Religion

[itlnstln]

This is why the bible still has a line in the book of Leviticus that says (to the best of my recollection) - "A man must not have relations with another man, for God hates this."

I believe the line is more like, "A man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman."  The actual wording may vary slightly depending on which one of the 11ty billion translations available.

[itlnstln]

Or that the suicidal should be hanged to punish them for trying to defy God's will?

A little OT, but this is just silly. It would seem that, in the end, the suicidal got exactly what they wanted.

[ch_123]

It was based on the idea that suicide was so evil that killing the person was better than giving them the chance to let them kill themselves again. As blatantly idiotic as it sounded, it was only in the 1950s that the British got rid of the death penalty for suicide from their legal system. I'm sure other countries had similar provisions though.

I believe the line is more like, "A man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman." The actual wording may vary slightly depending on which one of the 11ty billion translations available.

I have also heard interpreted as "It's alright to be gay as long as you don't have gay sex." Which is a massive copout argument because a) one follows the other and b) you'd imagine that the problem is with homosexuality in general. Why would "God" have a problem with gay people only when they are having sex with eachother?

[timw4mail]

Well, the problem with religions is that they take the morals of the time and stick rigidly to them. This is why the bible still has a line in the book of Leviticus that says (to the best of my recollection) - "A man must not have relations with another man, for God hates this."

I also note that there's huge inconsistencies between various Christian sects as to what is considered right, and what is completely frowned upon, and within those sects the attitudes of the believers vary. What you are saying may have remote basis if the very thing you stick to didnt have such a pick and mix nature to it.

It follows that as society evolves, certain things that were essential in the past are no longer relevant. For example, do you eat kosher food? Do you still think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should be burned to death for 'being possesed'? Or that the suicidal should be hanged to punish them for trying to defy God's will?

Most of Leviticus is historical, and has been supplanted with the new law in the New Testament.

Like any literary passage, you have to read biblical passages in context, and consult other passages for reference.

I don't believe homosexuality is right, but I'm not going to sentence such people to death.

[Mr.6502]

Where in the bible is it described what in the New Testament supplants the Old Testament?  Or is that something that is up to people to decide?

How much studying did you do of the text you quoted that you feel proves that the bible was explaining that the universe was expanding and that the earth was a sphere (by calling it a circle)?

And the two passages I quoted are from Leviticus 25 and Exodus 21 of the English Standard Version.

[timw4mail]

Where in the bible is it described what in the New Testament supplants the Old Testament?  Or is that something that is up to people to decide?

This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.

How much studying did you do of the text you quoted that you feel proves that the bible was explaining that the universe was expanding and that the earth was a sphere (by calling it a circle)?

That particular passage is a praise of God's power and handiwork. It isn't much of a figurative stretch to apply the passage in that way.

[ch_123]

Where in the bible is it described what in the New Testament supplants the Old Testament? Or is that something that is up to people to decide?

This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.

Am I the only one here who completely and utterly fails to see the link here?

[Mr.6502]

This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.

That's not an answer.  How do you know what parts of the Old Testament are supplanted by parts of the New Testament?  Were you born knowing what parts of the old no longer apply because god changed his mind?

That particular passage is a praise of God's power and handiwork. It isn't much of a figurative stretch to apply the passage in that way.

It's quite a stretch actually.  It doesn't say anything about the world being round, just about it being a circle.  Its just as easy to interpret that to mean its a flat circle.  Likewise the curtain of the sky fits with the notion that the sky is a single thing stretched out over the flat earth, not that it is a vast three dimensional space that is constantly expanding.

Its much less of a stretch to say that the bible condones and instructs on the ways of human slavery than it is to say the bible proclaimed the earth is round and the universe is expanding.

[ch_123]

Yeah, on the subject of the round earth thing - considering that people could get burned at the stake for saying the earth orbited the sun because the bible supposedly said it was the other way around, why were people not burned at the stake for saying that the earth was flat?

[wellington1869]

How much studying did you do of the text you quoted that you feel proves that the bible was explaining that the universe was expanding and that the earth was a sphere (by calling it a circle)?.

seriously. I mean if that "proves" that the bible foresaw modern science, I bet I could interpret the bible as "foretelling" the arrival of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the new prophet carrying the "New-New Testament."

After all, people have done stranger interpretations of the old testament. Like paul did. (old law not valid except when paul says it is; new law not intended for jews but for all the world - and was foretold in the old law). I mean wow. Talk about creative interpretation!

[Mr.6502]

seriously. I mean if that "proves" that the bible foresaw modern science, I bet I could interpret the bible as "foretelling" the arrival of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the new prophet carrying the "New-New Testament."

