About warning labels on book like in the US

[MrFun]

@ the OP






funny stuff -- thanks for the laugh

[MrFun]

I saved a copy of that picture for future use in some future threads.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its the property of Fundamentalist Christianity, INC, which seems to suit both the fundamentalists AND the secularists.

They are far more dangerous than you to me. While Jewish fundimentalism might provoke Islamic fundimenatlists to try and kill me, the Jewish fundimentalists themselves aren't trying to take my freedom away.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They are far more dangerous than you to me. While Jewish fundimentalism might provoke Islamic fundimenatlists to try and kill me, the Jewish fundimentalists themselves aren't trying to take my freedom away.

and you think that mocking the bible is going to protect your freedoms from the fundies? More likely its just going to alienate the millions of religious people, both Jewish and Christian, who are your potential allies.

Nah, this aint about political pragmatics. Identifying the bible with the fundies suits the fundies and the secularists by increasing their numbers at the expense of the alternatives between.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think the Koran should be flushed down the toilet.

After a good dump.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Because fundies say stupid things about evolution, that justifies other folks saying stupid things about the bible?

Well, much of the sticker is perfectly true (I can't tell for everything, because I didn't read the Bible entirely). I wouldn't call it "stupid", but "provocative".

In matter of sheer stupidity, it's not like the lies and ignorance spouted by the creationists. However, I do agree it's not political pragmatism, and such move won't help with the rising problem of religion in the US.

[Nostromo]

[Boris Godunov]

Those were personal observations of mine on a related issue, you do still allow us to make those, hmm?

How is it a related issue? This is a joke making fun of zealots trying to push their worldview on others. You responded with a defensive "LIBERULS LUV ISLAM OVER XTIANITY!" post, but then quoted an article that says nothing of the kind. I'm struck by your curious definition of "relevant."

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Because fundies say stupid things about evolution, that justifies other folks saying stupid things about the bible?

Whatever.

Hey, here's a difference:

Fundies are trying to force their stupid things to be taught to kids in public schools. The picture above is a joke that's making a parody of them.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by lord of the mark
Genesis doesn't discuss the survival of the fittest, but, as you well know, the Darwin's scientific creation story does. That story's operative principle of the survival of the fittest became known as Social Darwinism, which taught that only the truly gifted deserve to survive. It is unfortunate that this teaching has become an axiom of modern life.

The good rabbi is incorrect: Darwinism and Social Darwinism are not related, except the peopel who already had racist opinions coopted the term from Darwin to give their ideals some sort of scientific merit. Nothing in Darwinism teaches that anything "deserves" to survive or perish.

In contrast, our Jewish tradition has always taught that we are responsible for the survival of the least fit: the orphan, the poor, the lonely, and the stranger, to name just a few. And in Genesis 1:27 we are told that every single human being is divinely gifted and deserving of dignity.

Nothing about Darwinism is in conflict to this. Darwin himself explained in his works (and others after have also written on it) that altruism and compassion for the less fortunate are completely compatible with Darwinian scientific theory.

[Zoid]

Winston, don´t you have trouble walking with that big stick up your ass?

[Riesstiu IV]

That label is a good idea but I would go even further. If I ran America I would immediately declare myself god Emperor and disband congress. All religions except for emperor worship would be banned.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The good rabbi is incorrect: Darwinism and Social Darwinism are not related, except the peopel who already had racist opinions coopted the term from Darwin to give their ideals some sort of scientific merit. Nothing in Darwinism teaches that anything "deserves" to survive or perish.



Nothing about Darwinism is in conflict to this. Darwin himself explained in his works (and others after have also written on it) that altruism and compassion for the less fortunate are completely compatible with Darwinian scientific theory.

He also, according to some, was a deist, who beleived in God, though not in Christianity or the bible. This is disputed though, IIUC, and depends on interpretation of certain remarks.

As for Social Darwinism not being true Darwinism, many of the key advocates of Darwinism were Social Darwinists. Did they adopt Darwin to a preexisting racism, and in so doing distort Darwinism? Perhaps, but then I would say that some Christians did (and do) the same to the bible - they insert an ideology into it thats in fact alien to it as it was followed in its original culture. If Social Darwinists shouldnt own Darwin, why should Fundies own the Bible?

BTW the rabbi doesnt say that Darwin advocated Social Darwinism, but that survival of the fittest was CALLED social Darwinism - this was certainly true, when "fittest" was read with the positive connotations that word has in English.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nothing about Darwinism is in conflict to this. Darwin himself explained in his works (and others after have also written on it) that altruism and compassion for the less fortunate are completely compatible with Darwinian scientific theory.

If youre referring to the writings of the sociobiologists, IIUC they have shown a Darwinian logic to altruism towards close relations, who share a large amount of genetic code - NOT a broader altruism. That would seem to be more accident, our genetic mechanism confused by the conditions of later life.

But in any case the good rabbi is NOT saying that Darwinism is incompatible with the existence of altruism - hes NOT trying to disprove Darwinism, whose truth he affirms. Darwinism is clearly compatible with the existence of altruism, as it is compatible with the existence of selfishness, murderousness, etc.

The rabbi is trying to tell us why the Genesis story is important to us, to understand things that are just as important as whats compatible with survival.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
He also, according to some, was a deist, who beleived in God, though not in Christianity or the bible. This is disputed though, IIUC, and depends on interpretation of certain remarks.

"I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

Not that his particular belief is relevant...

As for Social Darwinism not being true Darwinism, many of the key advocates of Darwinism were Social Darwinists. Did they adopt Darwin to a preexisting racism, and in so doing distort Darwinism? Perhaps, but then I would say that some Christians did (and do) the same to the bible - they insert an ideology into it thats in fact alien to it as it was followed in its original culture. If Social Darwinists shouldnt own Darwin, why should Fundies own the Bible?

No one is saying the Fundies own the Bible, but the fact is they are the ones using it as a weapon against others in the culture wars. This is--as stated--just a humorous bit of satire on their little hypocrisy over books that teach evolution. You must acknowledge that, at least within the U.S., fundamentalists are the most vocal and politically powerful religious group.

BTW the rabbi doesnt say that Darwin advocated Social Darwinism, but that survival of the fittest was CALLED social Darwinism - this was certainly true, when "fittest" was read with the positive connotations that word has in English.

He should be more careful in his wording, if that is his intent, as any person reading this passage without a background in it would undoubtedly make the connection that Darwinism is somehow in agreement with Social Darwinism. The paragraph about Genesis I quoted serves to compound this interpretation. What's more, "survival of the fittest" is no longer used much in science, as the phrase leads to such inaccurate contortions and is not the most apt description.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
Winston, don´t you have trouble walking with that big stick up your ass?

Not really, I'm just sick and tired of the PC crowd being so bent on criticizing and ridiculing Christians, while at the same time closing their eyes for the increasingly real threats to our way of life from Muslim fundamentalists.

When someone places the Koran on a toilet seat, it's called abuse. And several people are killed just from the incident being rumoured. Yet nobody so far found it necessary to comment on.

If they did it with a Bible, you'd all be up in roars about it.

That's what I find sick.

But the OP in itself, yes it was amusing. I already said so.