Was that an argument?

It looked more like a public service announcement for the santity of humanity.

I trust the scientists.

And the Bible has been rewritten plenty of times.

I trust the one that gets rewritten when new evidence becomes apparant rather than the one that was fkd up a few thousand years ago and stayed that way, in spite of new evidence.

THANK YOU 'FERAL'!!!

That is a perfect example of a dogmatic, empty vessel, oxymoronic statement which FUNDAMENTALISTS MENTORS train their apologetic puppets to throw out when the 'fear of burning in hell forever' no longer does the trick.

What part of '... faith and science do not connect...' do you not understand 'Feral' !?!?!?

Don't you get at least a 'tiny...little itsy...bitsy...hintsy' as you would say, that you are riding up the wrong pole here???

Don't you get 'Feral' that IF biology suggested that eveything is subjected to 'Evolution' EXPECT FOR MANKIND!!! We wouldn't be having this conversation???

Don't you get that the problem here is that fundamentalists insist on a HUMAN-CENTRIC UNIVERSE, ... where man somehow would be the crown jewel of the universe, and THIS HUMAN CROWN JEWEL somehow worked independently of the rest of the universe, escpaed its workings, and laws, and only answered to a 2 000 year book of fables which declares it a creation of a specific god!?!?!?

If you wish to believe that 'Feral', it is entirely your prerogative.

When you confuse it with FACT however, it becomes a delusion, and you and your few fundamentalist friends are the only ones whom aren't in on the joke!!!

While the 'human-centric' notion is a very natural and most PRIMITIVE INSCTINCT to view our existence, we as a race have 'EVOLVED' enough to realize that we are not at the centre of the universe, IN SPITE OF OUR IMPERFECT 'SELF-AWARE' EXCLUSIVE NEO-CORTEX!!!

So, let's recapitulate.

We've got our 4 DESTRUCTIVE ASPECTS of the FUNDAMENTALIST-PROSELYTIZING ways...

1 - HOW FUNDAMENTALISM PROMOTES (proselytizes) IGNORANCE!!!

2 - HOW FUNDAMENTALISM IS DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE MOST PRIMITIVE EG0-CENTRIC, AND SELF-SERVING TENDENCIES IN HUMAN BEINGS.

3 - HOW FUNDAMENTALISM DENIES THE POWER OF GOD!!!

4 - HOW US FUNDAMENTALISM IS A FORCE FOR EVIL IN US SOCIETY
How Should Fundamentalism Be Fought?

Well 'Feral', it is time, you have deserved it, you have shown a sincere and desperate, however confused, desire to REPENT and CHANGE YOUR WAYS,

SO HERE IS YOUR ONLY WAY TO SALVATION 'FERAL':

FUNDAMENTALISM IS EVIL, AND THIS EVIL CAN ONLY BE FOUGHT THROUGH EDUCATION!!! (the root of educate, is to eradicate the primitive and barbarian in us!!!)

It is obvious that the best innoculant (tokeep with the 'virus' metaphor) against any form of ignorance is education.
And make no mistake, fundamentalism is a form of SPECTACULAR INGNORANCE, ignorance of the BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TRUE RELIGION, TRUE SPIRITUALITY.

It is no coincidence that fundamentalism has arisen in America at the same time that the public education system has collapsed. And it is also no coincidence that fundamentalism is strongest in America and elsewhere in the world wherever the educational system is at its weakest.

WHAT IS THE BEST FORM OF EDUCATION?

CRITITICAL THINKING SKILLS!!!
It is the most important skill any educator can teach. With it, the fundamentalism's deceiving tricks are quickly exposed, and it is seen for what it is.

Students need to be taught the importance of gathering the evidence and then proceeding to the conclusion, not the other way around.

The best way to teach logic, reason and critical thinking skills is with the "Socratic method" of guided discussion. This should be done beginning in the earliest grade, and by the fourth year, the formal elements of logic and reason can be introduced, so that students have a guide in recognizing and rejecting fallacious thinking. Doing this with rigor and consistency throughout the educational process will lead to a generation that will think independently as a matter of habit, rather than accepting pre-digested doctrines blindly such as 'INTELLIGENT FALLING', the latest in ludicrous fundamentalist argument against GRAVITY!!!

Imagine, 'INTELLIGENT FALLING'!!!

HAVE THEY NO SHAME!!!

It would be helpful too, to teach what true religion really is. Once the student is aware of the nature of true religion, the fundamentalist doesn't stand a chance, because the logical weakness of his doctrine becomes obvious and the devious subtlety of its appeals are exposed.

The other effective way to fight fundamentalism is to teach HUMILITY.

Here 'Feral', you'll have to consider dropping this 'speaking as though it was god's only and exclusive truth'!!! Lacks humility BIG TIME!

Without HUMILITY, Spiritual progress is impossible.

And without HUMILITY, combined to critical thinking skills, allowing to distinguish between faith and science, scientific progress is impossible .

I'm not suggesting students should be humiliated for their beliefs -- not at all.
That's child abuse and should be fought vigorously.

