On 4/13/2011 9:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
>> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply because
>> a lot of people say they believe them?
>
> There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to
> believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if
> people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd
> defend it to the death when they grew up.
>
> Jim
Been having a discussion over on a Youtube thread which answers that 
question. I doubt you would deny that a) the Greeks/Romans actually 
believed their gods where real, b) there isn't a whole lot, if anything, 
from the time, questioning their existence, c) there is a lot of "holy 
books", legends and stories, about them, d) all of this from the 
*actual* time they where supposed to be performing their miracles. Yet, 
the Christian on the thread insists that the Bible itself, a few known 
forgeries (some of which, like the one in Josephus' history is no longer 
even supported by all Biblical scholars as legit), and some vague 
references to people with similar names, nearly all of it written half a 
century later, constitutes "equal" evidence to that of any real 
historical figure, and is in fact "superior" to that of all the other 
prior mythologies, *and* most of those same historical figures. I mean, 
this guy wants to argue that we have more sound evidence for a real 
Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar.

I have no problem agreeing with Mill Maher on the subject.

The fact that, as I also just pointed out, this "messiah" couldn't come 
up with anything to do that wasn't a direct replication of what ever 
false god and con artist has "supposedly" performed over the last 10,000 
years of recorded history, instead of like, regrowing a missing limb, or 
something, but only makes a unique case in as much as cramming as many 
of those prior miracles into one career as possible, probably isn't 
going to faze him a bit either. :(

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 10:47 AM, 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.
>
>
> Alain
Shorter version, they take belief over knowledge because they have been 
lied to about which is which.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> (For example, what possible reason
> can a creationist have to believe that genetic mutations are rare and
> always destructive and cannot possibly explain the diversity of life?
> There is no reason other than that they are just expanding their aversion
> to the entirety of the theory and perceive it to be *entirely* wrong in all
> possible aspects, even in aspects that don't really matter from a religious
> point of view.)
>
Standard trope for them is that there are only a small number of 
"Kinds", of which humans are the unique one, without any kin, and that 
all the diversity came about shortly after the flood, when god simply 
"poofed" all the variations into existence. They need this to be true, 
otherwise the Ark and Noah's flood are not possible.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:04:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 12:35, nemesis wrote:
>> what to expect from a state founded by mormons? :p
> 
> I'm pretty sure the mormons don't take Genesis as literal.

It's not part of the mainstream belief, no, but there are some who do, 
just as there are some Catholics who do (in spite of the Vatican 
astronomer - now there's a job title - saying pretty bluntly that it 
can't possibly be a literal timeline).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:26 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I literally can't decide whether this is serious or not.
>>
>> I'm just gobsmacked.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Be afraid be very, very afraid that there are people in the educated
>> world that can ask those types of questions and those that will answer
>> them.
>
> I honestly can't decide whether this is deadpan spoof or perfectly serious.
>
> (Isn't there a law of the Internet about this effect?)
Its called a Poe: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of 
humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that 
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

A corollary to this is one, I am not sure its been named, which states 
that no such parody you can make will ever be unique, since there is 
bound to already be some Fundamentalist, some place, making the same 
exact same argument/statement on an existing website.

Ironically there is also a theological poe's law, which states, 
basically, that different bits of stupidity in the Bible will resonate 
with different people, at different times. My wording, not their's. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 11:01 AM, 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?
>
>
> Alain
If you are a faith head, as a work that changes over time to become 
"more true to the original intent". Yeah, I know.. Its like having a two 
year old tell you that they are *sure* the last message in a game of 
"telephone" is 100% correct...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:08:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 14:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to
>> describe evolution.
> 
> Nah. That's just an easy target. If it was the "facts" of evolution or
> the "law" of evolution, people still wouldn't believe it.

True, but it's misusing the word "theory" to intentionally (or 
ignorantly, take your pick) mislead people.  Sure if it were 'facts' or 
'law' they'd find some other way to twist it.  There are some 
creationists who already are bringing into question some of the science, 
for example, regardless of the term used.

Just like there was a push a few years ago (maybe still going on) by some 
to demonstrate that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate and cannot be 
relied upon.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 7:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 10:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
>> frightening...
>
> And apparently the results are conclusive:
>
> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
>
> America is the most religious first-world country, and it also has the
> highest rates of crime, poor health, etc.
As someone stated, we are rapidly doing the following:

1. Replacing one citizen = one vote with, most money = all the votes.
2. Pushing ideology as a sound way to run things.
3. Removing even the semblance of health care and welfare for the least 
in society.
4. Evangelizing soldiers.
5. Abandoning infrastructure.
...etc...

All of them **hallmarks** of the way Third World nations function. In 
short, we are dismantling everything that other countries have looked up 
to us for, in favor of the things they both hate us for, and hate about 
their own countries.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:57:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 9:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:55:41 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> True enough. But, the question is where is the tipping point. Where do
>>> people stop accepting, as a general whole, obvious lies, simply
>>> because a lot of people say they believe them?
>>
>> There's a bit of herd mentality that takes place when it comes to
>> believing crazy stuff.  I do wonder (as Bill Maher once postulated) if
>> people were raised believing in magic beans and beanstalks if they'd
>> defend it to the death when they grew up.
>>
>> Jim
> Been having a discussion over on a Youtube thread which answers that
> question. I doubt you would deny that a) the Greeks/Romans actually
> believed their gods where real, b) there isn't a whole lot, if anything,
> from the time, questioning their existence, c) there is a lot of "holy
> books", legends and stories, about them, d) all of this from the
> *actual* time they where supposed to be performing their miracles. Yet,
> the Christian on the thread insists that the Bible itself, a few known
> forgeries (some of which, like the one in Josephus' history is no longer
> even supported by all Biblical scholars as legit), and some vague
> references to people with similar names, nearly all of it written half a
> century later, constitutes "equal" evidence to that of any real
> historical figure, and is in fact "superior" to that of all the other
> prior mythologies, *and* most of those same historical figures. I mean,
> this guy wants to argue that we have more sound evidence for a real
> Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar.

That's where I have a big problem as well.  The Romans, Egyptians, Jews, 
etc were fairly well known for keeping very detailed records; while some 
records get destroyed over time, it's really odd that the only 
'historical' reference with some of these events in it is the Bible.

Also like Maher talked about in his film _Religulous_ (which I watched 
last night) with regards to the records kept about the 'virgin birth' - 
odd that none (IIRC) of the gospels talked about that; seems like 
something that would be very significant and would find its way into so-
called 'historical' accounts of the event.  But apparently not one of 
them mention it.

> I have no problem agreeing with Mill Maher on the subject.

> The fact that, as I also just pointed out, this "messiah" couldn't come
> up with anything to do that wasn't a direct replication of what ever
> false god and con artist has "supposedly" performed over the last 10,000
> years of recorded history, instead of like, regrowing a missing limb, or
> something, but only makes a unique case in as much as cramming as many
> of those prior miracles into one career as possible, probably isn't
> going to faze him a bit either. :(

Yep, that whole "this messiah story has been told over and over the same 
way over many millenia" was something I found quite interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12-4-2011 23:06, 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

shouldn't be that difficult to implement
- there is no scientific controversy over 'biological evolution'
- nobody (at least no scientist) knows 'the chemical origins of life'
- 'human cloning' is a technique and not a theory
- 'global warming' is perhaps the only thing mentioned that comes close 
to being a controversy in the scientific field.
If it would really lead to a debate in class on what is and what is not 
good research I would welcome it. But I guess somebody is going to point 
out that that is not the intention.


> 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

As far as I understand there are people trying to pass anti-science 
legislation and failing to get it to pass through the committees.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message