After all, people have done stranger interpretations of the old testament. Like paul did. (old law not valid except when paul says it is; new law not intended for jews but for all the world - and was foretold in the old law). I mean wow. Talk about creative interpretation!

I wonder the bible code reveals the word "Carbohydrate."  The probability of that happening is so low that if it is there, it would definitely suggest a higher, more noodly power at work.

[wellington1869]

I wonder the bible code reveals the word "Carbohydrate."  The probability of that happening is so low that if it is there, it would definitely suggest a higher, more noodly power at work.

with the right numerology, I bet we can see the truth that the entire new testament exists to spell out a single word: "carbohydrate"

noodle power!!!

[megarat]

you keep saying its statistically impossible - on what basis do you say that? cuz you're personally over-awed by nature's complexity?

I'm way behind in the argument, so my apologies if this has been clarified already.

It should be pointed out that -- in post-hoc analyses -- nothing is ever "statistically impossible".  To say that something is statistically impossible is to say that the p(event happening) = 0.  By the nature that the event already occurred, p cannot equal zero by definition.

Events that are truly statistically impossible are generally those that are contrived and theoretical.  E.g.,  p(rolling a seven on a six-sided die) = 0.  Even most events that seem completely ludicrous (e.g., me dying within the next few minutes by burning up in the atmosphere of Jupiter) will still have a non-zero probability once you consider all the contributing factors.

Of course, many things are "statistically improbable" (including, hopefully, the probability of me dying within the next few minutes by burning up in the atmosphere of Jupiter), and the "extreme statistical improbability" of rational humanity, the earth being conducive to life, etc., is commonly argued as evidence that such events requires God's intervention to achieve.  But even an event whose p = 1/infinity will eventually happen given enough time.  People who try to claim "proof that god exists" through statistical improbability are ignoring (a) the infinite nature of the universe, and (b) the Anthropic Principle.

Even top-notch scientists make the above mistakes.  E.g., Did anyone read the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan?  At the end, the protagonist finds a "message from god" embedded deeply in the decimal component of Pi.  Carl Sagan should have known better:  Pi is an irrational number, so you can find whatever message you want as long as you dig deep enough.

[megarat]

Do I care whether a jealous god who demands his followers claim a universal monopoly on the Good, exists?
No, I dont care that that kind of god exists. I'd rather he didnt, actually. He's been nothing but trouble. He's been astonishingly destructive and immoral, even by the standard of his own declared laws.

Welly, can you clarify what you mean by "nothing but trouble" and "astonishingly destructive"?

I'm assuming that you are crediting organized religion for many of the world's major human atrocities.  This is a common perspective among atheists/agnostics, but I think if you look at the data it shows just the opposite.  When you look at the "big numbers" -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and genocides everywhere (e.g., Rwanda, annihilation of the native Americans) -- you'll find that they were overwhelmingly secular in nature.

One could make the argument that organized religion might win via the law of small numbers, and that would be an interesting analysis.  I'm just looking at the big events here.

I'm an agnostic, BTW, just trying to make sense of the data.

[wellington1869]

I'm assuming that you are crediting organized religion for many of the world's major human atrocities.

pretty much

 This is a common perspective among atheists/agnostics, but I think if you look at the data it shows just the opposite.  When you look at the "big numbers" -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and genocides everywhere (e.g., Rwanda, annihilation of the native Americans) -- you'll find that they were overwhelmingly secular in nature.

agreed that commies have done as much damage. Not sure who wins the killing war though. The jealous gods have had a thousand years or more to rack up the numbers, while the commies and fascists have had modern killing technology to try to catch up.

But if you're looking for 'big events' performed by organized religion revolving around jealous gods, you'll need to count christian and muslim inter-sectarian wars as well as expansionist/missionary wars. Starting with the early church, sectarian war was constant, and expansionist wars were constant, especially once the emperors of rome (and later, france, and then the holy roman empire) were converted. Same basic plot in islamic history, sectarian and expansionist wars in the name of the jealous god, expanding out of the arabian peninsula across asia all the way to indonesia in one direction, leaving a trail of genocidal war on zoroastrians and hindus and everyone else they met, and in the other direction, into africa and into europe for a time, prompting in turn the crusades and vienna and charles martel. Not to mention shia-sunni wars and perpetual suppression of myriad internal sects like the sufis and the ahmadis and others. Dont forget the wars of religion before, during, and after the protestant reformation in europe throughout the 1500s and 1600s, which by any account were near-genocidal and lasted pretty much continuously for nearly 150 years and prompted civil wars in france and england and across germany and switzerland, the expansion of christianity in south america (which both directly and indirectly via various factors led to the death/elimination/conversion of multiple civilizations, religious fervor played no small part there, was front and center for the spanish and for the pope).

