On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
> mean.

But they can't math. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their own 
> religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes sense. The 
> laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion", and it's 
> *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious that they'd 
> spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything they knew behind 
> in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as they liked.

  I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic
(most people who moved there were poor, who were after a better life and
better opportunities).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
>    I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
> significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
> reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic

Initially, much of the immigration in (say) the later 1500's and early 
1600's (i.e., after it was not too hard to survive but before it was what 
you'd call crowded), much of it was based on philosophies.

After that, sure, it was the land of opportunity. When people were regularly 
starving during the winter, not so much. :-)

At least, that's what we're taught here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
> for religious reasons.

Remember too that the time period we're talking about, the churches had 
*much* more political power in Europe than they do now.
-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:04:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 8:57, Warp wrote:
>>    Many people have wondered if there's a causality link.
> 
> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their
> own religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes
> sense. The laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion",
> and it's *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious
> that they'd spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything
> they knew behind in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as
> they liked.

That's what I recall as well - the first British settlers were the 
Pilgrims (as I recall) who were trying to escape the state mandated 
religion because they didn't agree with it.

But it was a mix of religious and economic reasons.  The thing that it 
seems many on the extreme right never learned or seem to have forgotten 
is that many of the founders were not religious - but Jefferson, Adams, 
and Franklin (in particular) are elevated to being some sort of "3 more 
disciples of Jesus" when in fact their beliefs were secular (and that's 
pretty well documented).

It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when 
Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson, 
Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they have 
no grasp of history.

<sarcasm>But hey, the US public education system is the best in the 
world.  That's why we can afford to cut funds for it.</sarcasm>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when 
> Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson, 
> Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they have 
> no grasp of history.

  It's sad when using argument from authority by referencing famous people
who really were believers is not enough, but they have to fabricate faith
even on outspoken atheists, just because they are well known. (I have seen
several times people seriously claiming that Einstein believed in the
Christian God, completely disregarding and ignoring the fact that Einstein
explicitly and expressly stated several times that he did not. He used the
word "God" sometimes in the pantheistic sense, meaning the same as
"universe".)

  (It often also works in the other direction: Historical people who were
religious are claimed to have been atheists, for the sole reason that they
did bad things.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 5:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 9:12, Warp wrote:
>> for religious reasons.
>
> Remember too that the time period we're talking about, the churches had
> *much* more political power in Europe than they do now.

We were taught that it was to escape religious intolerance and oppression.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>    Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
>

The main problem with the creationists, is that they comfound theory and 
dogma.
I propose a theory, you chalenge it, comfront it with your experiments 
and observations. If it pass, we have explained something and have a 
beter understanding of the world. If it don't pass, we continue 
observing and experimenting until we find a beter theory.

I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts 
that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until 
they fit.


Another problem is that they stubornly refuse to acknolege the time 
frame and the gigantic life pool implied in evolution.

They want to go from primitive proto-live cells to human in under 10000 
years, some say 5000 years from Earth formation to now... In fact, we 
are talking about some 2 to 4 billions years. We are talking of 
population pool also in 100's of billions for unicellular organisms. 
With generation times that can be as short as 20 minutes...

With those numbers, probabilities in the order of 0.000001% tend to look 
as 100%.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/12 19:10, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>> bullshit,
>
> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>
> Jim

They take beleif over knowlege because they thing that the beleif IS 
proven knowlege, and actual knowlege is suputations and dreamings or 
even some kind of fraud.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 5:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
>> mean.
>
> But they can't math. ;)
>
> Jim

In that case they can F' off ;-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message