Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Feb 4, 2014#1

Mathias

The gloves are off.

I hope this doesn't end up in a Dawkins/Wright debate.

Feb 4, 2014#2

bhamv3

I am filled with trepidation. I believe even debating the creationists lends them unwarranted legitimacy.

Feb 4, 2014#3

Bowielee

I still can't believe there's even still a creationism vs evolution debate in this day and age. Even faithful christians who are sensible understand the concepts of parts of the bible being metaphor.

Feb 4, 2014#4

WasabiPoptart

Bowielee said:
I still can't believe there's even still a creationism vs evolution debate in this day and age. Even faithful christians who are sensible understand the concepts of parts of the bible being metaphor.

And that makes all the difference.

Feb 4, 2014#5

strawman

I believe in a literal creation.

Does that make me insensible?

Feb 4, 2014#6

Hailey Knight

bhamv3 said:
I am filled with trepidation. I believe even debating the creationists lends them unwarranted legitimacy.

This. It has as little relevance to reality as Ymir being carved up by Odin to create the Earth.

Feb 4, 2014#7

Bowielee

stienman said:
I believe in a literal creation.

Does that make me insensible?

its-a-trap-what-happens-when-advertisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg

Feb 4, 2014#8

Krisken

stienman said:
I believe in a literal creation.

Does that make me insensible?

Feb 4, 2014#9

WasabiPoptart

stienman said:
I believe in a literal creation.

Does that make me insensible?

Feb 4, 2014#10

strawman

The point being that if you have to devolve into attacking the intelligence or character of the person you disagree with, you aren't standing on very firm ground, even if we were to allow personal insults and attacks as acceptable in our community.

Feb 4, 2014#11

Krisken

Sorry, I'd still go with this.

When your 'debate opponent' continues to use religious dogma as a cudgel and applies circular logic, mockery is only natural.

Feb 4, 2014#12

Bowielee

stienman said:
The point being that if you have to devolve into attacking the intelligence or character of the person you disagree with, you aren't standing on very firm ground, even if we were to allow personal insults and attacks as acceptable in our community.

The fact that you viewed that as a personal insult speaks more to you personally than it does to my statement. If you believe that it's possible for billions upon billions of species to be wrangled up into a small arc, that's your business. However, it does speak to your ability to separate facts from metaphors.

Feb 4, 2014#13

strawman

Bowielee, it seems to me that you are throwing rocks in a glass house. You felt personally attacked and insulted when I attempted to have a civil discussion on the value of gay marriage to our society, and continued to complain about it until I relented out of respect for your personal beliefs.

Now you broadly characterize Christians who hold certain beliefs as insensible, and then as I point out the insult you essentially say, "if the shoe fits..."?

Is it not possible for you to share your beliefs without calling into question the other persons ability to reason?

Feb 4, 2014#14

Krisken

Thinking the earth is 6000 years old, despite all evidence which contradicts it, isn't insensible?

Not all beliefs can be considered valid. It's just not reasonable.

Feb 4, 2014#15

Hailey Knight

I'm not interested in debating evolution and creationism because it's an argument I've been having on the internet since I was 13. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Feb 4, 2014#16

Bowielee

stienman said:
Bowielee, it seems to me that you are throwing rocks in a glass house. You felt personally attacked and insulted when I attempted to have a civil discussion on the value of gay marriage to our society, and continued to complain about it until I relented out of respect for your personal beliefs.

Now you broadly characterize Christians who hold certain beliefs as insensible, and then as I point out the insult you essentially say, "if the shoe fits..."?

Is it not possible for you to share your beliefs without calling into question the other persons ability to reason?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Your beliefs are not equatable to my sexuality and basic right to be treated equally. If that's what you're trying to say, then you truely are insensible. If you want to call my atheism insensible, go to town.

Feb 4, 2014#17

WasabiPoptart

Since I feel I had a part in this, too, I guess I had better jump in. What I bolded in Bowie's post was all about people being sensible, not Christians or Creationists in particular. Sensible people, regardless of their beliefs, understand metaphor and do not bend interpretations to fit with their values, then use that skewed view as irrefutable proof of something being true. Doesn't work, I don't care if it is in science or religion.

Feb 4, 2014#18

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. Your beliefs are not equatable to my sexuality and basic right to be treated equally. If that's what you're trying to say, then you truely are insensible. If you want to call my atheism insensible, go to town.

I don't think steinman fits into this category, but as I'm sure you're aware, there are a lot of Christians who think they're being oppressed by your basic right to be treated equally, because of your sexuality.

Feb 4, 2014#19

Krisken

Wait, am I missing something from another thread?

Feb 4, 2014#20

Bowielee

Krisken said:
Wait, am I missing something from another thread?

An old thread.

Feb 4, 2014#21

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
Wait, am I missing something from another thread?

Yeah, but not a current one.

Feb 4, 2014#22

strawman

Well, I honestly thought people would be a little more respectful once I pointed out the ad hominem.

Sorry to have disturbed your party, I'll leave you to it.

Feb 4, 2014#23

ThatNickGuy

Can I just say that I really want this thread and discussion to keep going? Provided we can remain respectful and tactful, of course. But I know when it comes to religious beliefs (or lack thereof in Bowie's case), it becomes a heated debate. We're all good people here and I hope we can have a respectful discussion this.

Personally? Well, for one, I'm watching this debate very closely and find it fascinating. I'm a former Catholic and consider myself agnostic, which is basically that I believe there's some sort of unfathomable higher power out there, but I have no clue who or what it could be. I think it's interesting that similar stories or parables have popped up in multiple religions in different parts of the world, and personally, I think there's something to that: a shared belief that there's something else beyond our observable eyes. I'd like to personally believe that the people that have passed on went somewhere else and maybe even check up on us once in awhile to see how we're doing. I'd like to believe I'll go there some day, myself, partly because I'm terrified of dying.

As far as science is concerned, though, I think there's enough scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and that the earth is billions of years old. At the same time, I can also believe that there is higher power that gave everything a little push. That the idea of "And then there was light" could be a parable to the Big Bang. I think the same could be said for a number of stories from the Bible.

So in a way, I personally support both theories...to a point. I really don't think the earth is only 6,000 years old, though. There's not enough science to support that and too much science to discredit it.

Feb 4, 2014#24

Krisken

Supply evidence of creationism and I'll hear it. That's just not what will happen, though. Time and again we've seen this debate and it always ends the same way, the scientist comes out with scientific evidence to support their claim and explain why it's the most reasonable conclusion while the creationist trots out the bible and tries to present it as evidence.

I'm sorry, Stienman, no one is saying you can't have your beliefs or that your beliefs are wrong. They ARE saying if you can't support the beliefs with something other than religious zeal it can't be put forth as a valid scientific theory. That's where this debate makes everyone here roll their eyes.

Feb 4, 2014#25

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Well, I honestly thought people would be a little more respectful once I pointed out the ad hominem.

Sorry to have disturbed your party, I'll leave you to it.

Where was disrespect shown after you said that? The only thing I see would be this:

Bowielee said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. Your beliefs are not equatable to my sexuality and basic right to be treated equally. If that's what you're trying to say, then you truely are insensible. If you want to call my atheism insensible, go to town.

And he had an "if" clause.

From my own spiritual and religious point of view, I don't equate someone disagreeing with my beliefs or seeing them as stupid to be the same as the basic human rights being ignored. But you might consider that irrelevant since my religion isn't yours. You have every right to.

Feb 4, 2014#26

Cog

Damn my english language skills. This is the kind of conversation I would like to participate.
I'm agnostic. And one of the reasons I'm agnostic and not atheist is ...baseball.
A long time ago, my father gave my brother and I a baseball bat and a ball. We didn't know anything about baseball except that you are supposed to hit the ball with the bat. So a group of friends started their own version of baseball... with 6 bases. I knew there is only 4 bases in baseball and I was angry because they weren't playing the way the game should be played. The problem is that I didn't know anything else about the game, and my version would not be much closer the the real game. In the end, everybody was having fun, except me. What difference would it make for those kids if they played the game the way I believed it should be played? The same goes with faith. There are people who are happy with their faith (or lack of it) and there are people who are angry because they know the others are wrong.

Feb 5, 2014#27

Bowielee

Having watched the whole thing, I now understand why Bill Nye agreed to do this. It really has nothing to do with the actual debate. He's trying to reach out to the populations of the area to recruit scientists.

Feb 5, 2014#28

ThatNickGuy

Just an addendum to what I've said:

Creationists take "6 days" as scientific fact, but who's to say that God works on the same timetable as we do? Who's to say 6 days for God isn't 6 thousand, or 6 million, or 6 billion years? Who's to say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been some form of primate, not humans?

As I said, I like to think there's something to be said for both points of view. Neither side can certainly say, without question, what happened to cause to Big Bang or what happens when we die. NO ONE living has that answer and no one who has passed on has come back to tell us. Probably because Heaven is too awesome. I can't imagine what the bike trails are like up there.

Feb 5, 2014#29

ThatNickGuy

So I just finished watching the entire debate. Really fascinating stuff, honestly. From both sides. It bothered me that Ham continued to avert answering Nye's questions about scientific fact and reasoning, such as the 9,000 year old tree or how quickly creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed. Like I said, I think science has proven most of creationist's beliefs incorrect, but there are still the biggest questions that neither side can infallibly answer.

However, one thing bothered me most towards the end: Ham states that the Bible is the only book or source that tells you about the creation of the universe, the creation of marriage, the afterlife, etc. Which would be true...if you left out the Qur'an, the Torah, the Kojiki, the Book of the Dead, Babylonian and Sumerian tablets (from which I believe also has a VERY similar story to Adam & Eve and pre-dates the Bible by several thousand years), Native American beliefs, Greek mythology, etc.

There are literally THOUSANDS of other texts out there in various formats from hundreds or thousands of different religions and beliefs. Christianity may be the most dominant religion in the world, but it by no means the one and only one that people find the cornerstone of their faith.

Feb 5, 2014#30

Gilgamesh

There can never be a civil discussion between Creationists and Scientists.
One is based on emotion the other is based on facts.
Whenever the two collide, there's never going to be a consensus.
(Gay being natural/at birth, Transgender being a real thing, the Big Bang etc)

Feb 5, 2014#31

Bowielee

ThatNickGuy said:
Like I said, I think science has proven most of creationist's beliefs incorrect, but there are still the biggest questions that neither side can infallibly answer.

The difference being that science can be amended to reflect new information.

The crux of the difference came in the form of a question towards the end. "What, if anything, could make you change your mind?"

The creationist's answer HAS to be, by definition of faith, nothing.

The scientist's answer HAS to be, by definition of science, anything that changes the provable facts.

Feb 5, 2014#32

Gilgamesh

Bowielee said:
The creationist's answer HAS to be, by definition of faith, nothing.

Or some new guys write a book saying that God spoke to them with new stuff/rules.

What? It worked the first time right?

Feb 5, 2014#33

tegid

Re: the conflict here, I can't clearly say if anyone did anything wrong and where, but in general I find it's better to call the opinions or beliefs insensible, unreasonable or whatever, rather than the people holding them.
At first I couldn't see the difference between Stienman's example and what was happening here, so let me spell it out for whoever doesn't see it either. One has implications only in the realm of opinions (it's an 'academic' discussion, if you will) whereas the other has consequences in the real world, on people being denied rights (the original discussion was presented as 'academic', but it's a discussion that can never be purely theoretical because it has very inmediate consequences in the lifes of people). Almost everyone got this already I guess, but just in case.

Re: the video itself, I wasn't going to watch it because every time I've seen Ken Ham argue against evolution he's driven me up the wall. Many of his arguments ARE stupid (the crocoduck, ffs, or using wrongly interpred thermodynamics which as I physicist I can't stand). Buut seeing Nick's opinion I guess I'll start watching and see what happens.

Feb 5, 2014#34

tegid

OH HEY LET'S USE FALLACIES ALL THE TIME THEY ARE GREAT

Ugh, I need to stop watching this for a while

Feb 5, 2014#35

Cog

You can't separate emotions from people. Science corrects itself all the time but not as fast as it should because of the people defending the "old truth".

Feb 5, 2014#36

Krisken

Cog said:
You can't separate emotions from people. Science corrects itself all the time but not as fast as it should because of the people defending the "old truth".