All of this continuous history of organized defense of the concept of the jealous god was bloody and profoundly intolerant and involved episodes of mass killings of non-believers or other-wise believers, certainly provided the justification of that level of mass conversion-or-death choice which was ever-present and formed the very basis on which a ruler could claim himself to be a legitimate ruler and protector of the jealous-church (or jealous-mosque).

So yes, while commies may have caught up on sheer numbers thanks to modern industrial-efficiency of killing technology, I'm not sure I would say the jealous-god-era (about 1500 years of it) was "better". In some ways (hideous torture techniques deployed as a matter of course, for instance) it was far worse.

Do you want me to choose whether commies or evangelical monotheism was better? I cant make that choice, I reject both for pretty much similar reasons of rigidity and intolerance.

Now dont get me wrong, lots of people have been bad in world history, and i'm not saying these two alone account for all the world's pain. Hardly! However, there is a systemacity to certain kinds of religious and/or ideological violence that can be seen in these two histories -- communism and evangelical monotheism -- in particular.

Also dont get me wrong, as I say clearly in my OP above that you quoted from, I'm NOT saying "religion" did this - my emphasis in this discussion all along has been "what KIND of religion?". A certain KIND of religion did that, just as a certain KIND of modernity - communism - did the other.

Thats why I keep saying, its not "whether" god exists that is the interesting question, but rather, what KIND of god. Its not agnosticism or atheism that is the problem, but what KIND of atheism/agnosticism.

A jealous one? Then I say: No thanks.

[ch_123]

Welly, can you clarify what you mean by "nothing but trouble" and "astonishingly destructive"?

I'm assuming that you are crediting organized religion for many of the world's major human atrocities.  This is a common perspective among atheists/agnostics, but I think if you look at the data it shows just the opposite.  When you look at the "big numbers" -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and genocides everywhere (e.g., Rwanda, annihilation of the native Americans) -- you'll find that they were overwhelmingly secular in nature.

One could make the argument that organized religion might win via the law of small numbers, and that would be an interesting analysis.  I'm just looking at the big events here.

I'm an agnostic, BTW, just trying to make sense of the data.

I would never say that religion is responsible for the majority of bad stuff that has happened in the world, I would however say that it's responsible for a disproportionately large number of bad stuff relative to other philosophies, pre-occupations etc.

[wellington1869]

Movie tip time! The Man From Earth. Any others?

that actually looks interesting

[wellington1869]

FYI the producer encourages downloading through the pirate bay and all (ehm, it increased his profile or something)

netflix has it on streaming instant-watch

[timw4mail]

I would never say that religion is responsible for the majority of bad stuff that has happened in the world, I would however say that it's responsible for a disproportionately large number of bad stuff relative to other philosophies, pre-occupations etc.

This is really one of the reasons I'm not fond of the Roman Catholic sect. They called themselves Christian, but really they were some of the most misguided murderers I can think of.

Actually, a lot of the issues with a state religion are definitely reflected by the Catholic sect. Rome established catholisism as the state church, and punished those who weren't 'believers' in the state-sponsored paganism.

I fear that humanism is basically the state religion.

[Xuan]

Maybe god is real and he created us by accident and is unaware of our existence, one day he'll see us; "Damn fungus on one of my floating balls", fshhhh... end of life.

[huha]

I'm writing all of this again since my browser crashed. I'll write it fast and it won't be as good. That's kind of ... a bummer.

One note first: I know it's all the rage for americans to blame communism for everything. What you're looking for is fascism, stalinism, or even authoritarianism in general.

Isn't the whole cornerstone of science that you come up with a theory for how something works, and try and recreate things in order to prove the theory? I'm not saying that we need to create a new universe to find out, but things can be mimicked on a much smaller scale. For example - we can't create another sun, but we can mimick it's operation in some experimental fusion reactors.

One often overlooked concept is mathematics and logic. Many theories directly follow from mathematical or logical proofs and are later backed by experiment, though often indirectly.

Which is precisely my point. Can you rigorously re-create enough to know that your theory is true? The universe is an infinitely complex system of interconnected layers of other systems. How, realistically, can one re-create even a fraction of that?

