Le 2011/04/13 12:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-and-
> humans
>>
>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>
> They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but
> young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the
> bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into
> existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't
> consistent with the bible.
>
> Jim

Even if there is something that can be called "God", and that thing is 
unfailible.
It's "teatchings" where reported by some men, who are failible.
The bible was recorded by failible men.
It's content was passed by oral tradition for over a millenia, with all 
the changes and morfing that this imply.
Peoples with somewhat similar names are often merged into one.
Peoples with somewhat similar stories can also get merged into one, 
keeping the most memorable name.
The languages used did change a LOT in that time.
The writen form was translated countless times.

Each step does bring some alterations.

Now, how can you view that kind of text?


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts 
> that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
> If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until 
> they fit.

  You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws of
your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
"creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
"creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
as any religion, if not even more".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Well, I think the US was originally colonized by people who wanted their own
>> religion rather than the state religion, so that sort of makes sense. The
>> laws say "the state can't force me to change my religion", and it's
>> *because* the people coming here were sufficiently religious that they'd
>> spend three months crossing an ocean and leaving everything they knew behind
>> in order to be able to do their own religion exactly as they liked.
>
>    I find it implausible that all, or even the majority of, or even a
> significant portion of, the people who moved to the US did so for religious
> reasons. I have always understood that the main motivation was economic
> (most people who moved there were poor, who were after a better life and
> better opportunities).
>

Usualy, the poors tend to be less educated and more religious than rich 
and well educated peoples.

Many poors tend to cling to religion as a kind of life jacket.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg>  wrote:
>> I proclaim a dogma. If you chalenge it, you're WRONG! If you find facts
>> that don't support it, your facts are WRONG, or you invented them!
>> If the facts realy contradict the dogma, reject them or twist them until
>> they fit.
>
>    You forgot the psychological projection, iow. projecting the flaws of
> your dogma onto the scientific theory it contradicts. (For example,
> "creationism is not science" becomes "evolution is not science", and
> "creationism requires faith" becomes "evolution requires as much faith
> as any religion, if not even more".)
>

Sadly, it's absolutely true :(


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:06:15 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>> frightening...
>>
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-
> progresses-006545
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
>> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
> 
> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of our 
> more fundamentalist states.
> 
> Sadly, that includes Utah, where I currently live.

what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p


-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:35:58 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> It's frightening.  Rationality has gone out of the window for some of
>> our more fundamentalist states.
>> 
>> Sadly, that includes Utah, where I currently live.
> 
> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p

Well, interestingly enough, while we've got the stupid billboard, nothing 
has been taken up in the state legislature mandating that creationism be 
taught as part of the science curriculum because those who preach 
creationism don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory" as used in 
the "Theory of Evolution" (hint:  It doesn't mean "hypothesis").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:47:21 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/12 19:10, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> When exactly are we going to stop accepting the endless and constant
>>> bullshit,
>>
>> Never, because there will always be people who will take 'belief' over
>> 'knowledge' because they've been conditioned to do so.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> They take beleif over knowlege because they thing that the beleif IS
> proven knowlege, and actual knowlege is suputations and dreamings or
> even some kind of fraud.

I don't think that's the case, honestly - they think that belief 
*supercedes* proven knowledge, and that if one has faith, one doesn't 
need pesky scientific facts.  The belief seems to be that what has been 
revealed by God to them will be borne out by the facts once we have them 
all, and we just don't have all the facts yet.

"Belief" is the antithesis of "knowledge" as far as I'm concerned.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 5:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:45:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Either that or tell them to go forth and multiply. If you know what I
>>> mean.
>>
>> But they can't math. ;)
>>
>> Jim
> 
> In that case they can F' off ;-P

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:01:37 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/13 12:03, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:27:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/31/feedback-t-rex-
and-
>> humans
>>>
>>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>>
>> They are serious - it does look a lot like someone's having a joke, but
>> young-Earth creationists really do believe in the literal truth of the
>> bible as a historic record of how the Earth and humanity came into
>> existence, and anything to the contrary is rejected because it isn't
>> consistent with the bible.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Even if there is something that can be called "God", and that thing is
> unfailible.
> It's "teatchings" where reported by some men, who are failible. The
> bible was recorded by failible men. It's content was passed by oral
> tradition for over a millenia, with all the changes and morfing that
> this imply. Peoples with somewhat similar names are often merged into
> one. Peoples with somewhat similar stories can also get merged into one,
> keeping the most memorable name.
> The languages used did change a LOT in that time. The writen form was
> translated countless times.
> 
> Each step does bring some alterations.
> 
> Now, how can you view that kind of text?

At best, as an incomplete history (some would even say 'anthology of 
various mythological stories") spread originally through oral traditions 
(which IIRC is how it started), and just like the telephone game, the 
message gets corrupted a little bit more with each retelling.

Personally, I see it as pure literature that is mostly fiction, with just 
enough truth in it to make the masses follow along.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:24:57 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It always makes me laugh (because the other option is to cry) when
>> Christian fundamentalist Republicans invoke the names of Jefferson,
>> Adams, and Franklin in a religious context - because obviously they
>> have no grasp of history.
> 
>   It's sad when using argument from authority by referencing famous
>   people
> who really were believers is not enough, but they have to fabricate
> faith even on outspoken atheists, just because they are well known. (I
> have seen several times people seriously claiming that Einstein believed
> in the Christian God, completely disregarding and ignoring the fact that
> Einstein explicitly and expressly stated several times that he did not.
> He used the word "God" sometimes in the pantheistic sense, meaning the
> same as "universe".)
> 
>   (It often also works in the other direction: Historical people who
>   were
> religious are claimed to have been atheists, for the sole reason that
> they did bad things.)

You'll get no disagreement on either of those points.  The best example 
of that (at the risk of Godwinning the thread) is Hitler - some claim 
that Hitler was an atheist because he did things; others claim that he 
did bad things because he was an atheist.

But most of the people who *actually* did the bad things (not that Hitler 
didn't) were undeniably Christians who were following Hitler.  Hitler's 
actual choice of beliefs really is a minor detail in the Holocaust.

Jim

Post a reply to this message