That's definitely true, but I think it's a necessity. In order for scientific theories to change, it has to be corroborated and retested time and again. In the case of science the debate is healthy because it encourages people to question. Religion by its nature insists you DON'T question, making it impossible to be jammed into the model of scientific discovery, and why so many wars are fought over religion.

Feb 5, 2014#37

Jay

Respecting other people's beliefs is one thing, having them believe the world is of a certain age when clear evidence contradicts it and they still won't budge leads you to two things :

1. Losing their respect for them and laugh at their face for being dumb savages.

2. No, I was wrong, there's only one option.

Feb 5, 2014#38

Cajungal

I'm with Patton Oswalt. You only have to acknowledge everyone's beliefs and then reserve the right to say "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

Feb 5, 2014#39

Espy

Okay, so here's the thing.

I say this as someone who has a Masters in Theology with a focus on the Old Testament and I can back everything I'm about to say with good, highly regarded scholarly work.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis are Ancient Near Eastern literature and a belong to the "Myth" literary genre. Now, here's the deal with "Myth" as a literary genre and Ancient Near Eastern literature: a) Ancient Near Eastern literature was written for people who were part of Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Not modern, American western culture. That means there are a LOT of hindrances to even begin to understand the way literature like that should be interpreted in our modern language. Think of it like this, take, uh, Enders Game as it's written with all the concepts and ideas familiar to our culture, now translate it into ancient Hebrew and send it back in time 3 or 4 thousand years and ask an average person to read it and understand the ideas found in it.

With a lot of work would they understand the concepts and ideas presented in it? Maybe. But they might also just assume we all flew around in spaceships and military blahblahblah and never understand the major concepts the author was trying to convey. Thats how written works work. They generally are far more difficult to understand when translate and removed from any cultural concept. Obviously it's not impossible but it's HARD. So when we open up the Bible or ANY ancient text from another culture we shouldn't expect to be able to just "GET IT" because is' in english. One of the biggest failings of the christian church, IMO, is that they have failed to teach christians how to read the bible in it's appropriate context and instead taught people to just randomly pick out passages and ask, "What does this mean for me?" instead of "What did this mean to a hebrew person living 3000 years ago?" So, it's easy to understand that as this sort of reading of the Bible has become more normal in the church over the last hundred years it's easy to see why people like Ham have come about. They read Genesis 1-3 and see a literal, scientific account of creation. Why wouldn't they? Why would the compare it to other pieces of literature at the time it was written? Why would they bother to ask what the Jews thought it meant? Outside of scholarly circles (and a few churches, mine included thank God our pastor is a brilliant theologian with a crazy love of science) no one really does that anymore. So thats how they get there.

Now, lets deal with "Myth" as a literary genre. We hear "Myth" and we think "Fairy Tale" or "Greek Mythology". Thats how we apply our cultural ideas to it. That is wrong. Myth as a genre merely means that it is explaining concepts between God (or gods) and humanity. Creation accounts exist in every language and many of them are eerily similar. In fact most of the Genesis account was taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh. Thats just how it worked back then. To a Hebrew person living back then they understood why it was unique next to the creation accounts it was similar to. In most of those accounts the gods created humanity to be slaves or servants. They were created to be footstools. In the Hebrew account God made humanity to be co-rulers.

This is a HUGE concept. It completely changes the dynamic of both the reason for creation and for HOW humanity was supposed to interact with God.

It was, in this respect, different from every other creation account since it gave humankind worth that other account did. Thats why it's amazing to people of faith both now and back then. God didn't create us to be his slaves, he created us to be in relationship with Him and to take care of this works He made for us (which sadly, also has been tossed aside by much of the modern church in favor of politics that argue for us to do whatever we want with the earth instead of taking care of it as we are supposed to).

No Hebrew person hearing this story would hear it as a scientific text. It's as scientific as the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's about WHY God created us. Not a literal "HOW".

Now does that mean you can't think it as a literal account if you want to? Of course not. Go nuts. But realize that you are reading something into the text the authors certainly never intended for you to get out of it. You can still do it. I can't stop you and I honestly don't care because there is NOTHING involved in being a christian that requires belief in literal 7-day creation in order to follow Jesus. I would argue that if one does feel like literal 7-day creation is a requirement then there are some SEVERE problems with both ones theology and how one reads and understands the Bible and I would worry that the desire to be "right" is causing one to miss the real point of these things. If you are able to hold to a literal 7-day creation but still allow for others to have different takes both theologically and scientifically then rock on, we can all be friends and have a beer (root or other) together.

Does that mean evolution is "true"? Man I don't know, I'm not a scientist but I tend to lean towards the idea that God made the universe and the Bible tells us "WHY" and science reveals the "HOW" portion (which so far, seems to be the theory of evolution). I think it's time Christians stop being afraid of science and instead look at Science as merely a way for God to reveal things to us.

Whew. Sorry. I get worked up about this.

Feb 5, 2014#40

Shakey

I've always enjoyed reading your posts on religious issues @Espy. Just had to say that.

Feb 5, 2014#41

Espy

Shakey said:
I've always enjoyed reading your posts on religious issues @Espy. Just had to say that.

All those students loans have to be worth something.

Feb 5, 2014#42

Shakey

Espy said:
All those students loans have to be worth something.

You're the Halforums Preacha. What could be more rewarding?

Feb 5, 2014#43

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
I believe in a literal creation.

Does that make me insensible?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Feb 5, 2014#44

Espy

Shakey said:
You're the Halforums Preacha. What could be more rewarding?

Ha! I have no idea who did that.

@Charlie Don't Surf: Dude, ugh.

Feb 5, 2014#45

Krisken

Espy said:
Ha! I have no idea who did that.

I'm so pleased it's still there!

Feb 5, 2014#46

Espy

KRISKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!

Feb 5, 2014#47

Charlie Don't Surf

I can't help myself. It's also the same sentiment like 5 other people said above.

Feb 5, 2014#48

Espy

I know, I guess I was hoping we could move past the belittling stage in this thread and talk like adults.

Feb 5, 2014#49

Krisken

Yeah, I started of as "Butthole" but I hope I've moved on from that role.

Feb 5, 2014#50

Charlie Don't Surf

Espy said:
I know, I guess I was hoping we could move past the belittling stage in this thread and talk like adults.

It's impossible to talk like adults with anyone that ignores basic scientific facts (i.e. literal creationists)

Feb 5, 2014#51

Necronic

Yeah but that attitude makes you guys look like you are more interested in being right than in changing opinions. This issue has a lot more importance in the grand scheme of things then stroking the egos of self-righteous people who know what smart person to quote. Getting literal creationism out of schools is a serious issue, and being a dick doens't help that.

Feb 5, 2014#52

tegid

Well, if you accept scientific truth as actually true there's no discussion to be had, is there? Science says what it says and that's it. But starting from this controversies you can discuss many interesting things, such as what can or can't be known, about what can science say anything, or talk about misconceptions on one side or the other (for instance, 'many scientists believe in literal creation', 'evolution is just a theory', what evidence is for or against it, to name some on 'my side')

Feb 5, 2014#53

Necronic

I'm not against taking a firm stance on it.

I'm against laughing at theists like they are mentally challenged.

Feb 5, 2014#54

tegid

Sorry, I was answering to CDS, not to you, but got ninja'd because I'm suuuper slow

Feb 5, 2014#55

Necronic

I understand, I was actually replying to Charlie halfway up the page with my first comment then it got ninja'd.

Anyways really all it says is that you have some serious social issues. I work with people who are literal creationists. Should I laugh at them in the face when this comes up in conversation? Of course not. So that either makes people who do that online cowardly hypocrits or the extremely socially inept. In fairness both of those reasonably describe a lot of the internet....[DOUBLEPOST=1391625993,1391625748][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's impossible to talk like adults with anyone that ignores basic scientific facts (i.e. literal creationists)

Also, its totally reasonable to talk to people this way seeing as most people know so few scientific facts. Most scientists spend their days listening to people say things that are innacurate or misconcieved. We don't spend our days laughing at everyone. The people that do this are those that got there through shortcuts and think that repeating knowledge is the same thing as understanding it.

/rant over

Feb 5, 2014#56

tegid

Something that has always surprised me is how creationism seems to be much more pervasive in the US (and Canada? The only creationist scientist I've ever met was a Canadian) than in most of the developed world. I mean, I understand that the religious makeup of society is different there, also religion is more important, etc., but I still can fathom how this happens in the country that lead's the world's science. I also wonder if this scientific illiteracy/opposition will have consequences in the short-medium term or scientific production and quality is so strongly dependent on economic power in your case that it can remain mostly unaffected by this phenomenon.

Feb 5, 2014#57

Krisken

I have no problem with people who are misinformed. That's understandable and something we all experience. I do have trouble dealing with people who are willfully ignorant. Even more so with those who are willfully ignorant and determined to spread that ignorance with an agenda attached.

Feb 5, 2014#58

Bowielee

I maintain that I never belittled anyone.

Feb 5, 2014#59

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy said:
Provided we can remain respectful and tactful, of course..

Welp, so much for that. But then again, it's @Charlie Don't Surf, who is completely incapable of tact, respect, genuineness, or even talking or thinking like an adult.

Thanks for that rant, @Espy. I honestly didn't know until know that you were a theologian. As you say, there's nothing wrong with reading a religious text as literal, but there are some extremely big consequences to that. Like I said, I grew up Catholic and thus, on the Bible, so I generally know my stuff. I also studied religion myself and have the course equivilant of a minor in Religious Studies. I don't think God ever intended us to take everything literally. The Bible is meant to teach us morality through its multiple stories. God didn't just hit a lightswitch and the universe went click. As I said, who's to say he works on our same timeline?

Feb 5, 2014#60

Espy

Something that is hard for folks to get is that the bible is literature. It is not just 1 genre, like Enders Game or Dracula or American Gods is. It's MANY books and letters and individual poems put together with a unified and overarching narrative. To read it as anything else is doing a serious disservice to the authorial intent not to mention ones own theological understanding.

Feb 5, 2014#61

Bowielee

Totally not meant to be taken seriously and apropos of nothing, but just a thought that I had:

It's funny that some people have trouble with "a wizard did it" in fictional storytelling, but are perfectly fine with it in their life defining religion.

Feb 5, 2014#62

ThatNickGuy

Espy said:
Something that is hard for folks to get is that the bible is literature. It is not just 1 genre, like Enders Game or Dracula or American Gods is. It's MANY books and letters and individual poems put together with a unified and overarching narrative. To read it as anything else is doing a serious disservice to the authorial intent not to mention ones own theological understanding.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically? For a whole year, he tries to live according to the Bible by taking it as literally as possible. Some of the extremes he takes are hilarious, like not sitting where a woman has sat during their time of the month because they're considered "impure." It's a really interesting read if you haven't.

Feb 5, 2014#63

Gilgamesh

Bowielee said:
It's funny that some people have trouble with "a wizard did it" in fictional storytelling, but are perfectly fine with it in their life defining religion.

Kind of the point I made a bit earlier. It's all part of the -My Book is right and your book is wrong..... because.- Especially when it has zero factual basis for it's stance as -right above all others-

Feb 5, 2014#64

Espy

ThatNickGuy said:
Out of curiosity, have you ever read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically? For a whole year, he tries to live according to the Bible by taking it as literally as possible. Some of the extremes he takes are hilarious, like not sitting where a woman has sat during their time of the month because they're considered "impure." It's a really interesting read if you haven't.

No! It sounds great though! Rachel Held Evens (who I think you would really like her stuff) did a similar book that was pretty hilarious.

Feb 5, 2014#65

Chad Sexington

ThatNickGuy said:
Out of curiosity, have you ever read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically? For a whole year, he tries to live according to the Bible by taking it as literally as possible. Some of the extremes he takes are hilarious, like not sitting where a woman has sat during their time of the month because they're considered "impure." It's a really interesting read if you haven't.

I mean, then it sounds like he missed the part about not... having... to follow the law as laid out in Leviticus anymore? The debates on circumcision, diet, etc in Acts and Letters?

Feb 5, 2014#66

Espy

Chad Sexington said:
I mean, then it sounds like he missed the part about not... having... to follow the law as laid out in Leviticus anymore? The debates on circumcision, diet, etc in Acts and Letters?

Usually people who do this kind of thing are doing it more to play off the idea that there are folks who cherry pick some of the old covenant laws to still enforce but ignore everything else. Also, because it's funny.