You're missing the point here. You don't have to re-create everything for an experiment. Before you make your experiment, you look at all the factors involved and decide which ones are important and therefore should be included in the experiment. You'll just try to get the important factors right when carrying out your experiment. If it succeeds and produces results you'd expect, that's nice. If it doesn't, you probably forgot something or your theory was wrong, but that's okay too--no need to be ashamed if something doesn't work in science. Actually, disproving a theory is absolutely brilliant, as there's one less to choose from afterwards.
Let's just give you an example so you'll understand the point I'm trying to make:
When measuring your weight using a scale, you don't take into account the different gravitation on earth. It varies from place to place and is quite accurately measurable with medium-priced equipment. Even measuring your own weight is an experiment, although none of great interest to science I'm afraid; so, knowing this, do you still trust your scale, even if it doesn't take everything into account? I guess you do. There are inaccuracies and you might be aware of them, but even if your scale is +-1 kg off, you won't doubt your weight alltogether.

What if we don't have the capability to understand enough? I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.  

I wouldn't call it faith. You'll have to accept the scientific principle, but if you think that's an entirely bad idea, one just can't argue with you. If you think the very foundation of science is wrong, there really is no point in carrying on any discussion on that whatsoever.

Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?

Is nature really infinite? I don't think so. It's large, but not infinite. Can we ever know everything? Probably not (if we should ever do at one point, we'll just make up our own new problems and challenges. Ask a mathematician, they'll know). But why should we just stop exploring it alltogether? That's just stupid.

what is it you want to understand? do you want a law that can be applied to every aspect of the life cycle and applied to everyone on earth?
Me, I'm glad we dont have that capability. If you want it, you frighten me.

There are laws applying to everything and everyone: The laws of thermodynamics, for example, and conservation of energy.

scientists looked at infinite complexity and recognized that a handful of physical properties produced that complexity in predictable ways.
sometimes it pays not to be over-awed by nature.

Self-organization is the key here. I heard a talk about self-organization in biological systems not too long ago. Turns out the little crystals in your inner ear acting as weights for the acceleration sensor have a very specific shape which basically boils down to the right chemical mixture. Make the mixture, pour everything together and--poof!--there's your crystal. Amazing, really, but it's just the mixture you need to get right. Chemistry takes care of the rest. Incidentally, tooth enamel is created similarly.

I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.

Then, please explain: What's a soul?
The brain is merely a meat machine. A complex one, but still governed by chemical reactions. A wonderfully complex example of self-organization, I might add. We don't know anything about the brain really. The few things we know were found out using appalingly inadequate equipment, and we didn't even scratch the surface.

I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.
To be open to an idea, you have to consider all ideas with equal weight. You have to be able to allow an idea that you don't like, as much as the idea that you like.

Open-mindedness doesn't mean you'll have to treat every idea exactly the same. It just means you'll have to listen to other ideas and be generally open to your idea being horribly wrong. It doesn't mean you'll have to accept everything. It doesn't mean you can't defend your own idea. Heck, you even don't have to listen to any idea, you're even allowed to do some quality checks first, so you're not annoyed by ridiculous ideas and concepts which are just fundamentally wrong.
Open-mindedness doesn't mean apathy and indecisiveness. It just means being ready to question your very own ideals and thoughts based on the information that comes in.

If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation? Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.

There's no point in discussing that.
I could as well say there are no time travellers because I don't wish for it. Heck, I could even say the world is exactly like it is because I made it so. So where's the difference between that and your model of god? Would you be even remotely serious about the world revolving around me? Of course not, because that's stupid. You'd probably tell me it wouldn't even be a premise good enough for a TV show.

If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance.  Would you care to elaborate?

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. If some of the natural constants were largely different, the universe would have turned out quite differently. We obviously do exist, though, so this is more a philosophical question.
Chance is just that: Chance, possibility. Once in a while, the odds are just right, and it happened to be here. That's why we don't exactly see loads of inhabited planets, do we?

Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?

Depending on where you put the start and how you try to interfere with science.

I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?

Care to elaborate?
I mean no harm, but my experience tells me most of the time it's just getting some facts wrong or not understanding them correctly. Often, mass media are to blame for exaggerating and overly simplifying complex relationships.

Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?

Now you're getting silly. It's like making a meal and, after finding ketchup on vanilla ice cream tastes just terrible, remembering not to do this again. That's the "scientific" approach. The "un-scientific" approach would be saying it doesn't taste bad, because you always make delicious meals. And doing the same the next day and every day after.

It just doesn't make any sense at all. It's right because it's right? Don't make a fool of yourself.

Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?

No, it doesn't. A few thousand years will suffice for peat, but it takes much longer for oil.

By the way, without looking it up anywhere, may I ask what you'd think the approximate age (please don't look it up. Being wrong by some orders of magnitude is nothing to be ashemed of and I'd like your honest opinion) of the following entities is?
a) The universe
b) Our sun
c) Earth
d) Steven Ballmer

-huha

[wellington1869]

I'm writing all of this again since my browser crashed. I'll write it fast and it won't be as good. That's kind of ... a bummer.

