Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Young Earth creationism is too ridiculous for even Pat Robertson   (patheos.com) divider line 193
    More: Amusing, young earth creationism, Pat Robertson, Hemant Mehtas, Hemant Mehta, Ken Ham, creation museum, Christian Broadcasting Network, fundies  
•       •       •

6695 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-28 01:14:59 PM  
Wow... even he gets it.

Your move, dumbasses.
 
2012-11-28 01:21:04 PM  
Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?
 
2012-11-28 01:23:39 PM  
Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.
 
2012-11-28 01:33:47 PM  
Or maybe Pat Robertson is just not ridiculous enough for Young Earth creationism.

Betcha didn't think about that, did ya!
 
2012-11-28 01:34:28 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


A loophole for fundies.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:37 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:50 PM  
scannersexplodinghead.gif
 
2012-11-28 01:41:27 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.


So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?
 
2012-11-28 01:41:54 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Yes, there is.
Unless you can prove otherwise?
 
2012-11-28 01:42:22 PM  
What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.
 
2012-11-28 01:43:17 PM  
Broken clock.
 
2012-11-28 01:44:42 PM  

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Or the effects of multiple translations across numerous languages over the centuries. Sometimes directed by self-interested institutions.
 
2012-11-28 01:45:02 PM  

Arkanaut: Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?


4) Man destroys God with science
5) Man creates dinosaurs
6) Dinosaurs eat man
7) Woman inherits the earth
 
2012-11-28 01:45:07 PM  

eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Duh. That's his job. You figure that out by listening to him and the only way you get to continue listening to him tell you exactly what is metaphorical and what is literal is by sending him money. Lots and lots of money.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:08 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Science that jives with his interpretation of the Bible.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:26 PM  
www.glennbeck.com

They grow up so fast.
 
2012-11-28 01:46:34 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: Broken clock.


Digital or Analog?
 
2012-11-28 01:47:53 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: They grow up so fast.


Ha! WRONG!!!

I don't see any elephants or a giant tortoise under that thing, so it's obviously fraudulent.
 
2012-11-28 01:50:11 PM  

This About That: WTF is "revealed science"?


OK, I get it. Whatever those scientist guys might think they figured out, it was really God putting another tiny piece of the puzzle into their heads. God sure likes to mess with our heads, doesn't he?
 
2012-11-28 01:50:54 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Sleeping Monkey: Broken clock.

Digital or Analog?


Does it matter?
 
2012-11-28 01:51:50 PM  
Not all that new for Robertson: "Genesis was never intended as a science textbook."

Doesn't mean he's not an asshole.
 
2012-11-28 01:54:28 PM  
It feels really weird realizing that someone like Pat Robertson is actually making more sense than some people out there, like that douchecanoe Ken Ham.
 
2012-11-28 01:55:18 PM  
It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."
 
2012-11-28 01:58:20 PM  

NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif



Bevets may look something like that right about now.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:08 PM  
So Pat Robertson believes in science more than about half of the GOP in congress.
 
2012-11-28 01:59:44 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif


Bevets may look something like that right about now.


He's too busy being i drunk what in another thread.
 
2012-11-28 02:00:55 PM  
No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.
 
2012-11-28 02:11:18 PM  

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Fossils were aged and placed into the earth by the devil. Like on Pawn Stars where a guy brings in a "really old" pistol only to have Rick tell him it was made to look that way and it was really made in the early 2000s.
 
2012-11-28 02:14:04 PM  

Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.


It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:35 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Revelation is a religious concept that there is a third form of knowledge (in addition to the classical forms, a priori/self-evident knowledge and learned/acquired knowledge gained through experience) in which one gains knowledge by directly connecting with an ideal abstract form, rather than figuring the knowledge out by logic or observation.

It was pretty popular with Christian philosophers pre-enlightenment when they were struggling to figure out Greek philosophy and not ever quite getting it, but it's rarely ever been taken seriously otherwise, even as a method for prophets getting information from God (generally he just talks to people in modern mythology, albeit quietly and to your soul). Robertson's going retro on us, apparently, even for him. Usually he only wants us to go back about 120 years, 500 years is a significantly more impressive leap.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:41 PM  

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.


No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.
/not to be confused with 24 hour day, day on different planet, etc, etc...
 
2012-11-28 02:16:47 PM  

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


People do this all the time. You get comfortable in your epistemic bubble and simply ignore everything that conflicts with your version of truth. See also

vaccines and autism
climate change
Karl Rove and the rest of the right wing Monday before the election

and hundreds more. It's called confirmation bias and it's remarkably strong
 
2012-11-28 02:20:16 PM  
The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.
 
2012-11-28 02:21:17 PM  
I've never understood why God needed to rest on the seventh day. You'd think God would be pretty indefatigable--what with being God and all.
 
2012-11-28 02:23:20 PM  

NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif


I of course read that as scanner sex plodinghead.gif
 
2012-11-28 02:24:16 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.


Guy's also for legalization of marijuana. Hard to believe, but true.

Basically, if you're against these things... you're more insane than Pat Robertson. And that's not something you want to be.
 
2012-11-28 02:25:18 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.


eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Though I am an atheist myself, this is actually a very easy subject to play Devil's advocate for (or perhaps God's advocate in this case?):

It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology. Obviously this is what a lot of theists believe, but some have a more naturalist view. God created and manipulates the universe, through natural methods as revealed by science. The specific methods espoused in your religious text of choice are simply the best that the author could come up with, or the best knowledge he had access to. In this way of thinking, if we don't know how it happens yet that doesn't mean a shepherd from thousands of years ago had it right, that just means it's something we haven't figured out yet. Which actually, when you think about it, makes a lot MORE sense; I would hope that an omnipotent and omniscient being's methods were a little more complicated than the shiat in the Bible.

This view removes God from the corporeal machinations of the universe and instead places him as an incorporeal being that sets things in motion, which proceed along natural methods as dictated by the physical laws of the universe he created. This also makes more sense because the Bible says that the universe was created by God's word, which would to me suggest that any further action God took would express itself as a natural extension of what he already created. In both cases the will of God would be visible to us simply as the way the universe acts.

This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.
 
2012-11-28 02:26:37 PM  

Diogenes: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

A loophole for fundies.


Revealed Science: When scientistians show that the earth is much older than we can easily comprehend, that reveals the infinite majesty of the all-mighty.

Secret Science: When scientistians show documented examples of naturally developed homosexual behavior among other species, examples of evolution in a modern framework, or that hurricanes and tornadoes are not caused by God's Wrath on teh gays, or that election results can be accurate calculated using statisticals; thats something the fundies would prefer was kept secret.
 
2012-11-28 02:28:03 PM  

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


controversy.wearscience.com(link).
 
2012-11-28 02:31:24 PM  

Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.


If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:34 PM  

burndtdan: Vegan Meat Popsicle: More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

eraser8: The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.

Though I am an atheist myself, this is actually a very easy subject to play Devil's advocate for (or perhaps God's advocate in this case?):

It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology. Obviously this is what a lot of theists believe, but some have a more naturalist view. God created and manipulates the universe, through natural methods as revealed by science. The specific methods espoused in your religious text of choice are simply the best that the author could come up with, or the best knowledge he had access to. In this way of thinking, if we don't know how it happens yet that doesn't mean a shepherd from thousands of years ago had it right, that just means it's something we haven't figured out yet. Which actually, when you think about it, makes a lot MORE sense; I would hope that an omnipotent and omniscient being's methods were a little more complicated than the shiat in the Bible.