Feb 5, 2014#67

Chad Sexington

Espy said:
Usually people who do this kind of thing are doing it more to play off the idea that there are folks who cherry pick some of the old covenant laws to still enforce but ignore everything else. Also, because it's funny.

Well, fair enough.

If I was his wife, I'd just sit on every chair in the house when I had my period. WHERE WILL YOU SIT NOW, ASSHAT

Feb 5, 2014#68

ThatNickGuy

Chad Sexington said:
Well, fair enough.

If I was his wife, I'd just sit on every chair in the house when I had my period. WHERE WILL YOU SIT NOW, ASSHAT

Heh, actually....

(Spoiler: His wife is awesome.)

Feb 5, 2014#69

Hailey Knight

ThatNickGuy said:
God didn't just hit a lightswitch and the universe went click.

This is something that's perplexed me about creationists. Core to their religion is the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing entity who can do anything besides things it has decided it cannot do.

Insta-creating the universe sounds like nothing. It's unimpressive. But for that entity to have been pushing atoms in countless number across vast stretches of space, having some of those elements forming stars where an invisible force of attraction pulls other elements into rotation around them, and then on one of those worlds in one of those systems, letting that world cook until some of those atoms coalesce into their own small systems, those molecules forming cells, those cells swimming and devouring each other, and in time working together, spawning more of themselves, reproducing over eons to form multi-cellular organisms, to develop senses of taste and sight, for that entity to influence the climate and promote change and death and more reproduction, each generation just a hair different than the last, focusing these millions of generations by species, by family, across the world, and after billions of years, when if one part had been thrown off, the whole project would be ruined, and yet the entity did it, the goal is reached--a creature in the entity's image.

I don't believe that, but that sounds far more godlike than just blinking it all into existence.

Feb 5, 2014#70

Espy

And remember, a huge part of why ANY creation myth goes through all the different stages it does it to show the DOMINANCE of the God or gods doing the creating. Otherwise you worry that lightning can defeat your god, etc, etc.

Feb 5, 2014#71

bhamv3

Shamelessly stolen from Reddit:

You can CLAIM that Ken Ham was at a debate last night, but I say that he was bowling all night in Tokyo with bigfoot. Now, you might have youtube videos and witness accounts and logical argument about the flight times to travel from Kentucky to Tokyo - but we can't go back and observe those things - they are in the past, historical science. It is tempting to say that how technology and electricity, and cameras works today is how it worked last night, but that is confusing observational science with historical science and ASSUMING that natural laws are unchanging from now to last night. I will freely admit that my historical science based interpretation of Ken Ham's sasquach bowling is based on the infallible word of Henry Gale, but the humanist secularist must admit their story of electron based communication from last night is also a faith based story (one that leads to abortion and euthanasia btw). To back my story up - here are some videos of other people who also believe the Tokyo bigfoot accounts and have phd's - and as we all know 4 people can't be wrong about one thing AND good at something else too.
TL;DR Ken Ham was in Tokyo bowling with a mountain ape all last night. Proof: it is historical science my dear watson.

Feb 6, 2014#72

GasBandit

Pat Robertson on Ken Hamm: "Let's not make a joke of ourselves, young earth is demonstrably false."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...to-shut-up-lets-not-make-a-joke-of-ourselves/

Huh. Ok then, Pat. Didn't expect that.

Feb 6, 2014#73

WasabiPoptart

GasBandit said:
Pat Robertson on Ken Hamm: "Let's not make a joke of ourselves, young earth is demonstrably false."

I almost shot coffee out of my nose when I read that quote.

Feb 6, 2014#74

Krisken

Slate writer attempts to answer questions posed by creationists.

I thought this was a very even, respectful response to a lot of the questions put forth by creationists regarding evolution.

Feb 6, 2014#75

Hailey Knight

The hosts of “Creation Today,” Eric Hovind and Paul F. Taylor, attacked Robertson for claiming that dinosaurs could exist

Oh hell no. I've put up with ignorance, religiously-fueled bigotry, the harm caused to education, but NOBODY fucks with dinosaurs.

This is an official hate-on.

Feb 6, 2014#76

Terrik

Hooray, we're on..Pat Robertson's side?

Feb 6, 2014#77

Mathias

stienman said:
The point being that if you have to devolve into attacking the intelligence or character of the person you disagree with, you aren't standing on very firm ground, even if we were to allow personal insults and attacks as acceptable in our community.

As long as you keep that bullshit out of science classrooms, you can believe in whatever the hell you want.

I stand on very firm grounds of evidence. What do you got? Ask me questions. Also important to note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer for observed phenomena.

Feb 6, 2014#78

Ravenpoe

Mathias said:
As long as you keep that bullshit out of science classrooms, you can believe in whatever the hell you want.

I stand on very firm grounds of evidence. What do you got? Ask me questions. Also important to note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer for observed phenomena.

Feb 6, 2014#79

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy said:
Provided we can remain respectful and tactful, of course.

That feels more and more of an empty hope as this thread continues.

Feb 6, 2014#80

Timmus

I thought Bill Nye did a really good job advocating for science while also maintaining respect for opponent. I think these debates do hold the potential to help people change their understanding. If Ham's arguments are the best they have I'm not too worried about him convincing anyone of anything.

Feb 6, 2014#81

Hailey Knight

Feb 6, 2014#82

ThatNickGuy

Timmus said:
I thought Bill Nye did a really good job advocating for science while also maintaining respect for opponent. I think these debates do hold the potential to help people change their understanding. If Ham's arguments are the best they have I'm not too worried about him convincing anyone of anything.

Agreed. You won't convince anyone to join your side by laughing in their face or calling their beliefs bullshit. Nye's tact, respect, and patience was impeccable so far as I could tell. If anything, Ham was the dismissive one, saying things like, "Well, you know, there is a book that tells you how the universe began. It says, 'And then God said let there be light...'"

Feb 7, 2014#83

Piotyr

I don't want to get involved in any debate, really, but to me the most annoying thing going on is the assumption that all Christians are the same or believe the same thing, or that since this Christian said something that everyone must believe the same thing. Hell, I can't even count the number of different Christian denominations that disagree on one fundamental level or another. Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostals, Independents, and all the different sects and flavors of each. You can pretty much assume if one guy things something, that's on him, and not everyone.

Feb 7, 2014#84

Krisken

I thought everyone here was being pretty clear they were speaking about Creationists. Did I miss where someone specifically targeted Christians as a group instead?

Feb 7, 2014#85

GasBandit

And there are even Old Earth Creationists as well. IE, "God still made the world and the universe, but the time measurements in the bible are metaphorical/not literal, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume science is right about the age of all this stuff, and evolution is a thing too."

Feb 7, 2014#86

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
And there are even Old Earth Creationists as well. IE, "God still made the world and the universe, but the time measurements in the bible are metaphorical/not literal, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume science is right about the age of all this stuff, and evolution is a thing too."

If we go worldwide, isn't Old Earth Creationism much more prevalent, and in fact basically a dominant view? I was under that impression regarding European Christians at the very least.

Feb 7, 2014#87

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
If we go worldwide, isn't Old Earth Creationism much more prevalent, and in fact basically a dominant view? I was under that impression regarding European Christians at the very least.

I have no data on the prevalence of old earth creationist thought, in either the US or the World. I just know that it exists in non-negligible amounts.

Feb 7, 2014#88

Piotyr

Krisken said:
I thought everyone here was being pretty clear they were speaking about Creationists. Did I miss where someone specifically targeted Christians as a group instead?

Ken Ham in particular is one of (if not THE) most prominent Young Earth Creationists, considering he has a museum all about it. The actual Young Earth Creationist world view at this time is pretty niche, and to my knowledge isn't near as prevalent as creationists who acknowledge origin via science and evolution on at least some level.

EDIT: And my original post wasn't referring to here, just general though everywhere in the internet-verse.

Feb 7, 2014#89

Espy

Young earth literal creation is a relatively (the last hundred or two hundred years or so) new theological idea. No one read Genesis 1-3 as literal much before then if I remember correctly.

Feb 7, 2014#90

Krisken

Piotyr said:
Ken Ham in particular is one of (if not THE) most prominent Young Earth Creationists, considering he has a museum all about it. The actual Young Earth Creationist world view at this time is pretty niche, and to my knowledge isn't near as prevalent as creationists who acknowledge origin via science and evolution on at least some level.

EDIT: And my original post wasn't referring to here, just general though everywhere in the internet-verse.

Ah, I see. Thanks Piotyr

Feb 7, 2014#91

Hailey Knight

There are many variations to creationism. I've heard the most regarding dinosaurs and what remains of them. Off the top of my head, I've heard:

- Dinosaurs died when Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise.
- Dinosaurs died in the flood, not being on Noah's ark.
- Dinosaurs were on the ark and died later.
- Dinosaur fossils are planted by the devil to make us question God.

Dinosaurs were really why I as a 4-year-old kept asking my mom questions she couldn't answer when she was trying to read us a children's book interpretation of Genesis.

Feb 7, 2014#92

WasabiPoptart

I was told that scientists are lying about the dinosaurs. There never was such a thing. Scientists have created these fantastical creatures to make us believe there is proof of their theories when it's really no better than aliens made in a movie/animation studio. This same person told me that my view of a combination of creationism and science's theories of creation of the universe and evolution was a falsehood. I was lying to myself about how everything was created because The Word is Truth as it is written. I got a brain cramp from trying to use reason.

Feb 7, 2014#93

Gilgamesh

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/things-i-learned-at-the-creation-museum

So much to say...

Feb 7, 2014#94

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
And there are even Old Earth Creationists as well. IE, "God still made the world and the universe, but the time measurements in the bible are metaphorical/not literal, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume science is right about the age of all this stuff, and evolution is a thing too."

Back when I was a devout christian, I leaned pretty heavily on the passage from 2 Peter 3:8.

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Feb 7, 2014#95

fade

Hamm's response to everything was essentially, "It's not true because I don't believe/want it to be true." Which seems contrary to the rules of a debate.

Then again, I guess the point was less to win than to showcase their points of view.

Feb 7, 2014#96

Bowielee

His distinction between practical and historical science was laughable at best.

Feb 7, 2014#97

Frank

You guys weren't there, how do you know his distinctions were laughable?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

Feb 7, 2014#98

Ravenpoe

Gilgamesh said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/things-i-learned-at-the-creation-museum

So much to say...

What I take away from this is that 6,000 years ago, everyone was white.

Feb 7, 2014#99

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/things-i-learned-at-the-creation-museum

So much to say...

Fuck me running. I think some brain cells committed suicide.

Feb 7, 2014#100

WasabiPoptart

I wanna pet dinosaur.

Feb 7, 2014#101

Bowielee

WasabiPoptart said:
I wanna pet dinosaur.

Well, now you can blame that AND your period on Eve, that easily tempted bitch.

Feb 7, 2014#102

WasabiPoptart

Actually, I like my period. It means I'm not pregnant. That's a good thing in my world! I like sleep. I'll gladly suffer for a few days a month to have (mostly) restful nights the rest of the time!

Feb 7, 2014#103

ThatNickGuy

WasabiPoptart said:
Actually, I like my period. It means I'm not pregnant. That's a good thing in my world! I like sleep. I'll gladly suffer for a few days a month to have (mostly) restful nights the rest of the time!

Feb 8, 2014#104

Bowielee

Another thing that I loved about the debate is that Ham kept saying that only creationists are teaching kids to think critically. I think someone needs to tell him that blindly accepting what an ancient book tells you is the antithesis of critical thinking.

Feb 8, 2014#105

Cajungal

WasabiPoptart said:
Actually, I like my period. It means I'm not pregnant. That's a good thing in my world! I like sleep. I'll gladly suffer for a few days a month to have (mostly) restful nights the rest of the time!

Preach, woman.

Feb 8, 2014#106

fade

Bowielee said:
Another thing that I loved about the debate is that Ham kept saying that only creationists are teaching kids to think critically. I think someone needs to tell him that blindly accepting what an ancient book tells you is the antithesis of critical thinking.

Real science is critical thinking by definition. If someone blindly accepts a scientific theory without question then they are doing it wrong.

Feb 8, 2014#107

Bowielee

fade said:
Real science is critical thinking by definition. If someone blindly accepts a scientific theory without question then they are doing it wrong.

