pat Robertson will be there making me laugh. Some things never change even in hell.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
What Happened to Freedom of Religion?
A Marion County, Indiana judge's unusual order prohibits a divorced couple from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The parents are Wiccans, members of a neo-pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.
It's unbelieveable that in the 21st Century, a court can decide what religious exposure is best for a child despite the agreement of both parents on what it should be.
Hopefully, the appeal will be reviewed by a judge without a personal agenda and this blatantly unconstitutional decision will be reversed.
It's unbelieveable that in the 21st Century, a court can decide what religious exposure is best for a child despite the agreement of both parents on what it should be.
Hopefully, the appeal will be reviewed by a judge without a personal agenda and this blatantly unconstitutional decision will be reversed.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Rev. Lovelace Should Be Flushed
Rev. Creighton Lovelace, minister of the Danieltown Baptist Church in Forest City, North Carolina, put up a sign at his church that states "The Koran needs to be flushed." I submit that it is Mr. Lovelace who needs to be flushed --- flushed from his church by his congregation.
We live in a country with religious freedom. You don't have to agree with or follow another person's religion, but you should at least show it and them some modicum of respect. As a non-Christian, the Bible is no more than "just another book" to me. How would Mr. Lovelace respond to a sign in my yard saying that the Bible should be flushed? I doubt he would be as tolerant of that behavior.
Mr. Lovelace is showing ignorance and intolerance of a level which is inexcusable as a church leader. Instead of promoting a positive message on his church signboard, he has to resort to bashing another religion. These are the tactics of those who can't defend their own religion on its own merits.
Obviously, Mr. Lovelace's congregation can do as it pleases, but if that kind of behavior was going on at a church I attended, I'd move to have him fired.
We live in a country with religious freedom. You don't have to agree with or follow another person's religion, but you should at least show it and them some modicum of respect. As a non-Christian, the Bible is no more than "just another book" to me. How would Mr. Lovelace respond to a sign in my yard saying that the Bible should be flushed? I doubt he would be as tolerant of that behavior.
Mr. Lovelace is showing ignorance and intolerance of a level which is inexcusable as a church leader. Instead of promoting a positive message on his church signboard, he has to resort to bashing another religion. These are the tactics of those who can't defend their own religion on its own merits.
Obviously, Mr. Lovelace's congregation can do as it pleases, but if that kind of behavior was going on at a church I attended, I'd move to have him fired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