This view removes God from the corporeal machinations of the universe and instead places him as an incorporeal being that sets things in motion, which proceed along natural methods as dictated by the physical laws of the universe he created. This also makes more sense because the Bible says that the universe was created by God's word, which would to me suggest that any further action God took would express itself as a natural extension of what he already created. In both cases the will of God would be visible to us simply as the way the universe acts.

This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. ...


The other side of this is that God IS the natural world, both known and unknown. That's the belief I hold as a Christian.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:36 PM  

burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.


I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.
 
2012-11-28 02:31:51 PM  
Also too ridiculous for the bible.
 
2012-11-28 02:33:18 PM  

djkutch: I've never understood why God needed to rest on the seventh day. You'd think God would be pretty indefatigable--what with being God and all.


Well, sparring with Chuck Norris on days 1 thru 6 will take its toll.. even on God.

Got to hand it to Chuck though.. He's a good guy letting God win.
 
2012-11-28 02:34:55 PM  

burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.


I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?
 
2012-11-28 02:36:05 PM  

Marine1: The other side of this is that God IS the natural world, both known and unknown. That's the belief I hold as a Christian.


I'd say they are different ways of saying the same thing. But that also explains why as an atheist, I have no problem with theism. I have a problem with scientific illiteracy or dogmas that lead to bigotry (from any source, religious or otherwise), but I can no more prove God doesn't exist than someone else can prove he does, so all I can say is which one I find more likely.
 
2012-11-28 02:36:56 PM  

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


Live it. Stuff that is true, is true. Stuff that you find is false... is false.

What I've found is that the truths (at least in the Gospels) are worth finding and following.

YMMV.
 
2012-11-28 02:39:37 PM  

eraser8: Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.

If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.


Now, you stop persecuting that poor man with your logic and critical thinking skills.
 
2012-11-28 02:39:54 PM  

Marine1: Live it. Stuff that is true, is true. Stuff that you find is false... is false.

What I've found is that the truths (at least in the Gospels) are worth finding and following.


Then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean
 
2012-11-28 02:40:57 PM  

Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...


But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.
 
2012-11-28 02:42:33 PM  

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

I almost wrote morality along with the spiritual things, but I actually agree with Sam Harris that morality is ultimately a quantifiable thing, given a starting philosophy.
 
2012-11-28 02:48:19 PM  

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


The one Holy Roman Catholic Church.
 
2012-11-28 02:55:17 PM  

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Change a few words and you have the Fark Election Night Special.
 
2012-11-28 02:58:51 PM  

burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).


If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean
 
2012-11-28 03:02:48 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.


Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean


Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.
 
2012-11-28 03:03:03 PM  

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


hey, i showered today.

/getting rained on counts as a shower right?
 
2012-11-28 03:03:41 PM  

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


I realized it really has been a long time since we got to enjoy the performance art that is Bevets.

I did some Googling:

Link

This post from May 27, 2012 is the last known post of his I could find.
 
2012-11-28 03:09:44 PM  

eraser8: Kurmudgeon: No, he said it didn't take 6000 years, which if anyone ever read the account in Genesis, you would readily see that there is no way from the account given just how many years it took.
Same as it doesn't state the length of time a Day of Creation was.

If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.


There's also the issue that the literal day could not have existed because the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day." Biblical literalism or not, how can a 24-hour day exist when there is no sun to act as a frame of reference while the earth spins?
 
2012-11-28 03:11:40 PM  

burndtdan: burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.

I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.


Watchmaker God, basically? Very 1800s of you. You're 300 years up on Pat Robertson, so you've got that one going for you, at least.

Well, assuming you're not trying to be as old-school as possible. If so, you could tell us that Jesus was actually just god's instrument on Earth and we can crown you the winner (since the Aryan heresy died out in something like the 400s, for the most part, before it popped back up briefly in the 1800s to be a corollary to watchmaker heresy).
 
2012-11-28 03:11:49 PM  

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.


He doesn't update his site anymore either.

Who knows, maybe his shrink put him on stronger meds.
 
2012-11-28 03:13:58 PM  

Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.


How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.
 
2012-11-28 03:15:21 PM  

MrEricSir: Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Diagonal: No one has invoked Bevets yet?

Wow.

It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.

He doesn't update his site anymore either.

Who knows, maybe his shrink put him on stronger meds.


He was raptured, duh.
 
2012-11-28 03:18:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: burndtdan: burndtdan: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an atheist. Frankly, if God does exist, it would be absurd for him to expect us to believe it.

I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.

Watchmaker God, basically? Very 1800s of you. You're 300 years up on Pat Robertson, so you've got that one going for you, at least.

Well, assuming you're not trying to be as old-school as possible. If so, you could tell us that Jesus was actually just god's instrument on Earth and we can crown you the winner (since the Aryan heresy died out in something like the 400s, for the most part, before it popped back up briefly in the 1800s to be a corollary to watchmaker heresy).


So you're trying to define Christianity by what it is not?

Here's the problem with the term 'heresy': everyone holds heretical beliefs. Everyone. If you're going to define what a Christian is by what heretical beliefs would be to one, you'd never come up with a definition. This is more true now than ever before, since there are a lot more "Christians in exile" - people who hold Jesus of Nazareth to be a main point of religious significance but don't attend church due to disagreements with church dogma. You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life. There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the starting point.
 
2012-11-28 03:18:24 PM  
well, looks like somebodies mind controlling anal slug fell out.
 
2012-11-28 03:19:35 PM  

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Because you're part of the "reality based" community.
 
2012-11-28 03:21:40 PM  
are there any 'real' conservatives calling this clown a RINO yet?
 
2012-11-28 03:22:18 PM  

Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.


The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?
 
2012-11-28 03:23:29 PM  
I became an atheist while trying to argue with young earth creationists about evolution.

Pat Robertson has probably caught on that if there are people spouting really stupid shiat it'll make others stop believing his brand of shiat.
 
2012-11-28 03:24:10 PM  
"You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the farking bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big farking lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat farking families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."

/aw, comon Bill
 
2012-11-28 03:25:26 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-28 03:26:08 PM  

eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.


Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.
 
2012-11-28 03:28:11 PM  

Tigger: Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?


No, because you answered your own question.
 
2012-11-28 03:28:31 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: It's been a REALLY long time since I've seen him post. I wonder if he's finally given up preaching to the unwashed masses of Fark.

Silverstaff: This post from May 27, 2012 is the last known post of his I could find.


Check his profile; there's a link to the latest post he made (comment c77467919, thread 7157417), which would suggest that, yes, he's moved on.

burndtdan: I should clarify that it puts God outside the physical world we can experience, which puts the belief in God squarely in the realm of spiritual experience (or lack thereof). This does remove belief entirely from the realm of science.


Actually, in so far as science starts with "experience", without making a prior philosophical distinction between physical versus spiritual, it put God squarely in hot water.
 
2012-11-28 03:35:12 PM  
www.conspiracyplanet.com
 
2012-11-28 03:37:51 PM  

Marine1: eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.

Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.