I don't recall saying to blindly accept scientific theory anywhere, but I'm not sure if that's what you're implying or not.

Feb 8, 2014#108

GasBandit

fade said:
Real science is critical thinking by definition. If someone blindly accepts a scientific theory without question then they are doing it wrong.

Bowielee said:
I don't recall saying to blindly accept scientific theory anywhere, but I'm not sure if that's what you're implying or not.

I... think... he's channeling Socrates, and saying you're not allowed to assert any scientific principle you haven't verified yourself first hand, or else your "science" is just a faith, same as religion.

IE, any of us saying Dinosaurs are millions of years old are just religious adherents, unless we do the carbon dating ourselves (Because we've only been TOLD by somebody else they are), and for that matter, we have to independently re-invent carbon dating to make sure it is what we've been told it is.

Feb 8, 2014#109

fade

Bowielee said:
I don't recall saying to blindly accept scientific theory anywhere, but I'm not sure if that's what you're implying or not.

I wasn't quoting to refute you but to continue what you said.

Feb 8, 2014#110

LittleSin

I tried to watch this debate but had trouble.

It just...Ham felt a bit like a tv sales man to me, you know? Like he was trying really hard to sell me on some thing for only three east payments of 19.99.

It didn't sit well with me.

Feb 8, 2014#111

Bowielee

fade said:
I wasn't quoting to refute you but to continue what you said.

Got it. One thing about this whole debate is that science allows for the possiblity of pretty much anything, as long as it's provable. This would also include the possibility of a creator god or intelligence of some sort. Faith based claims preclude many possibilities unless you do some mental gymnastics to justify them.

Feb 8, 2014#112

Bones

but @Bowielee how do you know the results you are getting from all that science are even real? what if those repeatable results are only your subjective perception of what you think reality should be? What if we are all just brains in jars, some sort of bio coppertops for our giant robot overlords!?

WHOA....I just blew my own mind! NO MORE LSD FOR BONES BEFORE BED!

on a sidenote, purple tastes delicious... just thought you all would like to know :3

Feb 8, 2014#113

Bowielee

Bones said:
but @Bowielee how do you know the results you are getting from all that science are even real? what if those repeatable results are only your subjective perception of what you think reality should be? What if we are all just brains in jars, some sort of bio coppertops for our giant robot overlords!?

View attachment 13843
WHOA....I just blew my own mind! NO MORE LSD FOR BONES BEFORE BED!

on a sidenote, purple tastes delicious... just thought you all would like to know :3

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ideas/#ideasmodes

Feb 8, 2014#114

Bones

legit man, I actually tried to understand what you linked, graduate level hard science education...no freaking clue what Descartes is talking about. You win sir, between the hallucinogenic drugs and the philosophy my brain just turned into jello and is slowly oozing through my nose.

Feb 8, 2014#115

GasBandit

Bones said:
on a sidenote, purple tastes delicious... just thought you all would like to know :3

You're not supposed to take BOTH the red AND blue pills, Bones.

Feb 8, 2014#116

Bowielee

Bones said:
legit man, I actually tried to understand what you linked, graduate level hard science education...no freaking clue what Descartes is talking about. You win sir, between the hallucinogenic drugs and the philosophy my brain just turned into jello and is slowly oozing through my nose.

I came THIS CLOSE to minoring in philosophy. I decided to go with writing instead. I figured it dovetailed better with my career goals.

Feb 9, 2014#117

ThatNickGuy

GasBandit said:
You're not supposed to take BOTH the red AND blue pills, Bones.

Well, unless you were old enough to live in the 60s and attend Woodstock.

Feb 9, 2014#118

Mathias

fade said:
Real science is critical thinking by definition. If someone blindly accepts a scientific theory without question then they are doing it wrong.

I'd like to just clarify what I think Fade's getting at here. You don't need to be an expert geneticist or evolutionary biologist to think critically about the subject. The evidence is there and provided to you by the experts. You can go to a museum for example, and see fossils for yourself, and read up on the general literature that has been peer reviewed and keep asking "why" and "how" to your hearts content. Science encourages questioning, in fact. You can pretty much question stuff to mathematical axioms and derivations of where we get the units of measure and their standards if you really want.

Feb 9, 2014#119

Frank

You know what's funny, jagoffs like this who take one of the best parts about science and mocking it like there's something wrong with it.

Feb 9, 2014#120

Timmus

Well at least they're consistent in their worldview. If life can't evolve why should understandings and opinions get to?

Feb 9, 2014#121

Bowielee

Frank said:
You know what's funny, jagoffs like this who take one of the best parts about science and mocking it like there's something wrong with it.

That's exactly the skewed misunderstanding of what science actually is that pisses me off the most. Lay-people tend to look at science as some sort of unassailable bastion of facts and laws. The very first thing I was taught about the scientific method is that you never really prove anything, you look for the most likely and consistant factors, peeling away at the boundaries to whittle away truth from random chance. Science uses critical thinking to call everything into question. That's how science is advanced. If science were what people out in the world at large view it as, there wouldn't be a science of quantum physics.

Feb 10, 2014#122

Timmus

Yeah I really can't stand it when people are willfully ignorant and proud of it.

Feb 10, 2014#123

Cog

Other reason for me to be agnostic it's the hypocrisy I feel from both sides of the argument. How many people are willing to admit that something they know could be wrong?

Feb 10, 2014#124

Piotyr

On the flip side, people need to stop acting like it's some sort of "gotcha" when someone can't prove their faith, since by the definition of faith it's always a non-starter.

Feb 10, 2014#125

Gilgamesh

Cog said:
How many people are willing to admit that something they know could be wrong?

I've met plenty of scientists that are openly happy to accept being wrong if proveable.
I've never met a single Creationist willing to do the same.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of the science vs faith. Changeable vs Faith in something for thousands of years with no change.

Feb 10, 2014#126

Bubble181

One (of many) reasons for me to be and remain agnostic is simply that the arguments a faith uses to "defend against" (or "fight" or "debate" or whatever) atheism are often completely different from the arguments used to debate (etc) other religions.

Accept that a religion is true. How do you find which one? What, other than "I was born in a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/whatever family/situation/culture" is your reason to pick A over B? How do you prove, or even find any reason whatsoever, to think your faith is the "right one"?
Oh sure, it can (easily) be argued that Allah of the Islam, and Yahweh of Judaism and Christianity are the same God....But firstly, that's not the official stance of any of the major players; secondly, there are many, many contradictory points between religions; and thirdly - there are plenty of religions that absolutely aren't compatible.

Feb 10, 2014#127

Bubble181

Gilgamesh said:
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of the science vs faith. Changeable vs Faith in something for thousands of years with no change.

Hey now. I've met plenty of stubborn my-mind-is-as-closed-as-the-closet-Putin's-in atheists, and I've met plenty of scientifically minded religious people. As we have some of them on here, I'm a bit surprised to see people constantly refer to atheism as "scientific"'. It's a bogus disparity. There are plenty of unscientific atheists out there and vice versa.

Anyway, aside from that - religion isn't essentially and forever unchanging. We're not doing Mass in High Latin anymore, mostly. The Catholic Church accepts that the Earth revolves around the Sun (some few hundreds years late but still). It's just a very conservative institution, in general, and moves at a slower pace than the new-idea-of-the-day of modern man.

Feb 10, 2014#128

Bowielee

Cog said:
Other reason for me to be agnostic it's the hypocrisy I feel from both sides of the argument. How many people are willing to admit that something they know could be wrong?

I'm fairly certain that I JUST said that science is all about being willing to accept that what you know to be true could be wrong. Frankly, I find agnosticism to be kind of a copout. It's a safety net, just in case. I'm willing to accept that there's the possibility of a benevolent creator or intelligent design or what have you, but I'm not willing to blindly believe in it just because I've been told that it's out there with no basis of proof.

There's no hypocrisy there that I can see.

All things are possible, but not all things are probable.[DOUBLEPOST=1392041431,1392041195][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
Hey now. I've met plenty of stubborn my-mind-is-as-closed-as-the-closet-Putin's-in atheists, and I've met plenty of scientifically minded religious people. As we have some of them on here, I'm a bit surprised to see people constantly refer to atheism as "scientific"'. It's a bogus disparity. There are plenty of unscientific atheists out there and vice versa.

Anyway, aside from that - religion isn't essentially and forever unchanging. We're not doing Mass in High Latin anymore, mostly. The Catholic Church accepts that the Earth revolves around the Sun (some few hundreds years late but still). It's just a very conservative institution, in general, and moves at a slower pace than the new-idea-of-the-day of modern man.

You've outlined exactly why some people are so adamant about shutting down religion. I personally think that people can believe whatever the hell they want, but the moment it leads to the revocation of rights, halting the evolution and advancement of the human race, or allows people to be hurt in any way, that's when I have serious problems.

Feb 10, 2014#129

Cog

Bowielee said:
I'm fairly certain that I JUST said that science is all about being willing to accept that what you know to be true could be wrong. Frankly, I find agnosticism to be kind of a copout. It's a safety net, just in case. I'm willing to accept that there's the possibility of a benevolent creator or intelligent design or what have you, but I'm not willing to blindly believe in it just because I've been told that it's out there with no basis of proof.

Yes. Science is all that. But people are not. That is my point. The hypocrisy exists in the fact that many atheist are willing to renounce to all religion things because it's not logical, irrational, etc, etc. But unless your goal is to become a vulcan, all your life is full of illogical and irrational things that many are not willing to change.

Feb 10, 2014#130

Bowielee

Cog said:
Yes. Science is all that. But people are not. That is my point. The hypocrisy exists in the fact that many atheist are willing to renounce to all religion things because it's not logical, irrational, etc, etc. But unless your goal is to become a vulcan, all your life is full of illogical and irrational things that many are not willing to change.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. The foaming at the mouth atheists that you guys are vaguely referring to are those who have a personal axe to grind with religion. They feel like they've been lied to their entire life and feel the need to lash out. It's like a kid who finds out there's no Santa Clause running out in anger and telling all their friends who still believe in him out of spite.

I came by my atheism through logic and deduction, mostly by studying mythology and anthropology. If you look at the very small sliver of recorded human history that's represented by what the bible represents, it's ridiculous to me personally to believe that every single religion prior to it was wrong but christianity was right. This lead me to philosophy and psychology and my basic theory is that religion is a comfort to people because it gives easy answers to really big difficult questions. I understand WHY people want and or need religion/faith in their lives, but it's not something that I need.

Feb 10, 2014#131

Bones

Bubble181 said:
We're not doing Mass in High Latin anymore, mostly. The Catholic Church accepts that the Earth revolves around the Sun (some few hundreds years late but still). It's just a very conservative institution, in general, and moves at a slower pace than the new-idea-of-the-day of modern man.

They brought Hi-Mass back in the US at least, you can thank Pope Benedict for that one. The Catholics are more troublesome for their conservative views on social issues like gay rights and abortion. The science? The catholic church now embraces all of it, seriously, I am not making this up. They however do allow for the "God of Gaps" or at least that's how it seems to me. That is to say that there are somethings science doesn't have answers for yet, these are the things where the divine intervenes.[DOUBLEPOST=1392043486,1392043314][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
Actually, I think it's the opposite. The foaming at the mouth atheists that you guys are vaguely referring to are those who have a personal axe to grind with religion. They feel like they've been lied to their entire life and feel the need to lash out. It's like a kid who finds out there's no Santa Clause running out in anger and telling all their friends who still believe in him out of spite.

I came by my atheism through logic and deduction, mostly by studying mythology and anthropology. If you look at the very small sliver of recorded human history that's represented by what the bible represents, it's ridiculous to me personally to believe that every single religion prior to it was wrong but christianity was right. This lead me to philosophy and psychology and my basic theory is that religion is a comfort to people because it gives easy answers to really big difficult questions. I understand WHY people want and or need religion/faith in their lives, but it's not something that I need.

really want to fuck with people? try to explain to them that the proto-hebrew people had a pantheon of gods, Yahweh? he was the God of War. I also agree with what you are saying, I always just think its an interesting factoid that Jewish scholars bring up from time to time.

