killbot1000 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Recently for my sociology class I had to write a 15-25 page research paper on a subject of my choosing...surprise surprise I picked something having to do with religion, eventually I ended up with the subject "Anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalist Christianity". I posted my paper, I wanted to see what some of you thought about it . Love Killbot Anti_Intellectualism_in_Fundamentalist_Christianity.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 well we know this one - nice research paper but... you might want to take the judeo out of some of that as we don't celebrate Christmas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Damn jews and their attack on saint Nick! On a lighter note, I didn't read your paper, Killbott, as it would only serve to get me startedl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 I wasnt trying to be horribly biased in it or anything, I was just trying to show that Fundamentalist Christians, and other people live in their own Symbolic universes with their own sets of assumptions, that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I hope not, but that's not what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueAvenue Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think your next one ought to be on the anti-intellectualism of the marxist left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 point out an anti-intellectual marxist currently in existence (in this country). I can lay my hands on an anti-intellectual zealot at the drop of my hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think your next one ought to be on the anti-intellectualism of the marxist left. Did you know that Karl Marx lived to say "I am not a marxist!". But you are right, I probably should write a paper for that, because unless people are using their brains, logic, and reason they are all doomed to be stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 if i do remember correctly Communist/marxists in the soviet union put scientists in prison and their sentence was to make something useful for the motherland.... thats as good an incentive if any - i'd invent as quick as possible if i was in prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Wish I had time to read the whole thing Killbot, but after reading the introductory pages, it looks like a really good paper. Remember to check it again for typos (you have a 'however' with strikethru and 'evolved and changed overtime' instead of 'over time'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 It's ironic that you started this thread, because I had planned on starting an identical thread (just without the attached paper). As someone who subscribes intellectually to the Bible, it is very frustrating to be surrounded by people who neglect their intelligence for their faith. What's important to understand is that this has not always been the case. In the past, Christians were at the forefront of their fields of study. Whether science, literature, art, etc., many fields had Christians as the pioneers of study. For example, the Ivy-League institutions that are so revered for their rigorous intellectual curriculums today were originally started by Christians, as institutes for advanced and higher-learning, both Biblical and general study. (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, etc.) This is due to a rise in a different and new type of eschatology called Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism hasn't even been around for 200 years, but it has already become the dominant hermeneutic in North American Christianity. To sum it up: The end is coming, abandon everything and duck-and-cover. This is NOT the historical-view of Christianity or the interpretation of the Bible, only a new and incorrect teaching. Mark 12:30- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." This has caused Christians at large to abandon the fields of study that they were once so affluent in. This is why Christians today are so stupid. This is the short version. I'm trying to keep it short due to my target audience, and so as not to continue grinding my axe. -3nigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 It's ironic that you started this thread, because I had planned on starting an identical thread (just without the attached paper). As someone who subscribes intellectually to the Bible, it is very frustrating to be surrounded by people who neglect their intelligence for their faith. What's important to understand is that this has not always been the case. In the past, Christians were at the forefront of their fields of study. Whether science, literature, art, etc., many fields had Christians as the pioneers of study. For example, the Ivy-League institutions that are so revered for their rigorous intellectual curriculums today were originally started by Christians, as institutes for advanced and higher-learning, both Biblical and general study. (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, etc.) This is due to a rise in a different and new type of eschatology called Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism hasn't even been around for 200 years, but it has already become the dominant hermeneutic in North American Christianity. To sum it up: The end is coming, abandon everything and duck-and-cover. This is NOT the historical-view of Christianity or the interpretation of the Bible, only a new and incorrect teaching. Mark 12:30- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." This has caused Christians at large to abandon the fields of study that they were once so affluent in. This is why Christians today are so stupid. This is the short version. I'm trying to keep it short due to my target audience, and so as not to continue grinding my axe. -3nigma Thank you, seriously you are right on this issue. My paper is not about how Christians are anti-intellectual but rather why there is a modern anti-intellectual THREAD within FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity (which is a bit different than regular Christianity). Some people think that I am anti-religion...and that is totally not true, I am anti-ignorance, and when one seems to willfully choose ignorance it just gets under my skin, religion just seems to be the way most people choose ignorance. Although I will admit, some of the smartest people I know are religious, and its great. I am realizing more and more that whether a person is religious or not it doesn't really change who they are, there are greedy Christians, ignorant atheists, hateful Buddhists, and everything in between, there are dumb and intelligent people from every walk of life, religion seems to only comfort people in the choices they have made throughout life, or to offer a sense of security, the main thing to battle here is not religion, but ignorance itself from everybody, if every one of us just had an open mind the world would be a much more peaceful place. -Killbot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I don't know if 3nigma meant this, but I'll elaborate. At the present time, there are religious intellectuals that are well-respected. Except they are only known within academia. And, to be fair, though fundamentalist Christians represent Christianity about as much as fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam... both groups are the ones who directly affect everyone else's life. The anti-intellectualism can be described by the stubborn belief in something without analyzing the situation, especially when an analysis of the situation would increase the weight of your opinion/argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Recently for my sociology class I had to write a 15-25 page research paper on a subject of my choosing...surprise surprise I picked something having to do with religion, eventually I ended up with the subject "Anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalist Christianity". I posted my paper, I wanted to see what some of you thought about it . Love Killbot Do one on the Communist Manifesto.... Where you got your education. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 Do one on the Communist Manifesto.... Where you got your education. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html "I am not a Marxist" -Karl Marx Seriously, it seems as if the people who are most hostile toward Marx have never actually read his work... I am sorry that you don't support free public education....it shows.... I bet you didn't even read my paper...it wasn't about Christianity, it was about Fundamentalist Christians (Evangelicals and the like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 "I am not a Marxist" -Karl Marx NEWS FLASH: The pot says the kettle is not black. Seriously, it seems as if the people who are most hostile toward Marx have never actually read his work... I am sorry that you don't support free public education....it shows.... I bet you didn't even read my paper...it wasn't about Christianity, it was about Fundamentalist Christians (Evangelicals and the like). Yea, I favor government taking my land and rights. You go with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 NEWS FLASH: The pot says the kettle is not black.Yea, I favor government taking my land and rights. You go with that. You continue to prove my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 I have started to read the paper, but haven't gotten past the first page yet. I have a lot of things going on at the moment, including trying to plan for a move overseas. It is my intention to review it and offer my insights in the many months to come, when I ultimately have time. ...it wasn't about Christianity, it was about Fundamentalist Christians (Evangelicals and the like). However, as an immediate note: The term "Fundamentalist Christians" is a very narrow term that can be applied very well to what you're discussing. "Evangelicals" is actually a more broad term, much more akin to "Christianity," so it is less applicable. For example, there is a vast amount of Evangelicals that are not Fundamentalists, in the same way that there are vasts amount of Christians that are not. An example would be: Christians > Catholics, or Christians > Protestants > Evangelicals > Fundamentalists "Evangelicals" is almost as broad as "Catholics" or "Protestants," it is actually a sub-section of Protestantism that is almost equally broad. It could almost even be written as "Christians > Protestants/Evangelicals > Fundamentalists." Although I agree with the thesis of your paper (That Fundamentalist Christians are resistant to Intellectualism), I suspect that it is based on many of these similar types of assessments coming from an "outsider looking in" (meaning, you are not a Christian). You actually will have much more insight and more correct assessments coming from the inside, from a person such as myself. However, that being said, I have not yet read the paper. I will read it as soon as I can, but I suspect that may not be for weeks or months. But most importantly: I agree with your main point. -3nigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 You continue to prove my point. That you are a neo-lib commie? I already know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 That you are a neo-lib commie? I already know that. That would be your point, not mine. No, I am not a communist, I am very liberal (and theres nothing wrong with that) and I agree that there is something to be said for hard work but I am also an avid supporter of equality, an EQUAL CHANCE for success, which I know you don't like to admit...but not everyone has that. The one thing that I have noticed you lack the most Oryhara is empathy. When people lack empathy it is a scary world....believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 That you are a neo-lib commie? No, I am not a communist I'm a communist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Recently for my sociology class I had to write a 15-25 page research paper on a subject of my choosing...surprise surprise I picked something having to do with religion, eventually I ended up with the subject "Anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalist Christianity". I posted my paper, I wanted to see what some of you thought about it . Love Killbot Sooooo, this is awkward..... Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement... plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution. Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Rather than retype everything again, here is an excerpt of my review contained within your revised paper: I am ashamed for you that I have to point this out: Your entire first page was plagiarized from the Wikipedia entry on “Fundamentalism.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism There are many sections that are copied word-for-word, and others thought-for-thought. Your second sentence even contained the “isms” comment, and the third sentence is a direct copy. This is a very serious mistake because (1) you are plagiarizing the intellectual work of others. And (2) you are plagiarizing from the world's trash-dump of information, Wikipedia. Scholars look very condescendingly on this source of information. You are a horrible, horrible person. Minus my joke at the end, this is very serious business. I have attached your revised paper to review. I did not continue my commentary after my discovery, so only the first couple pages are reviewed. I have also attached screenshots of the plagiarized articles in question, in addition to the hyperlink to the article above. This is a sad reflection. -3nigma Anti_Intellectualism_in_Fundamentalist_Christianity_REVIEWED.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm a communist This might change your mind. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 22, 2007 Author Share Posted August 22, 2007 Sooooo, this is awkward..... Rather than retype everything again, here is an excerpt of my review contained within your revised paper: Minus my joke at the end, this is very serious business. I have attached your revised paper to review. I did not continue my commentary after my discovery, so only the first couple pages are reviewed. I have also attached screenshots of the plagiarized articles in question, in addition to the hyperlink to the article above. This is a sad reflection. -3nigma Who do you think put those thoughts ON wikipedia? That's the beauty of the thing. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Who do you think put those thoughts ON wikipedia? That's the beauty of the thing. hehe A convenient excuse. You = , Ironically, you don't even sound convinced, yourself. Not to mention not sounding convincing to your audience. It's worse that you would bury yourself deeper by making that new comment. You don't even sound like an innocent person defending yourself. You sound like a cowering person who is shocked because he got caught with his pants down. In all sincerity, I am baffled at how crystal-clear your tone shines through your "innocence" post. I couldn't have asked for a more classic cookie-cutter reaction. You would have been better off using the "I did it subconsciously" excuse, claiming that you used Wikipedia as a resource and later used it's verbiage on accident. Be very careful and calculating on your next post to defend yourself. You don't want to make that same mistake twice. You're playing with the big boys now. -3nigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts