Who’s doing the demonizing? I suppose you live south of the 49th, but Athiests who refrain from thrusting an agenda on others (and yes, lots of religious folks do do that) do not get very much flack here. Nor do Sihks, Buddhists or Unitarians. These sects do not, and this is where it might be instructional to your group to sit up and pay attention, construct websites with the single clear purpose being to discredit spiritual people. You are disrespectful and frankly, not too evolved. The rest of the world is striving to move toward to-ler-ance and you’d be well advised to follow suit. I don’t wear a turban, carry a hymn book, wear a cross, a ceremonial sword, I don’t wear blessed underwear or confer with tree goods but I do know that we’d all be better off saying, “I agree to disagree” and cease and desist with campaigns to uncover someone else’s faith as a sham. I think defamation is the word you’re looking for, as opposed to demonisation, unless whereever you’re from really IS the way it’s depicted in South Park (I thought it was a parody!) no one is “DEMONISING” intellectual curiousity,…that’s called ‘science’.

Your logic is not up to snuff. So, if this is not in the name of humour, it’s in the name of logic. Excuse me while I go and ponder that disconnect. There are many, many illogical things that happen in the world with amazing regularity. Does that necessitate a campaign to discredit it? One example, so many people gorge on fastfood that obesity is an epidemic. —> Therefore we should start a campaign to uncover their stupidity and shame them into more informed behaviour while acting as laugh material for the rest of us non-fatties. (the ones who know “the truth” about food)

Have you ever heard of relativism? Do you know that the chances are very, very good that Jesus, the Bhudda (arguably several incarnations) and Muhhomed (sp?) all walked the earth?
-Meichan

A distinction:

I appreciate what you’re saying, and I think it’s important to hear. In writing with such wry and caustic humour, you’re able to really effectively reveal the absurdity of what’s happened. There is a difference, however, between parody and ridicule. At points your sarcasm (“one third time for logical conjecture,” etc.) becomes quite harsh and implies that the religious view denies logic and reasoning wholesale.

You’re dealing with something that, more than being a “precious belief” per se, is an important part of many people’s identity. Many define themselves, not just peripherally, but primarily as “Christians.” Attacking that belief system without at least giving it some hint of respect or sensitivity is akin to mocking a person’s chosen lifestyle, personality, or preferences as not just different but illogical and wrong. You can’t in one section write ironically about the deductive demerits of believing in written scripture as a priori truth and then claim to avoid attacking the very heart of a person’s belief system and philosophical identity. You have literally brought the very basis of not only Christian teaching but religious belief in general into question, and in a fairly patronising and uncompromising way.

I’m not asking you to “present both sides” or any equally bullshit measure. But I am asking you to be empathetic. When criticising the core of a person’s self-identity (what they believe in), it’s important to be a little more humane.

Ryan

Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.

Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.

I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.

Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.

I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.

Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.

-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician

[this message was left as a comment on another thread]

flying spaghetti monster? Are you kidding me? I don’t think there’s any documents or books that date back as far as the Bible and are as accurate as the Bible. Try reading the book of Job. There’s so many things mentioned in that book alone that could not have been known by people, unless God brought it to light. Fresh water springs feeding oceans, deep trenches in the oceans, dinosaurs(40-42), yes dinosaurs not whales or hippos; many of these things we didn’t know until much, much later.
-erin