Feb 10, 2014#132

Bowielee

Bones said:
They brought Hi-Mass back in the US at least, you can thank Pope Benedict for that one. The Catholics are more troublesome for their conservative views on social issues like gay rights and abortion. The science? The catholic church now embraces all of it, seriously, I am not making this up. They however do allow for the "God of Gaps" or at least that's how it seems to me. That is to say that there are somethings science doesn't have answers for yet, these are the things where the divine intervenes.[DOUBLEPOST=1392043486,1392043314][/DOUBLEPOST]
really want to fuck with people? try to explain to them that the proto-hebrew people had a pantheon of gods, Yahweh? he was the God of War. I also agree with what you are saying, I always just think its an interesting factoid that Jewish scholars bring up from time to time.

You might enjoy this book, if you haven't already read it.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Against-The-Gods-Monotheism/dp/0142196339

Feb 10, 2014#133

Bubble181

Bowie, than you just plain have a different definition of atheism and agnosticism than I do - or most anyone else.
Atheism is the belief, faith, conviction, what-have-you (you can say it's "certainty" but so does a religious person about their faith) that there is NOT a God/gods/Force/etc.
Agnosticism is the conviction/belief/idea/faith/etc that you do not know and/or cannot know.

We can go 17 more rounds about theistic agnosticism, apatheistic agnosticism, metaphysical agnosticism, and all that - I'm a philosophy major, seriously, I'll do it if you insist. But this seems a futile discussion. If you're "willing to accept that there's the possibility of a benevolent creator or intelligent design or what have you, but", you're not, in my book, a strict atheist.
Atheism, in the strict definition, is the positive belief in the nonexistence of (a) God(s). Nonbelieve in the existence of God is a much broader, more inclusive definition of atheism - but then there is little to no more room for a "third option". Semantics may often be the basis of understanding, it can also be used to fog things up.

Feb 10, 2014#134

Bowielee

Bubble181 said:
Bowie, than you just plain have a different definition of atheism and agnosticism than I do - or most anyone else.
Atheism is the belief, faith, conviction, what-have-you (you can say it's "certainty" but so does a religious person about their faith) that there is NOT a God/gods/Force/etc.
Agnosticism is the conviction/belief/idea/faith/etc that you do not know and/or cannot know.

We can go 17 more rounds about theistic agnosticism, apatheistic agnosticism, metaphysical agnosticism, and all that - I'm a philosophy major, seriously, I'll do it if you insist. But this seems a futile discussion. If you're "willing to accept that there's the possibility of a benevolent creator or intelligent design or what have you, but", you're not, in my book, a strict atheist.
Atheism, in the strict definition, is the positive belief in the nonexistence of (a) God(s). Nonbelieve in the existence of God is a much broader, more inclusive definition of atheism - but then there is little to no more room for a "third option". Semantics may often be the basis of understanding, it can also be used to fog things up.

Not at all. I don't for one second believe that god exists, but if you were able to show me proof, I'd have to amend that belief. That's where I take umbrage with you using the word faith, because faith means blindly accepting something despite evidence to the contrary.

As I said, I'm of the mind that most people who claim to be agnostic are really atheists who are unwilling to make that final disconnect.

Feb 10, 2014#135

Piotyr

Bowielee said:
because faith means blindly accepting something despite evidence to the contrary.

No, that's not what faith means at all.

Feb 10, 2014#136

Bowielee

Mirriam Webster disagrees.

To be clear here, we're talking about religious faith. Obviously faith is a word with different meanings used in different contexts.

Feb 10, 2014#137

figmentPez

Bowielee said:
Mirriam Webster disagrees.

Definition one from Merriam Webster is: "a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b. (1) : fidelity to one's promises." Definition 1 from Dictionary.com is "confidence or trust in a person or thing:" Definition 3. from the World English dictionary is specific to Christianity "3. trust in God and in his actions and promises"

All of those align with the definition of faith I gave you in another thread, trust in the testimony of a reliable witness. Words can have multiple meanings, and sometimes the distinctions between how they are used in different contexts is highly important. Just because many people use "faith" to describe belief in contradiction to evidence does not mean that such is the only definition the word has.

Feb 10, 2014#138

SpecialKO

Technically, "faith" doesn't mean "contrary to evidence" either, it means "with no proof". Those are two very different things.

Feb 10, 2014#139

Bowielee

figmentPez said:
Definition one from Merriam Webster is: "a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b. (1) : fidelity to one's promises." Definition 1 from Dictionary.com is "confidence or trust in a person or thing:" Definition 3. from the World English dictionary is specific to Christianity "3. trust in God and in his actions and promises"

All of those align with the definition of faith I gave you in another thread, trust in the testimony of a reliable witness. Words can have multiple meanings, and sometimes the distinctions between how they are used in different contexts is highly important. Just because many people use "faith" to describe belief in contradiction to evidence does not mean that such is the only definition the word has.

You of course completely skipped over this definition.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust[DOUBLEPOST=1392046822,1392046769][/DOUBLEPOST]

SpecialKO said:
Technically, "faith" doesn't mean "contrary to evidence" either, it means "with no proof". Those are two very different things.

I'll definitely concede that.

Feb 10, 2014#140

Piotyr

Bowielee said:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Which is not at all "despite evidence to the contrary".

Saying you'll "believe something when you have proof of it" begets the need for belief. That's akin to saying you refuse to believe in anything until it's accepted as fact.

Feb 10, 2014#141

Bowielee

I'm just exceedingly uncomfortable with Pez's assertion that science and religion are equatable on terms of faith. I still wholeheartedly disagree and feel that it's a semantic game to justify his own beliefs.

Feb 10, 2014#142

Bones

SpecialKO said:
Technically, "faith" doesn't mean "contrary to evidence" either, it means "with no proof". Those are two very different things.

did...did...you just call creationists stupid? *golf claps*

Feb 10, 2014#143

Piotyr

Bowielee said:
I'm just exceedingly uncomfortable with Pez's assertion that science and religion are equatable on terms of faith. I still wholeheartedly disagree and feel that it's a semantic game to justify his own beliefs.

Which is fine, but misrepresenting the entire concept of faith isn't the best way to make a point on logic and reason.[DOUBLEPOST=1392047374,1392047149][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bones said:
did...did...you just call creationists stupid? *golf claps*

And we've circled back around to the misrepresentation and belittling.

Feb 10, 2014#144

Bones

I think its only misrepresented in those who believe, I am with Bowielee, his "opinion" on what faith is in a religious sense seems to be approximate to my and my circle of friends on what it is to have "faith".
This spurred a conversation while I was hanging out with my friends about the semantics of the use of faith and belief. for me personally bowielee's use of faith is right on target for how it is used by myself. I use believe in the sense of evidence for or against. I.G. "I have faith that we will make it out of this thing in one piece, but really I believe that this might be the end for us."

Feb 10, 2014#145

Bowielee

Piotyr said:
Which is fine, but misrepresenting the entire concept of faith isn't the best way to make a point on logic and reason.[DOUBLEPOST=1392047374,1392047149][/DOUBLEPOST]
And we've circled back around to the misrepresentation and belittling.

I didn't misrepresent it in the context of the original video that sparked all this. For many people, faith does mean accepting the bible at face value regardless of evidence to the contrary. Pez asserted that this is no different than the scientific method, which is where this whole go round started from. The problem is that we're mixing multiple discussions, not to mention stretching them across two different threads.

Feb 10, 2014#146

SpecialKO

Goddamnit ( :awesome:

) guys, stop Halforuming shit up!

Feb 10, 2014#147

fade

This is a weird thread to read. I see what 3 people saying the more or less the same thing yet arguing about it. Jeez if anything sounds like religion...

Feb 10, 2014#148

Piotyr

And that is part of the disconnect. Changing the definition of faith in an effort to belittle those who make use of it. People are often guilty of misrepresenting their faith or overextending their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, but that isn't faith as much as ignorance.

If I may borrow the use of biblical scripture here for a second, this is as general a concept of religious faith as I can reasonably assume of all Christians, at the least, from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Feb 10, 2014#149

Bubble181

Not to mention there's a slight language gap. My English is good and all, but it's still only my third language. This occasionally shows when discussing philosophical/religious topics. Semantics can get very important, and some of the finer points are hard to make when not knowing the exact words.

Feb 10, 2014#150

Bowielee

Piotyr said:
And that is part of the disconnect. Changing the definition of faith in an effort to belittle those who make use of it. People are often guilty of misrepresenting their faith or overextending their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, but that isn't faith as much as ignorance.

If I may borrow the use of biblical scripture here for a second, this is as general a concept of religious faith as I can reasonably assume of all Christians, at the least, from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

You keep saying belittling, I'm not belittling anyone, never have. I have no clue where you're getting that from.

Feb 10, 2014#151

Bones

he is getting it from my sardonic remark, you didnt say anything I can remember.

Feb 10, 2014#152

Bowielee

That's twice that I've been accused of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is not equatable to belittling them.

Feb 10, 2014#153

Piotyr

Bowielee said:
That's twice that I've been accused of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is not equatable to belittling them.

No, not you, mostly it's passive-aggressive Gilgamesh over there who thinks anything he doesn't understand is funny.

EDIT: You have, however, twice stated that anyone with religious faith has it despite evidence to the contrary, which is a misrepresentation of faith. As soon as someone tried to explain that, you got defensive immediately and backed off.

Feb 10, 2014#154

Ravenpoe

I'd just like to add one thing to this conversation. I've seen many times in this thread people refer to atheism as being close to religion because it's still a belief without hard evidence, either belief that God does exit, or belief that he doesn't.

MOST scientifically minded people who identify as atheists (myself included) are actually agnostic, in that the existence of God cannot be disproven, so the possibility, however faint we might think it is, is there. That sort of acceptance of possibility is a founding corner of science, as any hard proof that might suggest God is real would then be studied and questioned, and new ideas possibly formed.

The reason those agnostics claim to be an atheist instead of agnostic is because while the possibility of God is there, they still lean heavily towards the side of 'probably not.' In the same way, we can't know for certain that we aren't human batteries plugged into the Matrix living a virtual reality world, but we operate under the assumption that the evidence we can find in the natural world is real and that we aren't all just hallucinating.

Feb 10, 2014#155

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
I'd just like to add one thing to this conversation. I've seen many times in this thread people refer to atheism as being close to religion because it's still a belief without hard evidence, either belief that God does exit, or belief that he doesn't.

MOST scientifically minded people who identify as atheists (myself included) are actually agnostic, in that the existence of God cannot be disproven, so the possibility, however faint we might think it is, is there. That sort of acceptance of possibility is a founding corner of science, as any hard proof that might suggest God is real would then be studied and questioned, and new ideas possibly formed.

The reason those agnostics claim to be an atheist instead of agnostic is because while the possibility of God is there, they still lean heavily towards the side of 'probably not.' In the same way, we can't know for certain that we aren't human batteries plugged into the Matrix living a virtual reality world, but we operate under the assumption that the evidence we can find in the natural world is real and that we aren't all just hallucinating.

What Poe said.

Did you know that a lot of people identify as agnostic atheists? The two concepts are 100% compatible.

Gnosticism is about knowledge, about knowing. Theism is about belief in a god or gods.

A gnostic theist knows that there is a god or gods. An agnostic theist does not know if there is a god or gods, but believes so.
Similarly, a gnostic atheist knows that there is no god or gods. An agnostic atheist does not know whether there is a god or gods, but does not believe so.

I'd also like to emphasize that an absence of belief does not equal belief in an absence.

Based on this definition, I'd actually say a lot of you fit the definition of atheists. Don't believe me? Take a sheet of paper, and on it write down the names of all the gods you believe (or know) exist. If the paper remains blank, then you are an atheist. The paper may be blank because you honestly don't know if there's a higher power, and that's fine. The paper may be blank because you are certain there's no higher power, and that's fine too. Either way, you're an atheist.

Feb 10, 2014#156

SpecialKO

bhamv3 said:
Take a sheet of paper, and on it write down the names of all the gods you believe (or know) exist.

No, don't do that. We all know how that ends.

Feb 10, 2014#157

figmentPez

Bowielee said:
You of course completely skipped over this definition.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

Yes, I did. Because words do not use all their meanings at the same time. Someone who says that they're going to cleave meat from the bone does not simultaneously mean that they will both adhere closely and split or divide. Just because faith can be used in that manner does not mean that that all faith is of that type.

Bowielee said:
I'm just exceedingly uncomfortable with Pez's assertion that science and religion are equatable on terms of faith. I still wholeheartedly disagree and feel that it's a semantic game to justify his own beliefs.