I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them:
Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.
Doesn't seem like Jesus is easing up on the commandment that children who curse their parents are defiled and should be put to death. (this is a little different from what he said in Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians...but, that just shows that the Bible is so contradictory that people simply take from it whatever they wish).

But, I do appreciate your candor. And, it's just as I suspected: the Bible means what you want it to mean. And, as I wrote earlier, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.
 
2012-11-28 03:43:06 PM  

Marine1: Tigger: Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is

eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

The issue isn't with the 'advice' parts it's with the 'narrative' parts.

Which of these bits are literal and which metaphorical

Creation story
Burning Bush
Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt
Story of Job
Daniel in the Lion's Den
Crucifixion
Virgin Birth
Journey to Nazareth
Samuel's hair

See the issue?

No, because you answered your own question.


What?

How are you determining which are literal and which are metaphors?
 
2012-11-28 03:50:19 PM  
Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8
 
2012-11-28 04:01:41 PM  

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


Is she hot? Cause that level of dumb/crazy can make for some wild farking.
 
2012-11-28 04:02:09 PM  

eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: Marine1: eraser8: burndtdan: Separate the parts that deal with philosophical or spiritual things (this at least gets to the true meaning of the religion) and the parts that deal with knowable, provable, physical things (incidental, often laughable attempts to explain how you can see those spiritual aspects at work in the world or history from an author who we should have no expectations from about greater knowledge than was available to him).

If that's the case, I'll just repeat what I wrote to Marine1: then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.

/mean

Not really. Stuff like "treat your neighbor as you'd like to be treated" is more or less foolproof and steadfast, unless you're a sociopath, in which case you need other help.

How about Matthew 15:4 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by reminding them of God's law: "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'"

Should we follow that one?

If your point is that we should just follow the parts of the Bible that are common sense, then the Bible, I would argue, should not be seen as an authority on our behavior. In that case, human beings are deciding for themselves what's moral and what isn't. The Bible isn't affecting our behavior, our morals are affecting our view of the Bible.

Just read the passage. He was using it as an example to expose hypocrisy, not ordering the Pharisees to kill kids who swear at their parents.

I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them: Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, ...


Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans. That's more or less what we do. If you're trying to find one overarching answer, you won't find one. We're better off letting people take what they want from what they read and trying to stick to progress as a species. Beyond that, there really isn't much you can do.
 
2012-11-28 04:04:51 PM  

eraser8: burndtdan: It's only "god of the gaps" if you insist that something happens "because God, tada!", as if God were the methodology.

I'm not technically addressing the "god of the gaps" argument. I'm posing a very simple question: if any part of the Bible can be taken as anything less than literal (that is, less that true), how can we know that any of it is true? And, who is to decide what's strict and true and what just poetic license?


If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies, becoming experts in Greek and Hebrew, examining the culture and literature of the context in which the bible was written to better understand the literary structures and styles of the times. If only these people wrote academic-level books about topics like these, and occasionally wrote popular-level books so that nonspecialists could engage with these kinds of issues. Then you might have somewhere to go for guidance as you ask these questions.

/sarcasm, just in case someone's sarcastrometer is broken
 
2012-11-28 04:08:04 PM  

Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies


Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.
 
2012-11-28 04:08:52 PM  
Of course, that's only true because Pat Robertson is older than dirt.

He doesn't believe in Young Earth theology because if the Earth were young, he'd personally remember the Creation.
 
2012-11-28 04:09:43 PM  

eraser8: What Robertson is admitting is that the Bible is not literally true.

The next task is for him to explain exactly how people are to distinguish the "poetic" or "metaphorical" aspects of the Bible from the literal.


Maybe he's woken up enough to realize the whole thing is metaphrorical allegory.
 
2012-11-28 04:13:02 PM  

Marine1: Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans.


I'll agree to that. So, maybe we should stop pretending there's anything divine in the Bible. Or, at least, we should stop pretending the Bible is any more divine than anything written by Wittgenstein or Proust.

All are the products of human imagination, so far as we can tell. And, none -- again, so far as we can tell -- was inspired by any supernatural agent.
 
2012-11-28 04:19:58 PM  

abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.


Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.
 
2012-11-28 04:22:03 PM  

eraser8: I've read the passage. If it has a thesis statement, it's this: What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them:

Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Doesn't seem like Jesus is easing up on the commandment that children who curse their parents are defiled and should be put to death. (this is a little different from what he said in Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians...but, that just shows that the Bible is so contradictory that people simply take from it whatever they wish).


This might come as a shock, but Paul's Second Letter was written by... Paul. Not Jesus.

/just sayin
 
2012-11-28 04:22:08 PM  

burndtdan: God created and manipulates the universe


Which is still "god of the gaps bullshiat".

Moving magic from the point of abiogenesis back to the point of singularity expansion doesn't change squat except the amount of known history about which you are wrong. In the end, you are still, however, wrong. Magic did not create the universe, did not set in motion, and plays no role in its machinations. Playing devil's advocate for these people is impossible because you're just choosing the amount of time about which they're wrong.

Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".

They're both wrong and they can both be easily dismissed and replaced instead with people who don't choose to be flat-out wrong from some arbitrary point in time back.
 
2012-11-28 04:24:38 PM  

Marine1: Ed Grubermann: Marine1: This view also, however, makes God an unknowable, unprovable element that exists beyond the world that we can experience. Which is why I'm an ...

But that's not the God of the Bible, or the God of Jesus. Which is why you're a heretic.

Oh teh noes.

/everyone is


Then you'll have lots of company in Hell, I guess.
 
2012-11-28 04:26:02 PM  

Jeremysbrain: Young Earth creationism is not a widely held belief despite what some may have everyone believe.


Gallup tends to overestimate it.

The Gallup poll only gives three options. There was a poll back in 2002 by Mason-Dixon for the Cleveland Plain Dealer at the height of the "Intelligent Design" controversy in Ohio, which used a five-option model. Essentially: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, and Atheistic Evolution. While it was only in the state of Ohio, that state has been a pretty good proxy for the country as a whole for quite some time. The ratios were (rounding a bit) approximately 30:15:15:25:15. The time-nearest Gallup numbers for the three-way breakdown were 45:37:12. Thus, the Gallup poll probably lumps the YEC and OEC crowd together, and the ID and TE crowd together. Nonetheless, that's still circa 30% YEC; the CPD question hasn't been used since, but Gallup's given the poll repeatedly, and their numbers haven't shifted all that much.

In short: a belief held by circa 30% of the country does still seem to constitute "widely held".
 
2012-11-28 04:26:07 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Unless there's just nobody else available, there's no real reason to consider the opinions of people who say "god flicked the singularity and that started everything else, but I accept all the science after that point" anymore than you would people who say "god pissed in the dirt and made muck men out of the result, but I accept all the science after that point".


Nonsense. God held the pattern of the universe in his mind while in Chaos, and the individual philotes which exist there assumed that pattern. Hence how God made us "in his image."

/What? It could be true.
 
2012-11-28 04:26:24 PM  

xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament.


It must be awfully convenient when you can dismiss most Christians as not qualifying because they're not "modern."
 
2012-11-28 04:27:31 PM  

wippit: This might come as a shock, but Paul's Second Letter was written by... Paul. Not Jesus.


Well, none of the books of the New Testament were written by Jesus. But, many quote him.