I use a freeware keylogger (like this one) on my system as a safety "black box" to capture my keystrokes precisely for disasters like that. It makes it very easy to recover your text from any application that crashed (not that it happens very often, but when it does, i'm always thankful to have it to recover all my typed text). It sits in my system tray.

[huha]

then you must be in favor of universal health care?

Finally, you'll finally bring up healthcare! Yaay!

Of course you ignore the fact that you are also acting on beliefs in the outcomes of your arguments. You just can't let science be wrong.

We'd be thrilled to see science being wrong. As I pointed out earlier, science doesn't work by saying: "That's right!"--it works by saying: "That's not wrong ... yet!"
Disproving a scientific theory is the best thing since sliced bread, as it makes way for improved theories and a better understanding of everything. Science likes to be wrong, because that's the only way it can improve.

For that matter, when it pertains to actual observable science, the Bible has often shown the reality of the science.

We'll get to that later. Oh boy, you're in for quite a surprise!

Do I sound stupid? As I said, my belief in God does not change the fact that the world works the way it does.

You don't sound stupid (if you did, we wouldn't be discussing with you), but I think you got some important facts wrong and don't understand how science works. Science is to blame for that, as they relied too much on flashy experiments and seemingly unbelievable breakthroughs, instead of explaining how science actually works. We weren't told that in school, for example, which I think is just horribly wrong. Science uses clearly crafted terminology, a lot of which is used differently in everyday life and gets totally misunderstood when scientists talk in scientific terms.

1. The Earth is Round
2.  The Expansion of the Universe

Isaiah 40:22 (ESV)
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Ah, there we are again. Prepared for a surprise? Well...

1. That's wrong.
2. That might be wrong.

Let me explain:

1. "Circle" is a really bad term for the earth's shape, don't you think? I believe there were plenty of approximately spherical objects around when this was written, so why use "circle?"
Anyway, the earth isn't perfectly round. It's slightly oblong due to its rotation and a bit bumpy as well. Find a nice bible citation for that if you want to tell us anything about the bible foreseeing modern scientific discoveries.
2. The question on the expansion of the universe isn't settled yet. In fact, we're not sure at all. Basically, the sign and value of the deceleration parameter q defines whether the universe's expansion accelerates, decelerates or will even shrink at some time. We don't know q yet, but there have been suggestions.
Also, I can't really see any reference to an expanding universe in your little sentence there. Care to explain?

It's not like I hate other people because they have different beliefs.  I don't find it funny to point out the inconsistencies in the evolutionary/humanistic belief system.

Evolution is not a belief. It's science.
Inconsistencies are perfectly okay in science. Sometimes they're neccessary because we can suitably explain different aspects of the same thing using incompatible models. For example, light can be seen as a wave or a particle. It depends on what's more suitable for the equation you're working with. Surely, there has to be a unified equation incorporating both for an elegant model, but before that's discovered, you'll just have to live with the inconsistency. That doesn't hinder you from correctly predicting the outcome of experiments, though. Scientific theories work. That's one important aspect of them. There might be contradicting theories about the same thing, but as long as both of them suitably explain what's going on, they're both not wrong--usually, you try really hard to disprove one of them or create a unified theory because it's a bit of a hassle to have several correct theories.

You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?

Do ethics need religion? If so, why?

It's wrong to kill because you're losing a human perfectly capable of carrying out tasks in the process. Tasks that could help you sustain your very life. It's wrong to piss people off by lying and deceiving them all the time. You won't get their help and support when you need it, potentially putting your life at risk.
These ethics (just two I could think of for now, but it's just an example) aren't based on religion, but rather on human nature--you all want to survive and we usually live in groups, so working together and supporting each other is critically important for the survival of the group.

-huha

[xsphat]

I did open a can of worms here, didn't I? Looks like I'll have to take another week off from this forum, but first, let me say this:

God can't be proven to exist, there is no proof of HER existence and whether the bible was the transcribed breath of god, it still was written by men. Men are always wrong (ask any wife / GF) so therefore the bible is wrong.

I think it was a tool designed to thwart people's fears of the calendar ending, and for that I should surely be boiled alive.

And the last thing I will ever say on this topic is this; look where blind faith got Morphius — one great movie and 2 undeniably ****ty sequels. **** god. Goodnight.

[JBert]

Talk amongst yourselves.  I'll give you a topic.  Religion.  Go.

Yes?