If you'd would go back and read my posts more carefully, an with less bias, I think you'll find that I did not claim that they are equatable, merely that they have commonality. If I were to compare a wood axe and a two-handed sword by saying that they are both made of steel, have a sharpened cutting edge and are made to be used with two hands on the grip, I would not be saying that the two are equivalent. Despite having many commonalities, a sword is not a good choice for cutting down trees, and a wood axe is less than optimal for combat. The faith that people put in science and the faith that people put in religion have many commonalities, but they are not equivalent.[DOUBLEPOST=1392056014,1392055817][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
That's twice that I've been accused of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is not equatable to belittling them.

Saying that someone is using a "semantic game to justify his own beliefs" is belittling those beliefs. Especially when you have been battling a strawman argument that does not reflect what I have asserted.

Feb 10, 2014#158

Bowielee

Ugh...

I'm going to get some sleep and revisit this when I haven't been up for 24 hours solid.

Feb 10, 2014#159

Krisken

Unsubscribe

Feb 10, 2014#160

Ravenpoe

tl;dr: Pez is using a non-religious definition of faith in a discussion concerning religion because reasons.

Feb 10, 2014#161

figmentPez

Ravenpoe said:
tl;dr: Pez is using a non-religious definition of faith in a discussion concerning religion because reasons.

Actually, I am using a religious definition of faith. My definition of faith is firmly founded in Protestant theology, and a great number of pastors would affirm that our faith in God is founded on the reliable testimony of witnesses. We believe because we trust those who have seen and given their testimony to us. That is the foundation of the Christian faith.

Feb 10, 2014#162

Bones

Ravenpoe said:
The reason those agnostics claim to be an atheist instead of agnostic is because while the possibility of God is there, they still lean heavily towards the side of 'probably not.' In the same way, we can't know for certain that we aren't human batteries plugged into the Matrix living a virtual reality world, but we operate under the assumption that the evidence we can find in the natural world is real and that we aren't all just hallucinating.

SOB YOU HAVE BEEN IN MY STASH AGAIN!
to be fair that was some really good "electric kool-aid".[DOUBLEPOST=1392056751,1392056614][/DOUBLEPOST]

figmentPez said:
Actually, I am using a religious definition of faith. My definition of faith is firmly founded in Protestant theology, and a great number of pastors would affirm that our faith in God is founded on the reliable testimony of witnesses. We believe because we trust those who have seen and given their testimony to us. That is the foundation of the Christian faith.

so thats what "witnessing" means? seriously?! I was raised Roman Catholic so that was never a thing, and I always wondered why it was called that. thats actually a TIL moment for me.

Feb 10, 2014#163

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
Actually, I am using a religious definition of faith. My definition of faith is firmly founded in Protestant theology, and a great number of pastors would affirm that our faith in God is founded on the reliable testimony of witnesses. We believe because we trust those who have seen and given their testimony to us. That is the foundation of the Christian faith.

So then you have trust in those testimonies without any proof to yourself. I see no disconnect in the definition.

And I'm not saying you can't have faith in that. Do whatever you want, man. It's just arguing over definitions of words instead of the actual topic seems a bit pedantic.

Feb 10, 2014#164

Bowielee

Great, now we're going to have to argue over the definition of reliable.

Feb 10, 2014#165

figmentPez

Ravenpoe said:
So then you have trust in those testimonies without any proof to yourself. I see no disconnect in the definition.

And how is that different from the majority of the population who will never participate in peer review of science? (there is a difference, I just want you to spell it out, because I'm not sure you've thought this through.)

Feb 10, 2014#166

Bones

so the argument is that we should trust that there is a god because others say so, and we should trust that there is gravity because scientist say so. However leaving philosphy out play, we can test experiments ourselves to see the concepts in action for gravity. however we can not test for god, as we yet have a way to sense it. so I have to have faith god is out there, but I can believe in gravity because I can test for it.

this seems to be the ultimate crux as i can understand it so far.

Feb 10, 2014#167

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
And how is that different from the majority of the population who will never participate in peer review of science? (there is a difference, I just want you to spell it out, because I'm not sure you've thought this through.)

Because they are repeatable. Because even if someone lacks the resources to recreate an experiment themselves, they can read the report of countless others who have. They can go to a university and witness the experiment in progress. They can go on youtube and watch the same. The outcome of the event can be recreated and reviewed by countless other people, and held to scrutiny by the scientific community at large, without having to rely that someone who is dead was totally telling the truth. "Reliable" testimony in science is only reliable if the event in question can be recreated and observed again, and again, and again.

Feb 10, 2014#168

figmentPez

Bones said:
so the argument is that we should trust that there is a god because others say so, and we should trust that there is gravity because scientist say so. However leaving philosphy out play, we can test experiments ourselves to see the concepts in action for gravity. however we can not test for god, as we yet have a way to sense it. so I have to have faith god is out there, but I can believe in gravity because I can test for it.

this seems to be the ultimate crux as i can understand it so far.

Yes, it's easier to go out and replicate science. You can't intentionally go out and replicate the witness of those who knew Jesus Christ.

However, the average person not only has not gone and and replicated every scientific experiment out there, the average person lacks the ability to replicate every scientific experiment, and many lack the ability to understand the results, even if they did. Even scientists have it well beyond their individual abilities to replicate each and every result that they are expected to believe. The system works, and has checks and balances, but still requires people to put their faith in the testimony of human witnesses.

Great, now we're going to have to argue over the definition of reliable.

Duh! I already stated that each person has to decide what they consider reliable, and that a great deal of philosophical debate needs to go into deciding what should be required to believe testimony. If you weren't so quick to dismiss me out of turn, you might have heard that.

Feb 10, 2014#169

Bowielee

figmentPez said:
Duh! I already stated that each person has to decide what they consider reliable, and that a great deal of philosophical debate needs to go into deciding what should be required to believe testimony. If you weren't so quick to dismiss me out of turn, you might have heard that.

Unbunch your panties Gladys, I was kidding.

Feb 10, 2014#170

Bones

figmentPez said:
Yes, it's easier to go out and replicate science. You can't intentionally go out and replicate the witness of those who knew Jesus Christ.

I think the problem is that you are using Jesus as an example of a god, I am not, I am including all possible universal forces of good and creation. To many mortal men have claimed to be gods and been found charlatans. How do you remedy that the Jewish and Muslim faith only consider him a prophet? is their word any less trustworthy? all three worship the one true god and only one can be right. should I not trust that 2 out of 3 hit it on the head?

Feb 10, 2014#171

Piotyr

Bones said:
I think the problem is that you are using Jesus as an example of a god, I am not, I am including all possible universal forces of good and creation. To many mortal men have claimed to be gods and been found charlatans. How do you remedy that the Jewish and Muslim faith only consider him a prophet? is their word any less trustworthy? all three worship the one true god and only one can be right. should I not trust that 2 out of 3 hit it on the head?

So your argument is that what is true should be dictated by popular opinion, then, in the absence of proof?

I mean, the simplest "remedy" is that not everyone agrees about everything, even within the bounds of a single sect of a single denomination of a single religion. Which goes back to the point I mentioned earlier about not assuming because one person says something that everyone thinks the same thing because they are religious.

Feb 10, 2014#172

Bones

Piotyr said:
So your argument is that what is true should be dictated by popular opinion, then, in the absence of proof?

no I am asking both of you now I guess, how do you remedy that there are 3 major religious branches that believe in the same god, identify the same man, but only one actually thinks he is a god incarnate. if statistics show that 3 people saw him, and only 1 saw god. how do you remedy what the other two saw?

edit: isnt this a simple case of having faith? or does faith only count in your own personal perceptions?

Feb 10, 2014#173

Piotyr

Bones said:
no I am asking both of you now I guess, how do you remedy that there are 3 major religious branches that believe in the same god, identify the same man, but only one actually thinks he is a god incarnate. if statistics show that 3 people saw him, and only 1 saw god. how do you remedy what the other two saw?

Sorry, edited after you replied.

It's like I said earlier, people disagree about almost everything. Jewish believers are still looking for their Messiah, Christians think it is Jesus, Muslims think Mohammed is God's prophet. It's an oversimplification, but there's no way to generalize believed religious truth through a collaboration of all religions, there are too many disagreements.

So what we're left with in the faith is reading up, deciding for ourselves what we believe, and going with that. That doesn't mean that when we believe something it will never change, or that we hold to things in the opposition to proof elsewhere, it's just a person the same as you deciding something differently when looking at the evidence of life and looking for meaning within.

EDIT: This also doesn't mean we have all the answers about every situation and every minute detail in all aspects of life, the universe, and everything. Everyone is still learning and growing their worldview, or at least they should be.

Feb 10, 2014#174

Bones

so basically as far as I can tell you just ignore what the other 2 guys praying to your god say and continue with what you believe?

Feb 10, 2014#175

Piotyr

Bones said:
so basically as far as I can tell you just ignore what the other 2 guys praying to your god say and continue with what you believe?

Religions have disagreements, film at 11. Why is this such a hard thing to comprehend? This is not a binary decision.

Feb 10, 2014#176

Bones

I am not actually sure how to respond to you, I have been trying for 20 minutes, to explain what I was asking, but in every case I feel like you will continue to get more and more offended and accuse me of attacking you. so I guess I will just stop this line of inquiry.

Feb 10, 2014#177

GasBandit

Bones said:
I am not actually sure how to respond to you, I have been trying for 20 minutes, to explain what I was asking, but in every case I feel like you will continue to get more and more offended and accuse me of attacking you. so I guess I will just stop this line of inquiry.

There are three things people aren't supposed to discuss if they're to remain friends.

Of course, that's most of what we talk about around here.

Feb 10, 2014#178

Piotyr

I'm just not sure what you're trying to get at, and have had basically the worst day all year at work today, so if I'm projecting that frustration through my posts, my apologies.

Belief in Christ as God is kinda integral to the Christian faith, and why there's such a disconnect between Christianity and Islam/Judaism. At the risk of more over-generalization (since it's hard to really make overarching assumptions about the beliefs of entire religions, since they do think so differently and are so diverse in beliefs) I think Islam considers Christianity and Judaism "brothers of the faith", as there's nothing specific about either that counters their beliefs. Christians believe, in essence, that Christ is God and the only path to salvation, so the lack of this recognition from Islam and Judaism is a big enough disconnect for Christians to consider both "wrong" in that sense. I don't personally know any Jewish people, so I don't know how they resolve their faith against those of Christians/Muslims.

As far as me personally, I don't understand how someone can read the written accounts of Christ's life and see him as simply a "good man", but CS Lewis handles that more eloquently than I ever could, so I won't even try here.

Feb 10, 2014#179

Chad Sexington

Bones said:
I am not actually sure how to respond to you, I have been trying for 20 minutes, to explain what I was asking, but in every case I feel like you will continue to get more and more offended and accuse me of attacking you. so I guess I will just stop this line of inquiry.

I feel like your question is confusing.

Do you mean that because there are other religions who believe in the same God, then a member of any of those has to explain why he has adopted his particular religion over the others?

An individual person will weight the philosophy, evidence and history as available to him or her, and decide what they believe to be true. I think that we cannot say this person has chosen to just go along with one of a few options, but that they have found profound faith in their choice of religion.

The spiritual experience is not assessed or criticised or analysed easily; we can say "they have no evidence," and it is true they cannot pick up a soul, or have us over for dinner with Jesus as a fellow guest to answer some questions. But I would be careful in saying their faith is blind: it is more that their faith illuminates something which to others is unseen.

Feb 10, 2014#180

Bones

i repeat all I am asking is you are part of a group that believes a man is a god, there are two other groups with the same father god that think he is a mortal, only one of you can be right. so given this, how did you personally come to remedy the beliefs of the other two? all three faiths assume god is infalliable, so someone got the wrong message. This is treating all of christianity as one major group because I am not going down that road right now. I am an atheist and given what everyone says in their "text" Jesus was a guy who existsed and did good things and brought a message of peace and love apperantly(as far as I understand) why should I assume he is a god if the other two say no?

I am going to try to explain this as best I can. lets say we discover a new particle, it proves the existence of god, the first scientist says found it but says nope just the higgs-boson, second scientist does, last scientist finds the higgs-boson again. I dont know how to get my question across in a way that makes sense, I am sorry, I am trying and failing. I dont think in philosphical terms if that is what this has been about again I apologize.