But, you were write to call me out on 2 Corinthians. I was actually thinking of something from John. So, thanks for the catch.
 
2012-11-28 04:28:20 PM  

eraser8: But, you were write right to call me out on 2 Corinthians. I was actually thinking of something from John. So, thanks for the catch.


FTFM.
 
2012-11-28 04:31:14 PM  

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Except when Christians like to quote it to justify their hatred of homosexuals.

Yeah, Leviticus is a pretty archaic and obsolete text with minimal relevance to living in the 21st century. However, when churches cite it as a reason for their anti-LBGT doctrines, it gets hauled back into the game, and the foolishness of obeying just one law on that list when ignoring the very long list of other restrictions there becomes apparent.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:14 PM  

real_headhoncho: [www.conspiracyplanet.com image 720x361]


You know, that quote itself is disinformation.

What's the source for it? Seriously.

I've tried to find a source for it, an actual reputable source. There are lots of web memes, forum posts, and random websites listing it as a quote, claiming he said it at his very first staff meeting as the DCI in 1981.

However, it's all internet quotes. Nothing predating 2007 that I could find. The vast majority of mentions from within the last year or so, most internet references seem to tie to conspiracy theory message boards and sites tied to the Ron Paul campaign.

Somebody was going to add it to Wikipedia under his entry, but nobody could provide any kind of citation. The best they had was an anonymous web forum attributing it to a Kennedy-era member of the White House Press Corps who was a big proponent of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. . . but nobody could actually provide proof of the citation beyond a forum post.
 
2012-11-28 04:43:36 PM  

xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Except for all those Christians who justify their hatred of homosexuals with Leviticus. But you already know about those assholes.
 
2012-11-28 04:49:42 PM  

Blues_X: Wow... even he gets it.

Your move, dumbasses.


No. He and his grifter ilk realize they can't isolate themselves too much to keep enough suckers inside the tent to drain their wallets.
 
2012-11-28 04:50:50 PM  

Ed Grubermann: xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.

Except for all those Christians who justify their hatred of homosexuals with Leviticus. But you already know about those assholes.


Yes and I do know all about them.. Claiming to be Christian and then not following Christs own examples. People like that are more Muslim than anything and if they were raised in the middle easy they would fit right in.

It's quite clear that gentiles do not follow the old testament. This was written about many times in the book of Acts and letters of Paul. Which is why I made the original statement of: God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.

In fact Christ makes quite a few points that gay marriage should be allowed and he leaves plenty of wiggle-room in his statements to allow for this. He also makes it very clear that the government is only supposed to provide government and not dictate our personal lives. He also makes it clear that those who are not "born again" are not subject to the laws/rules of the New Testament.

Try explaining that to 75% of the Christians in this country though..
 
2012-11-28 04:56:07 PM  

Marine1: Rev. Skarekroe: Pat Robertson is mellowing a bit in his old age.

Guy's also for legalization of marijuana. Hard to believe, but true.

Basically, if you're against these things... you're more insane than Pat Robertson. And that's not something you want to be.


Dude was quite the partier in college before he found religion.

/the more you know
 
2012-11-28 05:04:17 PM  

xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.


Empirical data suggests that the question of whether the Bible is indeed the Word Of God, and the hypocrisy of nominally religious people -- which would appear to potentially include how they selectively emphasize some passages and ignore others -- do indeed serve as potentially significant triggers of religious doubt. So do questions about tolerance of homosexuality and the role of women -- both covered in Leviticus.

Contrariwise, while such triggers appear mainly a necessary step, they are nowhere near a sufficient one. Attitudes on authority seem to play a large role, as does the decision between whether to seek out competing ideas or simply look for arguments confirming one's preexisting beliefs.

Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.
 
2012-11-28 05:07:22 PM  

xynix: abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.


I can sum it up much more easily: If God exists and created it all intentionally, God probably intended for you to have a brain. That probably means you should go ahead and use it every now and then.
 
2012-11-28 05:13:23 PM  

abb3w: xynix: Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian.

Empirical data suggests that the question of whether the Bible is indeed the Word Of God, and the hypocrisy of nominally religious people -- which would appear to potentially include how they selectively emphasize some passages and ignore others -- do indeed serve as potentially significant triggers of religious doubt. So do questions about tolerance of homosexuality and the role of women -- both covered in Leviticus.

Contrariwise, while such triggers appear mainly a necessary step, they are nowhere near a sufficient one. Attitudes on authority seem to play a large role, as does the decision between whether to seek out competing ideas or simply look for arguments confirming one's preexisting beliefs.

Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.


Genesis and Leviticus were both large parts of the reason I began to doubt my faith, around the age of about 8. When I asked my parents questions and they gave me contradictory or nonsense answers, it made me doubt they knew what they were talking about. Same thing when I asked our priest or my father's pastor. I remember asking my mom, "Why am I not allowed to watch these shows when I can read all of these horrible things?" Became clear she didn't know a single word of the Bible to start. So, in short, I agree with you.

To be fair, while I am an atheist, a very good priest has now answered those very same questions in a way that likely would have kept me in the fold if I hadn't spent so many years examining all of my beliefs, which boiled down to, paraphrasing it, "Look, it's hard to get people to actually read the Bible, much less understand it isn't all literal. Everything you're asking is correct -- some of it makes no sense, and some of it is for another time. But there's no way to get people interested enough to learn what they need to know, so some of what people are taught is just lazy thinking."

/really smart dude and a good hearted guy, who treats me like a human even though I share none of his beliefs, which is more than can be said for a lot of people out there in the religious argument land
 
2012-11-28 05:19:30 PM  
I've had two theories for Pat:

1) He's been suffering from his version of senility by gaining mental acuity. It can't go down; it can only go up.

2) He wants a less harsh look in the history books, and thinks this and other recent "revelations" will spare him his dues. 


Either way, he sucks and the world will rejoice in his death.
 
2012-11-28 05:23:01 PM  

eraser8: Marine1: Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans.

I'll agree to that. So, maybe we should stop pretending there's anything divine in the Bible. Or, at least, we should stop pretending the Bible is any more divine than anything written by Wittgenstein or Proust.

All are the products of human imagination, so far as we can tell. And, none -- again, so far as we can tell -- was inspired by any supernatural agent.


It's divine to me, in ways that make sense to me.

I mean, I'm pro-choice (lawfully, pro-life philosophically), pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, and for teaching evolution in classrooms. I'm dating a Jew and know there's somewhere between a 0 and .00000000000000000000001% chance she'd ever convert; same goes for me. If people can be like that and be religious... why not let them be?
 
2012-11-28 05:23:46 PM  

ds615: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Yes, there is.
Unless you can prove otherwise?


And your belief that there isn't a "secret science" is no more valid than my belief that there is.
 
2012-11-28 05:24:42 PM  

MrEricSir: xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament.

It must be awfully convenient when you can dismiss most Christians as not qualifying because they're not "modern."


I'm okay with that. Jesus' point was (paraphrased) "Don't be an asshole." If you're not following that, in what sense can you really claim to follow His teachings?
 
2012-11-28 05:31:05 PM  
Rationalists have been expecting for 150 years that they could convince Believers just by showing them the facts.

But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.

Creationists have a deep emotional commitment - they want to believe literal Genesis because if part of the bible isn't true, then how can you trust the bit that says Jesus will save us.

