NEWS: Intelligent Design Opponent Hospitalized after Beating.

Originally posted by junglejake

This is really a sad situation when people resort to beating up on other people for their beliefs...

I wouldn't go that far, BH. I believe rape is wrong. If I saw someone raping someone else in an alley, I would (hopefully) head in that direction and proceed to beat someone up for that belief.

You would be beating someone up for his ACTION, not his belief. If he said, "I believe rape is ok" and you tore into him, then you'd be beating him up for his belief.

Just to clarify.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by mattison0922 It's a little difficult to believe that an intellectual controversy can become this heated.

Really, not even after the years of people being burnt at the stake, inquisitions, and the dark ages?

Religious belief has nothing to do with intellectuality. In my opinion religion today is almost the lack of intellectual behaviors. An intellectual is defined as:

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Neither of these really define the people here in my neck of the woods. Religion is based on faith and regurgitation instead of using one's brain to parse information.

People who are religious in this area accept that the Bible has all the answers and there is nothing more to talk about. Period. This coupled with the sound bite status of our TV and ADD type society in general creates humans incapable of real thought. Bill Hicks once said, "No, no. You've forgotten how to percieve correctly. Here, now look again." and there's the truth....Percpetion is king and it's all out of whack.

Oh, BTW, I believe in Intelligent Design so I'm not some eastern liberal who thinks that science is the answer. But I believe that in a Sitchenesque way instead of the unseen God wakes up and says "let there be light" and "it's on" from there forward way.


'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein

Are the actions of the attackers really surpising? These people that attacked the professor have shown the same behaviour as some extreme people involved in another heated debate - Roe vs. Wade. The only fundamental difference in this case is that they didn't actually resort to murder.

This is ridiculous. As far as the religion thing goes, I, personally have a lot of respect for these people and so should everybody else. To be able to ignore all the logic, science and reasoning in the universe with such dedication can't be easy. By the way, fundamentalist is pronounced with a silent "funda".

frayed1, I would say the last two posters on this thread pretty much justified my use of that word. So far as my command of the English language goes, there is none better suited.

Originally posted by soficrow
Deja vu. ...Did this same scenario play out somewhere else, for the same reason? Seems to me it did. As I said - deja vu, but no precise memory. Anyone else remember?

Did it have anything to do with "Bleeding Kansas"?

Originally posted by mattison0922Secondly, a couple of Redneck's with a chip on their shoulder, too much Milwaukee's Best before 7 am, and a pick up truck hardly represent 'the opposition.'

...Yet we're calling this group of people IDTists? Why are we erring on the side of intellectualism rather than religiosity by assuming they are IDTists and not Christians?

Zip

Hey JungleJake, what's the view like from up there on your high horse? Sorry dude, read a bit of Nietzsche and find out what religion's really for. You'll LOVE it

Hey guys. Let's get back on topic. This is a good subject - and it deserves respect. As does everyone here.

Dictionary.com has bigot as:

n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

n: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Now going by that definition I fail to see how anyone who is against Christian bigotry (intolerance) is a bigot themselves. If you're prejudiced against intolerant people that does not make you a bigot. Like if you refused to hang out with Klansmen, neo nazis, or people who fly the confederate flag that would not make you a bigot. If you refused to hang out with all white people, then you'd be a bigot.

Christianity on the other hand is bigoted from the very start. Christians beleive that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, that your willingness or unwillingness to accept Jesus determines whether you end up in heaven or hell for all eternity, and that everyone who doesn't accept Jesus is automatically condemned to Hell.

They are clearly strongly partial to their own religion, and intolerant (tolerant only for the purpose of trying to convert others to their religion) of those who differ from it. So intolerant in fact, that they beleive their God will send all people of other religions to Hell regardless of their karma simply for not being a Christian.

Sounds pretty damned bigoted to me.

Originally posted by Zipdot
...Yet we're calling this group of people IDTists? Why are we erring on the side of intellectualism rather than religiosity by assuming they are IDTists and not Christians?
Zip

I half way agree with you zip. We know nothing about these people or their motivations; their motivations are an unknown, until we know more, it's unsafe to assume a motive, Christian, IDist or otherwise.

man, there is alot of hatred on this thread. what is it about people of faith that get others so hot under the collar?

for those of you who are calling christians ignorant, how is it that you can find us in every walk of life? from doctors to scientists to air traffic controllers and pilots. all very highly educated professionals, and yet we are all ignorant because of our religious beliefs? who exactly are the ignorant ones here?

how about we end the name-calling and get back on topic? or is it impossible for some people to discuss religion without uttering nasty comments?

Well, call me devil's advocate here, and I never thought I'd be taking this position here, but something about this whole thing seems fishy.

Not that I don't think a couple Freepers wouldn't be above giving a beating to some "liberal intellectual" type, but doesn't it seem a little odd, the timing of it all? They just happened to know exactly who he was, his beliefs, and found him in the middle of nowhere? They were drunk enough to attack him, but not beat him within an inch of his life?

Come on.

I've gotten my Irish up a couple times, but those were spur of the moment things. These two guys are gonna stalk him, follow him, and then only rough him up a bit?

Hey, somebody may have very well taken a pop at him, flip a coin and the real story can go either way. If it's true, it's a set back for ID folks. But right now, for some strange reason, my gut is telling me "hoax".

I guess we'll see.

Originally posted by snafu7700
all very highly educated professionals, and yet we are all ignorant because of our religious beliefs? who exactly are the ignorant ones here?

Neither group of people is inherently "ignorant" or less intelligent or naive or any other such term. Nor is either group superior to the other. This kind of pointless division doesn't get anyone closer to God or science, right?

We're talking about a man receiving a beat-down for his rude public denouncement of IDT. Clearly, this debate incites people in rare way, inspiring acts of recklessness as if the destiny of humanity is at stake. What drives this kind of behaviour? IDT and evolutionary theory are arguably both based in a foundation of logic and reason. Where are these principles to be found among the supporters?

Is this fight in the realm of the everyman? IDT and evolutionary theory appear to be so completely misunderstood by so many people that it really makes one wonder whether more education is indeed in order.

Zip

I bet he was drinking, got in an arguement, they beat him up, and he used the christian cover to make himself a hero and further "demonize" creationism

Originally posted by mrjones
I bet he was drinking, got in an arguement, they beat him up, and he used the christian cover to make himself a hero and further "demonize" creationism

It was 6:30 in the morning and he was on his way to breakfast in a car. If he had been drunk, it would probably have been a part of the story.

I find it suspicious that he got out of his car as 2 aggressive strangers approached on foot on a rural road in the early morning. I would have taken off, but I don't know this guy. He sounds like a jerk anyway.

I'm tellin ya, it don't add up.
6am, rural road, 2 random strangers, all based on his account, no wittnesses???

I still say he said the worng thing to the worng person and scapegoated creationism for his beating.

It was probably 1 guy in a bar room fight, he claimed 2 so he wouldn't sound like a wuss.
The time frame is all relative since it was all his account.
It could have happened at 2am when the bar closed and it took him that long to get treatment
For that matter it could have been that the event never happened and he just made it all up to make those who believe in creationism look like bullies that refuse to listen to reason.

There are many things about the universe and physics that we have little to no comprehension of.
We are learning at an astounding rate I admit, but we have yet to form a true unified theory of everything.
Newtonian physics break down when you leave earth
Classical physics break down when you go to the sub atomic
Quantom physics break down inside black holes

We are getting closer, yet we still have yet to find the underlying theory that unifies everything.
It is entirely possibly that the creationists could be right.
The big bang theory doesn't work when you take into account the cosmic microwave background which is pretty much uniform all through space.
If the universe suddenly poped into existance at one point then there would be waves of sorts, ripples if you will, in the background.
However it is not rippled, it is infact almost completely uniform.
This leads to the idea that the universe suddenly poped into existance at several points all at once.

Acoms Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
It is much easier to say god created it IMO

I have listened to reason and find a very compelling case for both sides.
Based on the fact that my belief of either theory will never be of any consiquence to the rest of the universe, I choose not to care how we got here. Personally, I believe in god and he created the universe.
If you dont then good for you!
My best friends are a pagan and an agnostic who happen to date each other!
Both seem to believe in evolution and i dont fault them for it because neither of us can prove our claims, and neither of us really cares!
We are here and we should do the best we can with what we got.
Squabbling only leads to hate which leads to death
Did you people learn nothing from Yoda??

See beyond what people are and see who they are

Originally posted by soficrow
Deja vu. ...Did this same scenario play out somewhere else, for the same reason? Seems to me it did. As I said - deja vu, but no precise memory. Anyone else remember?

I kind of remember something alone the lines but I am having trouble finding the spot.

Yes. . . I think I will remember by tomorrow . . .

Originally posted by junglejake
frayed1, I would say the last two posters on this thread pretty much justified my use of that word. So far as my command of the English language goes, there is none better suited.

Perhaps, but you refered to the alleged attackers as " a few individuals", yet you jump directly to bigot for those who lump all fundamentalist into one group......I still think that qualifies as a form of 'egging'.

"Biased, unfair, predisposed or prejudiced individuals" would have been a more comparable choice, IMO, since you were showing restraint in calling the possible perpetrators of violence only "a few individuals". Even "closeminded" or " narrow minded" would have been more suitable ( So far as my command of the English language goes.)....without overly emphasizing ones own bias.

Bigot is defined by the dictionary as: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. A few synonyms listed in my thesaurus: extremist, fanatic, jingoist, persecutor, hooligan, hun, ignoramus, lout, militant....

While, it did not say, " Those who, however wrongly, assign the personality of a few to the entire group", I suppose it could be used to describe a passive way of 'thinking'....though it seems to convey a more 'active', a more violent or extreme bent.....

The dictionary also continues to say the word itself originates from the 15th century Old French, when bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” and was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

In this sense....and within the modern definition, the use of the word bigot would more aptly apply to the allgeded attackers, not so much to the people who think the attackers represent the whole group of pro ID people.

And any argument worth it's salt should be able to stand alone, without name calling....even if the names are considered to be definitively correct.
.