[timw4mail]

By the way, without looking it up anywhere, may I ask what you'd think the approximate age (please don't look it up. Being wrong by some orders of magnitude is nothing to be ashemed of and I'd like your honest opinion) of the following entities is?
a) The universe
b) Our sun
c) Earth
d) Steven Ballmer

-huha

a) Same as the sun
b) 2 days younger than earth
c) ~6000 years
d) Irrelevant

[ch_123]

How can the earth be only 6,000 years old when Steve Ballmer has been scientifically proven to be OVER NINE THOUSAND years old?

This will answer all your questions.

[Mr.6502]

Do you believe existence started as a watery chaos or a desert?

[itlnstln]

Yes?

Oh, I'm not participating.  This thread was to save another, perfectly good thread.  I have better things to do with my time than wear out mechanical switches arguing futility.  I would rather stand back and watch the fireworks.
 
Like politics (or maybe moreso), trying to convince another person on your perspective after that other person has already developed their perspective is just a waste of breath.
 
For the record, I'm agnostic.  Timw4mail and others are not.  I'm OK with that.  Good night, now.
 
(P.S.: If you didn't recognize it, my opening post was a take on the Jewish talkshow host from SNL.  I think I'm getting verclempt...)

[huha]

a) Same as the sun
b) 2 days younger than earth
c) ~6000 years
d) Irrelevant

Okay, sorry. I didn't know you were one of those guys. There's absolutely no sense in discussing with you then. I'm out.
I just hope you'll get basic science right one day, for the sake of humanity.

-huha

[DreymaR]

Do you believe existence started as a watery chaos or a desert?

Haha - great retort there!

[itlnstln]

I like the hell thing. Better do what the People Who Rule demand, or the punishment will be ETERNAL in the WORST IMAGINABLE place. I want to see a B movie around this concept.

Wasn't this movie called Office Space?

[wellington1869]

Haha - great retort there!

dreymar, you're back! your friend tim has been holding down the fort all by himself. So what do you think?  

[wellington1869]

Okay, sorry. I didn't know you were one of those guys. There's absolutely no sense in discussing with you then. I'm out.
I just hope you'll get basic science right one day, for the sake of humanity.

-huha

and the dinosaurs were put in the ground by god to test our faith.  get with the program!

[wellington1869]

I like the hell thing. Better do what the People Who Rule demand, or the punishment will be ETERNAL in the WORST IMAGINABLE place. I want to see a B movie around this concept.

Like satre said, freedom is hard. Terrifying, even.  Serving in heaven has its perks. You can blame everything on god and be done with it.

[Mr.6502]

Haha - great retort there!

I'm more curious than anything.  I don't quite get how people form their beliefs on a book that they themselves apparently interpret.  I don't know if my questions about slavery and what parts of the old testament don't count, so when I saw the creation talk I figured I'd take another shot and hearing from the other side.

[wellington1869]

The one thing that can be said in favor of religion that it indeed created some form of order (among the usual war, death and destruction..) and a catalyst of culture, science and print in a mysterious world of chaos. But like Adams said, the burden of evidence shifted dramatically, and it no longer serves such purpose. All that remains is a tool of power. E.g. George Bush is of course not a religious person but religious people were his ticket to power. Not that Obama is any different in this regard, he just uses the other main group.

In a way, the american revivalists are one of the most 'postmodern' groups around. They understand perfectly well that if you say that dinosaurs are fake for long enough, it will become reality. If you teach it long enough and monopolize the airwaves with the message long enough, then *it will be so*. Rove understood this. They understand perfectly well, in other words, the relationship between language and power.

They understand this better than traditional enlightenment humanists, who still stake their claim on outdated things like evidence and testability.

[wellington1869]

I'm more curious than anything.  I don't quite get how people form their beliefs on a book that they themselves apparently interpret.  I don't know if my questions about slavery and what parts of the old testament don't count, so when I saw the creation talk I figured I'd take another shot and hearing from the other side.

talking with literalists is one of the more fascinating things one can do. Who needs to travel to exotic places to find and experience utterly alien Others, or people caught in time, or people whose mindset is so completely inimical to modernity?  Just go to some parts of the midwest.  Its a trip.  

[itlnstln]

talking with literalists is one of the more fascinating things one can do. Who needs to travel to exotic places to find and experience utterly alien Others, or people caught in time, or people whose mindset is so completely inimical to modernity? Just go to some parts of the midwest. Its a trip.

This pretty much described my trip through MO on my way to Chicago.  Actually, there are some places not far from where I live that are exactly like this.