You can't shift that belief with facts - you have to figure out ways to appeal to their emotions.

One way is to show them how other Christians have coped with new scientific ideas Sometimes Science Is Right

And another is to make the point that Robertson is making - when your kids grow up and leave the bubble of your church and family, and find out that they've been fed a lot of BS about evo, they will question all the other stuff you've force-fed them.

And the fundies are open to this argument, because all their churches lose significant numbers of kids when they reach their 20's, and they have no idea how to staunch those losses.
 
2012-11-28 05:32:16 PM  
He's right about Bishop Usher not being inspired from a religious base. He was using the Bible as a history text. At the time no one knew how to even guess the age of the earth so Usher's method made as much sense as any other guess. Usher work was rather good, such as it was. Had he been born in a later time Usher would probably have embraced modern methods to ascertain the age of the world. Stephen Jay Gould had a good essay about Usher in one of his books. Gould actually admired Usher's ingenuity. .
 
2012-11-28 05:34:03 PM  

rwfan: ds615: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Yes, there is.
Unless you can prove otherwise?

And your belief that there isn't a "secret science" is no more valid than my belief that there is.


I said there is, not that there wasn't.

And no, people's beliefs and opinions are not equally valid just because they have them. Whichever parent or muppet told you that lied to you.
 
2012-11-28 05:46:57 PM  

Arkanaut: Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?


1) The Devil invented lying
2) The Devil Invented science
3) Science is a lie
 
2012-11-28 05:49:25 PM  

FitzShivering: So, in short, I agree with you.


"All I know is what I read in the newspapers social psychology literature." You might find Altemeyer and Hunsberger's Amazing Conversions: why some turn to faith & others abandon religion an interesting read.

FitzShivering: To be fair, while I am an atheist, a very good priest has now answered those very same questions in a way that likely would have kept me in the fold if I hadn't spent so many years examining all of my beliefs


Ayep. There are some smart people, who have actually come up with chains of reasoning able to help keep the belief supported and doubt at bay. However....

There's an aphorism in computer science, by Brian Kernighan: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" Obviously, the problem becomes even worse when you're trying to debug code written by someone more clever than you are. Less obviously, there's some underlying basis to the observation in mathematical proof theory (although the factor of two is sometimes horribly conservative), which in turn applies to reasoning in general.

So, many of the religious "attitude bolstering" chains were developed by the sharpest thinkers of the day -- which suggests, some of the flaws/bugs may be very hard for more ordinary people to see.

Of course, this observation actually makes for a pretty clever piece of atheist attitude bolstering itself....
 
2012-11-28 05:50:07 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Yes but if we showed you it, you would be blinded.
 
2012-11-28 05:51:54 PM  

meat0918: It still boggles my mind that we have all this accumulated data that the earth is way, WAY older than 6,000 years old, and that we have so many, many, many, MANY fossils, and DNA evidence, and all these facts that keep piling up, and it makes some people so uncomfortable that they go "No, I'll choose to believe this other thing, in spite of all the evidence it is incorrect, because it makes me feel good."


Except it doesnt usually. Sure some small percentage of religious people are truly happy, probably a couple of Buddhists or something, but for so many religion makes them anxious and guilty and judgmental and hate filled. It seems like most humans want to be miserable to some extent for some crazy reason.
 
2012-11-28 05:52:39 PM  

Marine1: You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life.


Awesome, so Muslims are Christians, too?

Well, then, that resolves like 90% of our international religious conflict then, doesn't it?

//Hint: your effort to define Christianity by not defining it at all using the "i'll know it when I see it" excuse doesn't make you rational, in fact quite the opposite. Plus it makes you an intellectual coward.
 
2012-11-28 05:52:43 PM  

Marine1: eraser8: Marine1: Problem is, everything means what we want it to mean. We're humans.

I'll agree to that. So, maybe we should stop pretending there's anything divine in the Bible. Or, at least, we should stop pretending the Bible is any more divine than anything written by Wittgenstein or Proust.

All are the products of human imagination, so far as we can tell. And, none -- again, so far as we can tell -- was inspired by any supernatural agent.

It's divine to me, in ways that make sense to me.

I mean, I'm pro-choice (lawfully, pro-life philosophically), pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, and for teaching evolution in classrooms. I'm dating a Jew and know there's somewhere between a 0 and .00000000000000000000001% chance she'd ever convert; same goes for me. If people can be like that and be religious... why not let them be?


I hope you weren't under the impression I was trying to change your beliefs. That doesn't interest me.

As long as you leave me to live my life as I see fit, I have no objection to anything you believe or disbelieve.

I was only interested in discussion...and, explaining how I view things. If you don't view the world the same way, that's really none of my business.
 
2012-11-28 05:54:32 PM  

abb3w: Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.


From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated. The "revealed" knowledge of the New Testament confirms this and it's excluded as we're gentiles and not Jews. Fundies just blithely choose to ignore this fact or have no knowledge of this fact which means they have little knowledge of their own religion. They choose to use outdated arguments for their own personal distaste/hatred/whatever.

FitzShivering: /really smart dude and a good hearted guy, who treats me like a human even though I share none of his beliefs, which is more than can be said for a lot of people out there in the religious argument land


The church I go to follows this doctrine. I have a magnet on my car that says "Love God, Love People" and it's the slogan if you will of our church. Gay people, Muslims, Atheists, etc are all our people and we're to love them as such. None of Christs teachings were exclusive but mostly inclusive which leaves those of us that are Christians with the "wiggle room" to accept and include people into our faith regardless of lifestyle. I realize I'm one of the few Christians who comment on this site and that's fine with me because the majority of your opinions are of value to me regardless of whatever religions background or affiliation you have.

The one thing that many "Christians" fail to realize among various political topics is that Christ was very clear that the government perform only government acts. So even if Christ were to be against Gay marriage it's not relevant at the government level. Same with abortion which I'm strongly opposed to but feel should be legal for those who aren't of my faith. In the church there are mechanisms in place to help girls/women who might want to have an abortion. There are many children adopted because churches have stepped in and helped those girls or women make a different choice knowing they had the full support of thousands of other Christians. That's where it should stay - at the church level.
 
2012-11-28 06:15:09 PM  

ds615: rwfan: ds615: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Yes, there is.
Unless you can prove otherwise?

And your belief that there isn't a "secret science" is no more valid than my belief that there is.

I said there is, not that there wasn't.

And no, people's beliefs and opinions are not equally valid just because they have them. Whichever parent or muppet told you that lied to you.


Hmmm, my bad. The you I was refering to was not you but a rhetorical "you". Which is what I though you meant by the "you" in "Unless you can prove otherwise?".

I was being sarcastic and I thought you were as well. There is a secret science?
 
2012-11-28 06:22:02 PM  

xynix: abb3w: Nohow, it's an inaccurate minimization to say Leviticus means "nothing" to "modern" Christians.

From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated. The "revealed" knowledge of the New Testament confirms this and it's excluded as we're gentiles and not Jews. Fundies just blithely choose to ignore this fact or have no knowledge of this fact which means they have little knowledge of their own religion. They choose to use outdated arguments for their own personal distaste/hatred/whatever.