Feb 10, 2014#181

Chad Sexington

Bones said:
i repeat all I am asking is you are part of a group that believes a man is a god, there are two other groups with the same father god that think he is a mortal, only one of you can be right. so given this, how did you personally come to remedy the beliefs of the other two? all three faiths assume god is infalliable, so someone got the wrong message. This is treating all of christianity as one major group because I am not going down that road right now. I am an atheist and given what everyone says in their "text" Jesus was a guy who existsed and did good things and brought a message of peace and love apperantly(as far as I understand) why should I assume he is a god if the other two say no?

I am going to try to explain this as best I can. lets say we discover a new particle, it proves the existence of god, the first scientist says found it but says nope just the higgs-boson, second scientist does, last scientist finds the higgs-boson again. I dont know how to get my question across in a way that makes sense, I am sorry, I am trying and failing. I dont think in philosphical terms if that is what this has been about again I apologize.

Oh, I see, so you're asking him specifically how he came to Christianity? I can't answer that. But I don't think it's as simple as being asked to 'assume' Jesus is God and ignoring other religions. Some personal investigation must lead one to that conclusion.

Feb 10, 2014#182

Piotyr

Bones said:
i repeat all I am asking is you are part of a group that believes a man is a god, there are two other groups with the same father god that think he is a mortal, only one of you can be right. so given this, how did you personally come to remedy the beliefs of the other two? all three faiths assume god is infalliable, so someone got the wrong message. This is treating all of christianity as one major group because I am not going down that road right now. I am an atheist and given what everyone says in their "text" Jesus was a guy who existsed and did good things and brought a message of peace and love apperantly(as far as I understand) why should I assume he is a god if the other two say no?

I am going to try to explain this as best I can. lets say we discover a new particle, it proves the existence of god, the first scientist says found it but says nope just the higgs-boson, second scientist does, last scientist finds the higgs-boson again. I dont know how to get my question across in a way that makes sense, I am sorry, I am trying and failing. I dont think in philosphical terms if that is what this has been about again I apologize.

It's pretty much straight philosophical differences, so the only thing one can do is read up and choose for yourself what makes sense to believe. It's not a "1 v 2" issue so much as three completely different perspectives on a series of events.

Feb 10, 2014#183

figmentPez

Bones said:
i repeat all I am asking is you are part of a group that believes a man is a god, there are two other groups with the same father god that think he is a mortal, only one of you can be right. so given this, how did you personally come to remedy the beliefs of the other two? all three faiths assume god is infalliable, so someone got the wrong message. This is treating all of christianity as one major group because I am not going down that road right now. I am an atheist and given what everyone says in their "text" Jesus was a guy who existsed and did good things and brought a message of peace and love apperantly(as far as I understand) why should I assume he is a god if the other two say no?

These are legitimate questions, and ones that Christian apologetics try to answer. There are a great deal of books on the subject, and pastors regularly preach on the matter. It is a huge, broadly encompassing question. In short, I believe that Jesus Christ is God, when Judaism and Islam say he is not, because I find the testimony of the Gospels to be compelling to the point that religions that teach contrary cannot be believed. Modern Judaism and Christianity share the same root of historic Judaism, and the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament. I believe that prophecy is clear enough to identify Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that anyone who chooses to follow the Law and the Prophets must also acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Furthermore, Islam claims to have the same roots, and acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but they deny the witness of the Gospels, and thus they can be discounted as well. The witness of the Koran is not as reliable as the witness of the New Testament. There are not as many copies, of as many manuscripts, from as many authors, as there are of the New Testament. There are not the outside historical accounts to give creedence to the truth of what is claimed there, so I go with the witnesses I find to be compelling; those of the Apostles and the other writers of the New Testament.

I realize that no everyone finds the evidence to be so compelling. I don't care, and it's pointless to argue over the internet in such a large crowd. I am not a Biblical scholar and do not see the point of trying to debate the issue with those who have already shown they are quite ready to create strawmen to battle, rather than actually listen to what I say.

Feb 10, 2014#184

Bowielee

Get off the cross, Pez, we need the wood.

I'm perfectly fine with you having whatever beliefs you want. I've never said that you can't or even that you shouldn't. No matter what I say, you're going to feel attacked, so eh.

Feb 10, 2014#185

Gilgamesh

Simply put:
Religion is based on Faith that a book written centuries ago is 100% right and you shouldn't question it. (This applies to nearly any faith, they're all basically the same in basing why they're right over the other).
Science is based on proven fact that has been tested and rested to be true. If a later test proves a new outcome, the new outcome is truth until proven otherwise.

Simply put:
A religious person takes questions about their belief as attacks because they can't question their book/faith. It's wrong to them. It's just what they believe.
A scientific person takes questions about their results as attacks because they feel they did everything necessary to come to their answer. However, they can be proven wrong and accept the new result.

This obviously doesn't apply to 100% of all Religious people or 100% of all Scientific people but it IS the basis of each. Do religious people cherry pick what they'll believe based on what they find convenient? Of course. Do some Scientists ignore some results if it contradicts theirs? Of course. However when each type of person does that, it goes against the basis of what they stand for.
Faith = Belief without proof
Science = Belief only with proof

I don't understand why either side argues that it's true/not true, because that's just the way each is based.

Feb 10, 2014#186

WasabiPoptart

Gilgamesh said:
Faith = Belief without proof

That is not what I have ever been taught about faith. The proof is in the Bible.

Not saying that is my belief, but it is what I was taught both growing up and now that I'm in a Christian college.

Feb 10, 2014#187

Gilgamesh

WasabiPoptart said:
That is not what I have ever been taught about faith. The proof is in the Bible.

Not saying that is my belief, but it is what I was taught both growing up and now that I'm in a Christian college.

That's just it, the Bible has no proof. It's just stories told by men. You have to take their word that it's the truth. The End. Same for the Koran, the Satanic bible, etc.

Feb 10, 2014#188

Piotyr

Gilgamesh said:
Simply put:
Religion is based on Faith that a book written centuries ago is 100% right and you shouldn't question it. (This applies to nearly any faith, they're all basically the same in basing why they're right over the other).
Science is based on proven fact that has been tested and rested to be true. If a later test proves a new outcome, the new outcome is truth until proven otherwise.

Simply put:
A religious person takes questions about their belief as attacks because they can't question their book/faith. It's wrong to them. It's just what they believe.
A scientific person takes questions about their results as attacks because they feel they did everything necessary to come to their answer. However, they can be proven wrong and accept the new result.

This obviously doesn't apply to 100% of all Religious people or 100% of all Scientific people but it IS the basis of each. Do religious people cherry pick what they'll believe based on what they find convenient? Of course. Do some Scientists ignore some results if it contradicts theirs? Of course. However when each type of person does that, it goes against the basis of what they stand for.
Faith = Belief without proof
Science = Belief only with proof

I don't understand why either side argues that it's true/not true, because that's just the way each is based.

This isn't true at all of religion. You're building a strawman here, several in fact. The only true thing you said in here about religion was that faith is belief without proof.

Feb 10, 2014#189

Gilgamesh

Piotyr said:
This isn't true at all of religion. You're building a strawman here, several in fact. The only true thing you said in here about religion was that faith is belief without proof.

No, I'm fairly certain it's spot on.
You believe the Bible, written by men a few centuries ago, because someone told you to believe it. With zero evidence or zero proof.
The same way a Muslim does or a Satanic worshipper does. There's zero difference in the basis. The only difference is semantics.

Feb 10, 2014#190

Cog

What happens if the holy book of your preference tells you how to live or how you should treat others, or what should be considered good? You also need proof to believe it?

Feb 10, 2014#191

Piotyr

Gilgamesh said:
No, I'm fairly certain it's spot on.
You believe the Bible, written by men a few centuries ago, because someone told you to believe it. With zero evidence or zero proof.
The same way a Muslim does or a Satanic worshipper does. There's zero difference in the basis. The only difference is semantics.

This is why it's pointless to even try to have a discussion with you. You ignore anything aside from what you think. I'll never make that mistake again.

Feb 10, 2014#192

Gilgamesh

Piotyr said:
This is why it's pointless to even try to have a discussion with you. You ignore anything aside from what you think. I'll never make that mistake again.

Um, I think you have that backwards. My points are straight forward and clear. Your responses are -You just don't get it- and -Strawman Strawman!- and I'm the one ignoring?

Though I also didn't expect any different, you basically gave the same retort that everyone I've ever spoken to on your side of the fence. Pretty much verbatim.

Feb 10, 2014#193

Ravenpoe

Gilgamesh said:
Um, I think you have that backwards. My points are straight forward and clear. Your responses are -You just don't get it- and -Strawman Strawman!- and I'm the one ignoring?

Though I also didn't expect any different, you basically gave the same retort that everyone I've ever spoken to on your side of the fence. Pretty much verbatim.

In Piotyr's defense, you're at an 11 right now, and we need you at about a 4.

Feb 10, 2014#194

Gilgamesh

Ravenpoe said:
In Piotyr's defense, you're at an 11 right now, and we need you at about a 4.

Um ok, I'm actually at a 4 if you saw me at an 11, you'd know it.

It doesn't matter, as usual there won't be an actual conversation and it's pretty much done now.

Feb 10, 2014#195

Bones

its obvious Gilgamesh, my body was not ready for this level of intensity. the mind was ready, but the body was soft and spongy! LIKE A HOSTESS BRAND CUPCAKE!

Feb 11, 2014#196

Ravenpoe

Bones said:
its obvious Gilgamesh, my body was not ready for this level of intensity. the mind was ready, but the body was soft and spongy! LIKE A HOSTESS BRAND CUPCAKE!

How much acid have you had?

Feb 11, 2014#197

Timmus

You can't know that. That fact has passed into the realm of historical science.

If I had to guess though, the answer would be, "so much."

Feb 11, 2014#198

Bones

Ravenpoe said:
How much acid have you had?

I hate my life... >_>
which is why i punish myself with PSYCHOTROPIC HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS!

that...is suppose to be animated....its not....
I found it here....
WOOOOOO

Feb 11, 2014#199

Bowielee

OK, Let's all sit down, take a breather, and enjoy something that both sides can find funny.

Note: David Mitchell is himself not an atheist.

Feb 11, 2014#200

fade

Just one input. A witness isn't a test. It's an observation, like this apple falls from a tree and hits me on the head. That leads to a hypothesis like "there is a god" or "there's a force-at-a-distance acting on this apple based on its mass and the earth's". Then you test.[DOUBLEPOST=1392129140,1392128565][/DOUBLEPOST]Also I have to say that saying science involves faith because someone else did the work feels less like faith and more like saying you're not actually eating a cake because a baker made it.

Feb 11, 2014#201

Bubble181

If you want to take absolutely nothing on faith, everything past "cogito ergo sum" you have to repeat and retest yourself. Which is, obviously, impossible.
Of course, as has been said, Occam's Razor and, you know, our human interest in having things make sense, imply that you can probably trust the rock in your hands to not suddenly fall upwards tomorrow, and that we're not in the Matrix.

Feb 11, 2014#202

Bones

OI ma head...
anybody get the number of that tanker full of electric kool-aid that hit me?
so we going another round today?

I say all steak should be soaked in lime juice and whiskey and be cooked until it stops mooing!

Feb 11, 2014#203

Covar

Wow there's a lot of ignorance in this thread.

Feb 11, 2014#204

Piotyr

fade said:
Just one input. A witness isn't a test. It's an observation, like this apple falls from a tree and hits me on the head. That leads to a hypothesis like "there is a god" or "there's a force-at-a-distance acting on this apple based on its mass and the earth's". Then you test.

The question really is, how do you test that which is not observable? It's a philosophical issue. Two perfectly intelligent people can fall on completely opposite sides of the coin based on a couple minor differences in thought.

Feb 11, 2014#205

Bubble181

Bones said:
I say all steak should be soaked in lime juice and whiskey and be cooked until it stops mooing!

The lime juice I'm not so sure about, I'll have to try it. Sounds good, otherwise.

Feb 11, 2014#206

Bones

I feel like going back to the original video, that's the problem. Creationism spits in the face of modern science and demands to be taken as a legitimate version of how our planet came to be. However, its philosophy because its tenets cannot be tested, cannot be observed, and grinds against the assumed tenets of geological time as defined by geology in the strata of our crust at the very least.