[huha]

Except they're really full of ****. There's sufficient evidence based on an extremely large number of observations on the age of life, the universe, and everything. Saying this isn't true is either outright lying for the sake of a book being "right," even though at times, interpretation is not as literal if this contradicted their own agenda. So they're either total nutcases or outright lying.
Archaeology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history etc. clearly point out the earth being older than a few thousand years. So why do you constantly deny this? How come? Do you deny applications of technology based on the same assumptions that lead to the age of the earth being older than 10'000 years? Would you put a barrel of radioactive waste beneath your bed, because radioisotopic dating is clearly wrong according to your know-all-end-all book and as such, all dangers concerning radioactivity based on decay rates and half-lives are just wrong?

You're being incredibly dishonest and phony here--you deny science, yet reap all the benefits pertaining to rigorous applications of science, even the very thing you're fighting against.

-huha

[wellington1869]

This pretty much described my trip through MO on my way to Chicago.  Actually, there are some places not far from where I live that are exactly like this.

I remember the first time I drove to chicago from new york. Once you get into western PA, you notice that the radio stations are all, er, different. For the next 10 hours, until I got near chicagoland,  I was regaled with one christian radio station after another, absolutely filling the airwaves. It was like nothing I'd ever heard. I was absolutely fascinated by the mindset they were teaching.

(At the time I had just started to date my evangelical gf, so I was all the more curious, wanted to know what makes her tick. Just like in academe and language learning, one of the strongest impulses to learn about the Other is dating one, lol).

I hadnt really paid attention to them before that; and suddenly I discovered what a huge subculture they are in this country. It was a little shocking  It was like I thought I knew my country and it turns out I hardly did. They have their own media, their own networks, their own political plans and activism, their own language, their own schools, leaders, intellectuals and literary canon, their own magazines, their own everything.

I had lived in major east coast urban areas for most of my life, and I hadnt had a clue.

[itlnstln]

(In response to Welly's last post about learning about others...)
 
Not to rattle the cage or anything, but I used to listen to religious programming as comic relief when I would go back to Austin after spending the weekend in San Antonio (this was about 10 years ago when I was in college). There was some radio show originally recorded in the 60's with some Lutheran Pastor from Louisiana that had some of the funniest (and scary) takes. One time he said something about how church leaders should prepare lessons like a dietician prepares meals from the 7 food groups: eggs, cheese, butter, meat, milk, bread, etc. I don't know about you, but I don't remember when butter was a food group.
 
There was another show that scared the sh*t out of me. Here in SA, there is a mega-church called Cornerstone, and they have a radio broadcast of their Sunday service. One time I decided to see what these freaks were all about, and there service started about witchcraft and demons (pronounced "day-mons"). After some "blah-blah-blah" the pastor starts getting into examples of witchcraft. One of the first examples he gave was a "woman who does not obey her husband" being a witch. Jokes aside, I quickly changed the station and slaughtered a pig for good measure.

[timw4mail]

and the dinosaurs were put in the ground by god to test our faith.  get with the program!

I think dinosaurs were around people before the time of the flood.

[ch_123]

How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? How come there was no room on the ark for the dinosaurs?

[timw4mail]

Except they're really full of ****. There's sufficient evidence based on an extremely large number of observations on the age of life, the universe, and everything. Saying this isn't true is either outright lying for the sake of a book being "right," even though at times, interpretation is not as literal if this contradicted their own agenda. So they're either total nutcases or outright lying.
Archaeology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history etc. clearly point out the earth being older than a few thousand years. So why do you constantly deny this? How come? Do you deny applications of technology based on the same assumptions that lead to the age of the earth being older than 10'000 years? Would you put a barrel of radioactive waste beneath your bed, because radioisotopic dating is clearly wrong according to your know-all-end-all book and as such, all dangers concerning radioactivity based on decay rates and half-lives are just wrong?

You're being incredibly dishonest and phony here--you deny science, yet reap all the benefits pertaining to rigorous applications of science, even the very thing you're fighting against.

-huha

No, I have no problem agains testable, provable science.

Evolution is not that kind of "science". You can not extrapolate the amount of radioactivity of an object and get its age reliably. That assumes that 1) there is always enough of a particular radioactive elemnent in a specimen that you can reliably test. 2) That radioactive decay is completely predicatable.

How many millions of years old would the carbon14 dating show you are?

[timw4mail]

How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? How come there was no room on the ark for the dinosaurs?

1) The word 'dinosaur' wasn't coined
2) How plausible is it that the legends of dragons come from descriptions of dinosaurs? Fairly plausible, I'd say.

And it is also plausible that the climate would change after a global flood, causing the extinction of the dinosaurs soon after the flood.