FitzShivering: /really smart dude and a good hearted guy, who treats me like a human even though I share none of his beliefs, which is more than can be said for a lot of people out there in the religious argument land

The church I go to follows this doctrine. I have a magnet on my car that says "Love God, Love People" and it's the slogan if you will of our church. Gay people, Muslims, Atheists, etc are all our people and we're to love them as such. None of Christs teachings were exclusive but mostly inclusive which leaves those of us that are Christians with the "wiggle room" to accept and include people into our faith regardless of lifestyle. I realize I'm one of the few Christians who comment on this site and that's fine with me because the majority of your opinions are of value to me regardless of whatever religions background or affiliation you have.

The one thing that many "Christians" fail to realize among various political topics is that Christ was very clear that the government perform only government acts. So even if Christ were to be against Gay marriage it's not relevant at the government level. Same with abortion which I'm strongly opposed to but feel should be legal for those who aren't of my faith. In the church there are mechanisms in place to help girls/women who might want to have an abortion. There are many children adopted because churches have stepped in and helped those girl ...


The fabled "rational christian" appears. There are so few anymore. They're like unicorns. Most of the ones you hear from are Bible-thumping douchenozzles with too little to say and too much time to say it, coupled with a sprinkling of hate.
 
2012-11-28 06:39:07 PM  

Marine1: MrEricSir: xynix: Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament.

It must be awfully convenient when you can dismiss most Christians as not qualifying because they're not "modern."

I'm okay with that. Jesus' point was (paraphrased) "Don't be an asshole." If you're not following that, in what sense can you really claim to follow His teachings?


They gave up on that teaching centuries ago. Turns out not being an asshole isn't conducive to spreading your religion.
 
2012-11-28 06:43:54 PM  

rwfan: I was being sarcastic and I thought you were as well. There is a secret science?


There is science we do not yet understand. Perhaps that is what is meant.
 
2012-11-28 07:06:59 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: [www.glennbeck.com image 600x396]

They grow up so fast.


And we live in a world where that is actually more than just a Bad Religion song.
 
2012-11-28 07:08:07 PM  
Pat Robertson: "The Bible is not literally true, and the Earth is more than 6000 years old."

Young Earth Creationists: "Pat Robertson is deceived, and does not speak for God."

I agree with both of these statements.

AAAAAAAGHHHH, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH PAT ROBERTSON AND YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS!

images.wikia.com
 
2012-11-28 07:09:17 PM  

eraser8: Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies

Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.


No, precisely the opposite. They are about understanding what the bible actually says. Dismissing entire fields of scholarly inquiry because they produce answers that are too complex to explain to your average seventh-grader is exactly the kind of self-justifying anti-intellectualism that young earth creationists engage in.
 
2012-11-28 07:09:31 PM  

MrEricSir: They gave up on that teaching centuries ago. Turns out not being an asshole isn't conducive to spreading your religion.


And some inside the Catholic Church kind of tried to convince the rest of the Catholics to return to that, but they mostly mock them (Jesuits) or just ask for their tasty beer (Trappists).
 
2012-11-28 07:12:11 PM  

eudemonist: rwfan: I was being sarcastic and I thought you were as well. There is a secret science?

There is science we do not yet understand. Perhaps that is what is meant.


It's called mad science. It's inspired by the Manitous.

/Obscure?
 
2012-11-28 07:12:49 PM  
I just pooped myself a little bit. All I know is, if Pat Robertson doesn't believe it, then I, by definition, have to. Which sucks, because I hate to think that fossils are a lie.
 
2012-11-28 07:31:09 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Marine1: You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life.

Awesome, so Muslims are Christians, too?

Well, then, that resolves like 90% of our international religious conflict then, doesn't it?

//Hint: your effort to define Christianity by not defining it at all using the "i'll know it when I see it" excuse doesn't make you rational, in fact quite the opposite. Plus it makes you an intellectual coward.


He's a point in Islam. He's not a focal point.

As for the second sentence... it would be nice, wouldn't it?

It's not intellectual cowardice if it just is. You either get it or you don't. Same goes for anything else in life.
 
2012-11-28 07:54:07 PM  
Even Pat Robertson understands, to a point, that God is not conducting an Orwellian 2+2=5 loyalty test. Faith is about believing in more than can be seen, not about denying what has been seen.
 
2012-11-28 08:02:30 PM  

Nem Wan: Faith is about believing in more than can be seen, not about denying what has been seen.


I may have to steal quote you on that.
 
2012-11-28 08:04:22 PM  

Son of Thunder: eraser8: Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies

Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.

No, precisely the opposite. They are about understanding what the bible actually says. Dismissing entire fields of scholarly inquiry because they produce answers that are too complex to explain to your average seventh-grader is exactly the kind of self-justifying anti-intellectualism that young earth creationists engage in.


That's absolute nonsense. What the Bible actually says is written down. It's available to anyone who's interested. The theologian has taken it upon himself to tell us what the Bible MEANS. And, they can only maintain a veneer of academic respectability if there is some gap between the words of the Bible and the meaning those words are meant to convey.

PZ Myers, an actual academic, pretty much echos my thoughts on the subject:
People keep telling me that I have to read up more on real theology, you know, the stuff where smart old white guys sit around in seminaries and invent rationalizations for whatever the hell they want to believe. Unfortunately, I don't see any difference in principle (but hopefully, in outcome) between what, for instance, elders of the Mormon church or Catholic bishops say, than the ideas of Peter Lucas Moses*, who has his own special interpretation of God's holy word.
Theology, as one philosopher demonstrated by getting nonsensical theology papers accepted by major theological conferences, can't really be distinguished from wishful thinking at best and gibberish at worst.

It is the job of the theologian, as I wrote earlier, to explain why the Bible doesn't really mean what the Bible really says. You've yet to offer any reason to doubt assessment.

* [Peter Lucas Moses is] a religious leader in North Carolina [who] shot to death his four-year old step son because he thought the boy, Jadon Higganbothan, might be gay. The man, Peter Lucas Moses, 27, also shot to death a 28-year old woman, [and] may face the death penalty.
 
2012-11-28 08:06:48 PM  

Nem Wan: Faith is about believing in more than can be seen, not about denying what has been seen.


This bears repeating.
 
2012-11-28 08:12:17 PM  

codergirl42: Arkanaut: Vegan Meat Popsicle: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Humans aren't smart enough to know things so god puts it in their heads instead just 'cause he's such a great guy.

More god of the gaps bullshiat that religionists use to backpeddle when they get proven plainly wrong about something yet again.

So basically:

1) God created all things
2) Science is a thing
3) Therefore, God created science?

1) The Devil invented lying
2) The Devil Invented science
3) Science is a lie


I forget though, does Pat Robertson believe in the Devil?
 
2012-11-28 08:20:02 PM  

abb3w: There's an aphorism in computer science, by Brian Kernighan: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" Obviously, the problem becomes even worse when you're trying to debug code written by someone more clever than you are. Less obviously, there's some underlying basis to the observation in mathematical proof theory (although the factor of two is sometimes horribly conservative), which in turn applies to reasoning in general.


In my experience, for every time you double the length of code, the code becomes four times as hard to debug, which I think makes this a geometric relationship.

//my $0.02
 
2012-11-28 08:22:06 PM  
Nice ambigram logo.
 
2012-11-28 08:27:07 PM  

eraser8: If a "day" in Genesis isn't a literal day, then the Bible is not literally true. In that case, "day" becomes either poetry or metaphor. And, we're still left wondering what parts of the Bible are literal and which shouldn't be taken so seriously.