This is as basic as it gets, prove to us(scientists) you have standing by finding flaws in our theories. prove to us we missed something important somewhere. When someone tells me "the bible says so" in response to a scientific claim I just stare at them. I always ask them to explain to me the theory they don't believe and then pull it up from wikipedia and tell me how close they got to the actual theory they dispute.

EDIT: Thanks bubbles, I was trying something really weird one night with meat, the better combo is lime and tequila. but i thought I would get flamed to cinders if I suggested that.

Feb 11, 2014#207

Piotyr

Bones said:
EDIT: Thanks bubbles, I was trying something really weird one night with meat, the better combo is lime and tequila. but i thought I would get flamed to cinders if I suggested that.

So would the steak, I think.

Feb 11, 2014#208

Bubble181

Err, for the record, I'm an anti-religious agnostic with a fairly scientific mind, and I haven't watched the OP so I can't really comment on it - anyone who believes in literal 6-day creation 4000 years ago I simply consider not to be worth debating. Bearing in mind it's a way of thought almost extinct in Belgium thanks to decent education (or "state-mandated indoctrination" I suppose some might say).

However, I'm a philosopher as well, and I do want scientists to think further. Using "atheist" as the catch-all term to cover both atheistic gnosticism and theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism is a way of allaying some of my frustrations, but doesn't really lift them.
Or, to say what I've been talking about: a "scientist"/atheist who hasn't thought his beliefs through and just says "there's no God you dimwits! It's silly! It's make-belief! Hahah! Stoopid!" is just as bad as a religious person who hasn't thought about their beliefs and is Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Pastafarian "because his parents were".
I actively dislike people unwilling to think about why they have the world view they have. Intelligent people can be, and are, religious and can find a balance between religion and science (which usually takes a form of science relating to facts and things and religion being more used in ethics, morality, matters of the mind and the heart). Intelligent people can be absolutely convinced atheists. They can be anything in between.

As long as your perspective is thought through, I can respect it. If it's a simple parroting of beliefs/ideas/thoughts you were raised in or read, you're not a part of the solution, and you don't get to point to others and say they're "wrong". The only people genuinely "wrong" are those who haven't thought about their position, aren't willing to think about their position, but still judge all other positions as inferior.

Feb 11, 2014#209

Bones

its always been weird for me. I dont get philosophy, religion just never interested me, but science, science I could get. if I read enough I could eventually make sense of things, this is probably how I ended up an atheist. I always liked the line that George Carlin did in one of his shows(i think it was him), where he basically went "when the little dudes you left on the watery rock make it to the grey rock orbiting the one you left them on, it would seem to be your moment to come down and say GOOD JOB BUDDY!". Really, a God is a non-point for me, if being a good person and giving a shit about others is not good enough to escape hell, then I'll drive the damn tour bus there myself! :3

Feb 11, 2014#210

WasabiPoptart

I've had the job of hell's bus driver for quite a while. Unless you're in the union I can't let you take my seat.

Feb 11, 2014#211

Bowielee

I agree 100% with you @Bubble181, that people on either side should break down their beliefs and understand why they have them. Personally, it took me years of study and contemplation to reach the place I have. No matter what side of the actual god debate you fall on, you should at least make sure that you understand why you believe it.

Just saying "because I just believe in it" or "because I just don't believe in it", to me isn't a satisfactory answer to why you hold the stance that you do on the matter.

Also, be careful, your first statement about literal creationists is similar to what ended up with me being called belittling.

Feb 11, 2014#212

CrimsonSoul

Bowielee said:
I came THIS CLOSE to minoring in philosophy. I decided to go with writing instead. I figured it dovetailed better with my career goals.

Ah philosophy, also known as "Would you like fries with that?"

Feb 12, 2014#213

GasBandit

CrimsonSoul said:
Ah philosophy, also known as "Would you like fries with that?"

I remember a girl in high school who fancied herself quite the deep intellect once asked our teacher, "I'd like to major in philosophy, but what do philosophers do these days?" and as a reflex I blurted out "Starve." Everybody thought it was funny but her.

Feb 12, 2014#214

Ravenpoe

I have a friend that majored in philosophy.

He's a barrista at Starbucks.

Feb 12, 2014#215

Terrik

I had a friend who went to the Air Force Academy, washed out, and THEN majored in philosophy. He never recovered.

Feb 12, 2014#216

Bubble181

...I majored in Philosophy

Feb 12, 2014#217

Bowielee

CrimsonSoul said:
Ah philosophy, also known as "Would you like fries with that?"

I thought that was political science.

Feb 12, 2014#218

Covar

Bowielee said:
I thought that was political science.

Only if you're dumb enough to not go into the military or work in politics. Poly Sci was the ROTC major when I was in school.

Feb 12, 2014#219

Dave

I have a friend who majored in Philosophy. He got a job at Union Pacific and makes twice as much as me. Some jobs don't care what your degree is in as long as you have one.

Feb 12, 2014#220

Bubble181

And all kidding aside, if you have a good education* in philosophy, it does give you some useful skills. I can easily read in 4 languages (if you're reading Kant in English you're doing it wrong

), you learn to properly and quickly analyze texts, to quickly follow other people's train of thought and method of thinking, you're at least supposed to be able to look at subjects from different perspectives, and it helps you formulate your own thoughts more clearly. I admit I'm bad at that last part

Oh, and, while I don't have the time to go look it up, there's an article around somewhere where it's stated pretty clearly that philosophy is pretty much management but with crappier pay (buzzwords and all that jazz). The studies really are alike in a lot of ways.

*Just learning by rote is useless except as the skill "quickly learning things by heart", and if that's all you want, go study law

Feb 12, 2014#221

CrimsonSoul

Bubble181 said:
And all kidding aside, if you have a good education* in philosophy, it does give you some useful skills. I can easily read in 4 languages (if you're reading Kant in English you're doing it wrong ), you learn to properly and quickly analyze texts, to quickly follow other people's train of thought and method of thinking, you're at least supposed to be able to look at subjects from different perspectives, and it helps you formulate your own thoughts more clearly. I admit I'm bad at that last part

Oh, and, while I don't have the time to go look it up, there's an article around somewhere where it's stated pretty clearly that philosophy is pretty much management but with crappier pay (buzzwords and all that jazz). The studies really are alike in a lot of ways.

*Just learning by rote is useless except as the skill "quickly learning things by heart", and if that's all you want, go study law

Ahhh... So you'll know if they want fries with that and you won't have to ask... And you can serve guest from other countries.. Awesome!

Feb 12, 2014#222

Bubble181

CrimsonSoul said:
Ahhh... So you'll know if they want fries with that and you won't have to ask... And you can serve guest from other countries.. Awesome!

Quite so. And since I'm Belgian, they'll be decent fries, too, not those soggy matches Americans like to claim as "french fries"

(now, move aside because you're holding up the next customer)

Feb 12, 2014#223

Cajungal

Man... now I want french fries.

Feb 12, 2014#224

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
Quite so. And since I'm Belgian, they'll be decent fries, too, not those soggy matches Americans like to claim as "french fries"

This is a strong argument. There are several "gourmet" fries places in NYC who basically just serve variants of Belgian fries with a long, long list of alternative toppings.

Feb 12, 2014#225

sixpackshaker

Cajungal said:
Man... now I want french fries.

I fry, therefore I am.

Feb 12, 2014#226

drifter

Mmmm, think I'll make some animal style fries for dinner.

Feb 13, 2014#227

Frank

Even non-controversial David Attenborough is speaking out about this topic (and climate change).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-creationists-and-climate-change-deniers.html

Feb 13, 2014#228

GasBandit

Sad to hear he's bought into the anthropogenic folderol.

Feb 13, 2014#229

Bubble181

The gallery

Before going there, please accept that I am offering this "science of sarcasm - creationist questions explained" only and solely as humor, and I do not in any way, shape or form, wish to use this a "source" or a form of "evidence" in favor or against anyone or anything, nor does this website or its pictures correspond with my personal view(s) on the matter. If you are likely to be offended by sarcastic "translations" of questions, are insecure in your faith/belief or otherwise think that you will not be able to shrug off anything you might find offensive in this link, please do not follow it.

That said:

Feb 13, 2014#230

tegid

Meh, they don't seem very funny to me. Of course, I'm to busy raging against the mislead mentions of thermodynamics (damn you Ham :fu:

)

Feb 13, 2014#231

Mathias

figmentPez said:
And how is that different from the majority of the population who will never participate in peer review of science? (there is a difference, I just want you to spell it out, because I'm not sure you've thought this through.)

Because the evidence and peer review is still there regardless of the lay persons understanding of it... I have no doubt a lot of people "take the scientists' " word for it, but the evidence is still there. Yes, there are things like journal paywalls, and access to primary data may be limited. Academia and politics aren't perfect, but as an amateur person in physics, for example, I can do my research to my heart's content and come to similar conclusions about, say, relativity that others have already said. It's there for me. The proof is also in the technology. Scientific findings are put to the test all the time by engineers to make cars work, to make rockets, to make medicine, to conserve the environment, etc... To quote Richard Dawkins, "It works. Bitches." I actually found it sad that Ray Damadian is a staunch creationist who rallies against the progress of science when his invention of MRI depended completely on the findings of Paul Lauterber and Peter Mansfield.

You've hit the nail on the head as to why science education is so vital, and why I respect dude's like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson for trying to make science and critical thought part of our human culture.

I've gotten into arguments about creationism with friends and family many times. They all share the similar sentiment that I 'believe" in evolution not creationism. I hate using that word. I don't believe in evolution, I look at the model and understand that it's probably how reality works.[DOUBLEPOST=1392297343,1392296826][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
I have a friend who majored in Philosophy. He got a job at Union Pacific and makes twice as much as me. Some jobs don't care what your degree is in as long as you have one.

I have a buddy from college who majored in Philosophy with a focus on debate and logic. He's a high priced lawyer.

Feb 13, 2014#232

Bones

Feb 14, 2014#233

Bowielee

Bones said:

Feb 20, 2014#234

tegid

Relating those questions from people after the talk, Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) answers them here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...science_answering_creationists_questions.html

I only skimmed through it, but some of his points are interesting. At the very end he says this:

"Because science isn't a belief system. Scientists don't believe in evolution; we trust that it's the best way to describe how we came to be. And we do that because it's earned that trust."

which I found interesting related to the discussion here. I think if you use 'trust' instead of 'believe' you lose a lot of the semantic discussion some of you had.

Feb 26, 2014#235

Officer_Charon

When we go to court, there are certain things that are accepted as givens, not requiring an expert witness to testify as to their truths. I can't recall the legal term at this time, and am skiving off work to post this here, so I'm not going to try and marshal my sleep-deprived thoughts to dig it up - It's somewhere in my notes on traffic RADAR.

I am not a physicist, nor am I a mathematician. Were I to go in front of a court and be asked to explain how RADAR works, I would be unable to, beyond the basic theory. My case would be lost, and any and all effort employed in the prosecution of said case deriving from a traffic stop based on RADAR would be for naught.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has had expert testimony that has been documented and verified by several expert witnesses that shows that RADAR, as applied in a speed detection capacity, works, and works consistently when operated correctly. Thus, we may accept that RADAR is a truth, in a courtroom. It has been proven, before I ever got there.

This is not faith, but it sounds an awful lot like it, doesn't it? I'm accepting as given the words of those who have come before me.

Honestly, I had more, but I can't get my head straight right now. I stay out of religious discussions, because I neither have a horse in the race, nor do I care to enter one. It is not something that is important enough to me to care about. This is not to take away from anyone for whom faith and religion IS important - but it's not for me.

Mar 1, 2014#236

Timmus

So maybe Bill Nye undermined the cause after all

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...useum-bill-nye-debate-sparked-funding-miracle

Mar 1, 2014#237

Frank

Gugh.

Mar 1, 2014#238

Timmus

Frank said:
Gugh.

My sentiments exactly.

Mar 1, 2014#239

AshburnerX

I guess that's why they call them...

*puts on sunglasses*

... fundies.

Mar 1, 2014#240

Krisken

Well that was about as productive as I expected.

Mar 1, 2014#241

Timmus

AshburnerX said:
I guess that's why they call them...

*puts on sunglasses*

... fundies.

Threads over AshburnerX wins.

Forums