[Mr.6502]

No, I have no problem agains testable, provable science.

Evolution is not that kind of "science". You can not extrapolate the amount of radioactivity of an object and get its age reliably. That assumes that 1) there is always enough of a particular radioactive elemnent in a specimen that you can reliably test. 2) That radioactive decay is completely predicatable.

How many millions of years old would the carbon14 dating show you are?

It is that kind of science.  Evolution is based on a study of the physical evidence at hand.  Experiments are done to try to figure out how old things are and how they fit together with the other evidence.  Experiments are done, and redone, and redone because scientists know that a positive result does not mean proof.

Think of it in terms of how Einstein described it:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

That's a key way of thinking when you are looking at something scientifically.  And that's a basic aspect of science that you really need to understand before you can honestly judge the rest of it.

[timw4mail]

It is that kind of science.  Evolution is based on a study of the physical evidence at hand.  Experiments are done to try to figure out how old things are and how they fit together with the other evidence.  Experiments are done, and redone, and redone because scientists know that a positive result does not mean proof.

Think of it in terms of how Einstein described it:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

That's a key way of thinking when you are looking at something scientifically.  And that's a basic aspect of science that you really need to understand before you can honestly judge the rest of it.

Evolution, macroevolution, has NEVER occured.  You can't have on species become another species.

Microevolution, or the slight genetic differences that change over time, but stay the same thing, is definitely true. Genetic diversity is not the same as macroevolution.

[megarat]

Science likes to be wrong, because that's the only way it can improve.

While I agree w/you on this, it should be pointed out that, very frequently, scientists themselves don't like to be wrong.  They indeed pick up "beliefs" about about their research interests and those beliefs will influence both their study plans and conclusions.

Many scientists, including (I'm inclined to say "especially") major-league heavy-hitters, work more dogmatically than scientifically.  If their p-value was too large, then:  they didn't have enough data.  Or, the experiment looked at the wrong variables.  Or, there was something wrong with the assay reagents.  Or ...

(And conversely, if someone else's experiment shows that their "pet belief" is incorrect, they will contrive a similar litany of reasons to explain away those contrary conclusions.)

Scientists, as human beings, are frequently quite fallible, with egos and insecurities that can make them less fastidious and unbiased than scientists should be.

[wellington1869]

While I agree w/you on this, it should be pointed out that, very frequently, scientists themselves don't like to be wrong.  They indeed pick up "beliefs" about about their research interests and those beliefs will influence both their study plans and conclusions.

Many scientists, including (I'm inclined to say "especially") major-league heavy-hitters, work more dogmatically than scientifically.

but megarat, I think you may be missing the larger point -- which is that the institutions of science work by demanding testable evidence. It matters little how  *individual* scientists feel, or what they're motivated by. At the end of the day, at the end of the *process*, what will count (by definition in the scientific method) is whether what they produce as a result of those motivations stands up to scientific tests and demands (and perpetually so; their ideas are perpetually tested, thats why einstein's ideas could last for 50 years and then be replaced -- amended, modified, and improved. Even einstein could not be a god to scientists).

Whereas - contrast that process - which is the essence of the scientific method - with the "process" in faith-based institutions. In faith-based institutions, you get points for sticking to your guns *despite* the evidence. The process encourages that (its called faith) and tests there are tests of your rigidity in that regard, not on your willingness to change, but on your unwillingness to change, in the face of material evidence.

In other words, the *ethic* is different. The measure of what constitutes legitimate science and scientific authority, is different from faith-based science. It matters little what individual scientists want or do,  the larger process does weed them out because the scientific process is different from what the church demands. It may take some time in some cases, but it always happens because it is a process that is larger than the individual scientist.

Thats the difference I think huha is pointing out when he says scientists want to be wrong. That is basically correct. The scientific method celebrates testing and failure so long as it results in correction and improvement and increased accuracy.

Thats the exact opposite mindset of faith-based science.  And that was the sea-change the enlightenment ushered in, and opposed (and was opposed by) the system the church had operated for 1500 years, when it came to truth-value.

Individual scientists are often *******s. And individual priests may well be some of the nicest guys on earth. Neither fact changes anything when it comes to the system of logic by which their respective institutions make "authority".

But if that scientific *system* of checks and balances and testability and accountability breaks down at the institutional level - thats when you have things like "scientific" communism - and begins to resemble a church with its cults of personality and literal readings of Marx-as-prophet. Same thing happened in fascist/nationalist hands with racism as "science".  Thats not science any more than biblical literalism is science, because like biblical literalism, it abandoned the process of perpetual correction and perpetual accountability in favor of perpetual dogmatism.