Define literal day.
Meanwhile, take the 10 Commandments serious and the Testimony of Jesus Christ.
Odd bits in Leviticus and Acts by Paul, not so much.
 
2012-11-28 08:37:23 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Marine1: You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life.

Awesome, so Muslims are Christians, too?


So you are unclear on what "focal point" means, or you just have no clue what Islam is about?
 
2012-11-28 08:38:55 PM  

Arkanaut: abb3w: There's an aphorism in computer science, by Brian Kernighan: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?" Obviously, the problem becomes even worse when you're trying to debug code written by someone more clever than you are. Less obviously, there's some underlying basis to the observation in mathematical proof theory (although the factor of two is sometimes horribly conservative), which in turn applies to reasoning in general.

In my experience, for every time you double the length of code, the code becomes four times as hard to debug, which I think makes this a geometric relationship.

//my $0.02


seriously off topic (wow, pat robertson, who'd a thunk it), but this seems pertinent to the coding comments:

"Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction - from which, by induction, it is evident that every program can be reduced to one instruction that does not work."

Ken Arnold
 
2012-11-28 08:47:34 PM  

eraser8: Then the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. But, any document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean ultimately means nothing.


Can't you say that about anything?

I mean I see your point, there is so much contradictory stuff it is easier to pick what every you want out of it. But most people who have studied it looking for answers are probably going to come up with a system for which parts are right, or have more weight.

If you are reading it with what Jesus saying trumping everything else, it is a pretty good holy book.


/atheist.
 
2012-11-28 08:50:57 PM  
Most Christians freely embrace science and it doesn't shake our faith.

The pushback is when the "evolution proves there is no God" crowd starts yapping. Thing is, they don't know, we don't know, we'll all find out in due course.

In the 60's and 70's (when I was in school) evolution was taught, no attack on religion, no problems.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:55 PM  

cchris_39: evolution proves there is no God


Nothing can prove a negative assertion as being true and nobody tries to do that, don't be ridiculous. The proof there is no god is incontestably rooted in the absolute lack of evidence for one.

cchris_39: no attack on religion, no problems


Acknowledging the basic and obvious reality in which we all live is not an attack on anything. People should not silence themselves solely because people like you don't like to hear facts.
 
2012-11-28 08:58:50 PM  

cchris_39: The pushback is when the "evolution proves there is no God" crowd starts yapping. Thing is, they don't know, we don't know, we'll all find out in due course.


Outside of whiny teens who want to piss their parents off, that crowd doesn't exist.

Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.
 
2012-11-28 09:09:15 PM  

liam76: Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.


That's why we call it "faith". If it was something else we'd call it science.

The fact remains that you don't know anymore than I do, however fervently we each "believe".

In the meantime, teach the best science that we know, and keep the theological conclusions out of it.
 
2012-11-28 09:19:12 PM  

eraser8: Son of Thunder: eraser8: Son of Thunder: If only there were people who dedicated their careers to questions like this, who earned PhDs in fields like theology and biblical studies

Those are basically the sciences of explaining why the Bible doesn't really mean what it really says...which speaks to my point: when the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn't mean anything at all.

No, precisely the opposite. They are about understanding what the bible actually says. Dismissing entire fields of scholarly inquiry because they produce answers that are too complex to explain to your average seventh-grader is exactly the kind of self-justifying anti-intellectualism that young earth creationists engage in.

That's absolute nonsense. What the Bible actually says is written down. It's available to anyone who's interested. The theologian has taken it upon himself to tell us what the Bible MEANS. And, they can only maintain a veneer of academic respectability if there is some gap between the words of the Bible and the meaning those words are meant to convey.

PZ Myers, an actual academic, pretty much echos my thoughts on the subject: People keep telling me that I have to read up more on real theology, you know, the stuff where smart old white guys sit around in seminaries and invent rationalizations for whatever the hell they want to believe. Unfortunately, I don't see any difference in principle (but hopefully, in outcome) between what, for instance, elders of the Mormon church or Catholic bishops say, than the ideas of Peter Lucas Moses*, who has his own special interpretation of God's holy word.Theology, as one philosopher demonstrated by getting nonsensical theology papers accepted by major theological conferences, can't really be distinguished from wishful thinking at best and gibberish at worst.

It is the job of the theologian, as I wrote earlier, to explain why the Bible doesn't really mean what the Bible really says. You've yet to offer any reason to doubt assessment.

* [Peter Lucas Moses is] a religious leader in North Carolina [who] shot to death his four-year old step son because he thought the boy, Jadon Higganbothan, might be gay. The man, Peter Lucas Moses, 27, also shot to death a 28-year old woman, [and] may face the death penalty.


It's hardly nonsense to claim that territory exists between an absolute literalism beyond what even the fundamentalists endorse, and an absolute lack of meaning in the text.

Restating your claim using more words is not the same thing as proving your claim. And quoting PZ Myers' take on theology is about as relevant as quoting DL Moody to support a point about biology. (The fact that Myers is "an academic" is no guarantee of his accuracy. After all... I am also an academic).

So I'll ask this: in forming your position on the worthlessness of theology and biblical studies, how much actual theology or biblical studies did you read? And by "theology and biblical studies", I don't mean some crap you pulled from a random website. I don't mean the Sunday School lessons you might have endured at the hands of whatever uneducated hausfrau happened to volunteer at your local church. And I don't mean some "Pastor Pete and His Wacky Pals Explain the Bible in Fifteen Pages" book you pulled from a Religion shelf at Borders. I mean thick books containing big words written by people who have actual training the fields in question.
 
2012-11-28 09:22:44 PM  

cchris_39: liam76: Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.

That's why we call it "faith". If it was something else we'd call it science.


It is. And I got no problem with people that recognize it is faith, and there not a shred of evidence to support it.

I actually have a lot of respect for people who admit it is unprovable, especially when compared to peopel who try and make up BS as to why their faith must be right.


cchris_39: The fact remains that you don't know anymore than I do, however fervently we each "believe".


Well I might know more than you and you might know more than, probably depends on the subject, but when it comes to God.

You believe in something based on faith. I know what science has proven. Not a matter of "fervency" just how we choose to view the world.


cchris_39: In the meantime, teach the best science that we know, and keep the theological conclusions out of it


Amen : )
 
2012-11-28 09:43:16 PM  
(Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)
 
2012-11-28 10:06:55 PM  
There's nothing wrong with theology as a factual study of religion, but it always devolves into some old white guy proclaiming some mumbo jumbo then telling everyone that they're too dumb too understand it. Sorry, but the reason nobody understands it is because your tortured reasoning to try and explain a myth just doesn't hold up.
 
2012-11-28 10:14:49 PM  
WTF is going on with Pat? Telling the truth about science? He's even given up praying away the hurricanes.
 
2012-11-28 10:37:11 PM  

Son of Thunder: It's hardly nonsense to claim that territory exists between an absolute literalism beyond what even the fundamentalists endorse, and an absolute lack of meaning in the text.


In most disciplines, I would agree. And, when theology is irreligious, it applies there, as well: studying the Bible as mere literature, studying the traditions of the faith without falling for it, that kind of thing. But, the kind of theology that comes out of the Roman Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that sees the central characters in the Bible story as more than fiction -- or, at the very least, fictionalized -- seems silly.