But the value of humility should be taught, so that students understand that they can't maintain an open mind in the absence of humility. They'll gain a lot from learning it, not just academically, but in relationships and social skills, too.

Perhaps the best way to check the progress of fundamentalism is with critical, analytical thinking. If every school taught the basics of critical thinking, learning would flourish and fundamentalism would fade.

FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS LACK SCHOLARLY RIGOR, AND IN THEIR RUSH TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE COVERING ALL THE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE DOTRINES THEY PREACH, THEY OFTEN COMMIT GROSS ERRORS IN LOGIC. TO WIT:

- FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. They point, for example, to the fact that an honest scientist will refuse to make a statement from a position of certainty, while they're happy to do so, claiming divine knowledge. This is an example of the straw-man fallacy.

- FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong. An example here is the claim, occasionally heard, that Newton was proven wrong in some important details, Einstein was eventually proven wrong in a few details, and scientists admit that they don't have the final answers and therefore science doesn't know what it's doing, and can't be trusted. This is a NON-SEQUITOR FALLACY.

- FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position. A favorite here is the various quotations of Einstein, usually referring to God, suggesting that Einstein believed in the same sort of God they do. Einstein most emphatically did not, as will be obvious if you read his essay on the subject. This is the FALLACY OF SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE.

- FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. For example, rather than debate the legitimacy of the interpretation of specific fossil evidence, vis a vis evolution, they often attack paleontology in general, claiming it to be an invalid science. This is the FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION.

- FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGISTS focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasizing data that fits and discounting data that does not fit. An example is the claim that science simply doesn't have an answer as to the age of the universe. True enough, but science has solid, reliable evidence that it is more than the seven thousand years that these same fundamentalists claim.This is again the FALLACY OF SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE.

On an interesting note, in reading 'Carl Sagan', in his last book, 'The Demon Haunted World', gives us some excellent tools for the use in the process of critical thinking. Nothing new, but always a useful refresher. In a nutshell, here are the key points I pulled out:

- Where possible, what is claimed to be factual has to be independently confirmable by two or more sources not in league with each other.

- Debate and argument must be encouraged, not stifled.

There's no such thing as an "authority." They've been wrong in the past and will be in the future. Which means they're wrong now.

- More than one hypothesis is needed to stimulate debate. All points of view should be examined equally and with as little bias as possible.

- Don't get emotionally attached to your own hypothesis (faith?). Doing so blinds you to better ideas.

- Quantifiable hypotheses are better than qualitative ones, because they are more testable. In other words, go for testable hypotheses first because untestable qualitative ones are of little value.

- If there's a chain of logic that supports an argument, every link in that chain must be valid and unbroken.

- Go for simplicity. Occam's Razor states that of the competing hypotheses that explain the data equally well, the one most likely to be correct is the one that makes the least number of assumptions and is the least complicated.

- Hypotheses that can't be experimentally disproven aren't worth much. For a hypothesis to be useful, it has to be testable, which means it must be capable of being disproven if wrong. Skeptics have to be able to follow your arguments, do your experiments and be capable of producing the same experimental results if your hypothesis is to be considered correct.

You see 'Feral', this is the checklist against which you will be in a position to redeem yourself, and save all other ingnorant fundamentalists that have been trapped in this MISSION OF DECEIT!!!

EDUCATE!

CRITICAL THINKING!

HUMILITY!

I trust you shall be saved 'Feral', and will soon empower your intrinsinc sense for what is 'good'!!!

Who knows, maybe we'll have REAL OPEN MINDED AND NURTURING DEBATES, freed-up from fundamentalist-dogmatic conclusions before they start.

One can dream!

And one can believe without evidence!!!

yea right ok....except if wasn't exactly what it was supposed to be poof God would of made it gone...hmmmmmm

yea right ok....except if wasn't exactly what it was supposed to be poof God would of made it gone...hmmmmmm

All I see is blah blah blah same crap different day. It's weak at best...

Back in the dark ages when to write a book took a tremendous amount of time and work and talent the written word was held in very high regard.

Hence the phrase: "IT IS WRITTEN...."

That was the cry of the priests who portended to be agents of God because only they were privy to what was written. Not many people knew how to read or write back then, so a book was a marvel to behold and hear read.

But after the invention of the printing press books were available to everyone. Still the printing companies laid each letter into its place one by one by hand to make a word and finally an entire page. So books were still held in very high regard, and to be an author was a great thing indeed.

But today, anyone with a computer and a printer can author their own book, so writing and reading is a common thing.

So to declare the cry: "IT IS WRITTEN...." is a dim and dying echo from the past meant to give power to the written word, but that it is written actually has no meaning in the present. Lies and stories can be written as well as truth even in ancient times.

So sayeth the word of the high priestess.

All I see is blah blah blah same crap different day. It's weak at best...

I have my doubts that your poof god has that ability.

What is weak? Scientific evidence?

If that is what you call 'weak' then the Bible's claim that God talked to men in the Bible and incited wars, and had sex with a virgin and bore a son... well, that's just -- lame.