Son of Thunder: And quoting PZ Myers' take on theology is about as relevant as quoting DL Moody to support a point about biology. (The fact that Myers is "an academic" is no guarantee of his accuracy.


That was just a bit of snark. I referred to PZ Myers as a "real academic" to contrast his field, biology -- a real academic subject -- with theology.

Son of Thunder: So I'll ask this: in forming your position on the worthlessness of theology and biblical studies, how much actual theology or biblical studies did you read?


Nothing modern. Mostly things like Aquinas and Boethius and, in the Muslim (Sufism) tradition, Farid ud-Din Attar. But, would you honestly need to read books on Smurfist theology to realize that Papa Smurf was an invention? Would you need an MDiv or DD to know that Gargamel is not God's enemy?
 
2012-11-28 10:40:26 PM  

xynix: From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated.


That's a pretty common attitude among the mainline protestant churches; the more fundamentalist protestants tend to disagree.

xynix: The "revealed" knowledge of the New Testament confirms this


There are some verses to argue that, yes. There are other verses of the NT to argue the other way.

xynix: Fundies just blithely choose to ignore this fact or have no knowledge of this fact


More that they don't consider it a "fact", but consider it an interpretation of certain parts of the NT that is incorrect. Some are simply ignorant that this interpretation even exists, of course.

Arkanaut: In my experience, for every time you double the length of code, the code becomes four times as hard to debug, which I think makes this a geometric relationship.


Actually, this isn't about length of code, as diabolical subtlety of code.

#include
main(t,_,a)
char *a;
{
return!01,t_?main(t+1,_,a):3,main(-94,-27+t,a)&&t==2?_13?
main(2,_+1,"%s %d %d\n"):9:16:t0?t-72?main(_,t,
"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l+,/n{n+,/+# n +,/#\
;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l \
q#'+d'K#!/+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw ' i;# \
){nl]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#n'wk nw' \
iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')#\
}'+}##(!!/")
:t-50?_==*a?putchar(31[a]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a=='/')+t,_,a+1)
:0t?main(2,2,"%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a,
"!ek;dc i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);
}
Have fun debugging.

liam76: /atheist.


i167.photobucket.com


Out of curiosity, when did that come about?

liam76: Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.


Depends what sense of "prove" you mean....

Son of Thunder: It's hardly nonsense to claim that territory exists between an absolute literalism beyond what even the fundamentalists endorse, and an absolute lack of meaning in the text.


Even most atheists don't go as far as "absolute lack of meaning"; it's more common to consider it of roughly the order with Homeric mythology or Aesop's Fables. The question that seems more interesting is on what basis you decide where it falls on the spectrum -- which is somewhat about the philosophical underpinnings of biblical studies.
 
2012-11-28 10:40:36 PM  

wambu: WTF is going on with Pat? Telling the truth about science? He's even given up praying away the hurricanes.


Maybe it's because he's finally realized that he hasn't been hearing a god talking to him. He's been hearing himself talk and confusing that with divine guidance: Robertson Admits He Blew Election Prediction He Received From God
 
2012-11-28 10:46:45 PM  

Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)


I'll note, because of complaints like this, the godless not-a-blogger and fellow biologist Jerry Coyne has been wading through medium heavy duty names, and finding bupkiss.
 
2012-11-28 11:15:43 PM  

mjjt: But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.


Every time my nose gets rubbed in this, I'm tempted to thank the non-existent gods I'm autistic. My emotions only trump my rational side while intense emotions are happening. As soon as I calm down, I lose all free will in the matter. There are facts and there are opinions. Facts always trump my opinions, but I can't take any credit for it. It's simply the way I'm wired. There's no (little?) emotional attachment to my opinions. It doesn't usually bother me to be proven wrong; it means I learned something. To be honest, most people seem so irrational about that they scare the crap out of me.

The only hard part is deciding what constitutes a fact. Currently, my lowest level of "scientific fact" requires multiple independent published papers in peer-reviewed journals with compatible findings. Below that level, it's at-best an "evidence suggests". For "casual facts", I read the Wikipedia article, check the specific source document that made the claim, then do a couple of Google searches based on keywords in that document to look at a few contradictory claims.

In practically all cases where there's conflict, one side uses evidence and references for their claims, while the other side references itself and special-interest blogs, making its case through "appeal to authority" and other obvious logical fallacies. (A farker once called it "cargo-cult science", a term I adore)

As for the Bible, I was born-again at age 16. A few months later I was an atheist. The main thing that happened is I talked with my pastor and he told me to read the Bible. Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away. Like, 1 Samuel and 1 Kings both describe the same battle, but many details are contradictory. They are simply not both the literal truth my pastor claimed.

Damn, I miss that memory. It's mostly gone now that I'm old and live on prescription drugs. OTOH I essentially memorized that 1980 bestseller, "Body Language", but still couldn't tell if a girl was interested or not. That year, I would have traded every other talent I had for that one. :(
 
2012-11-28 11:21:28 PM  

Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)


Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-11-28 11:37:00 PM  

Arkanaut: In my experience, for every time you double the length of code, the code becomes four times as hard to debug, which I think makes this a geometric relationship.


I've seen one exception: One department at the last place I worked had this silly policy discouraging functions/procedures longer than a single screen. It made their programs larger and a bit slower, but to my surprise, faster to debug. More little functions made the variables easier to keep straight when reading someone else's code.
 
2012-11-28 11:44:16 PM  

abb3w: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

I'll note, because of complaints like this, the godless not-a-blogger and fellow biologist Jerry Coyne has been wading through medium heavy duty names, and finding bupkiss.


Molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath did something similar, and ended up converting from atheism to Christianity. And the snarkfest you linked to is hardly a thoughtful engagement or even an honest attempt to understand.

Next up, I will pretend that my PhD in psychology makes me competent to criticize multiverse cosmology. My primary method of analysis will be namecalling.
 
2012-11-28 11:48:41 PM  

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Robertson is using the term to refer to the theological concept of "general revelation." General revelation refers to things that people can discover by exploring God's creation.
 
2012-11-28 11:52:11 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.


Primarily because the original question was not about trying to prove God's existence. It was about principles of biblical interpretation. But as for why reading real biblical scholarship is necessary, this kind of thing is a typical move among some of the less-than-entirely-intellecually-honest varieties of atheist: Ask a question that requires a complex answer. Dismiss all complex answers as academic obfuscation. With complexity ignored, all possible answers that remain are simplistic. Reject the simplistic answers for being simplistic. Declare victory.
 
2012-11-29 12:11:19 AM  

Beowoolfie: Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away.


The Bible was never intended to be read by the lay folk. It is a collection of stories cobbled together from older cultures and competing groups within the early Jewish faiths and then the early Christian faiths and meant to be read to the masses via the filter of the priests. The contradictions in the Old Testament were never corrected (any further) due to the text becoming set before the groups homogenized into a single group. The same is true of the New Testament and the early Christians. The Gospels, for example, do not agree with each-other because the early Gospels were written to be read to a Jewish audience and the later Gospels were written to be read to gentiles.

Remember that Johan Gutenberg incurred the wrath of the Catholic Church for having the audacity to print Bibles for the consumption of the masses.
 
2012-11-29 12:18:12 AM  

Beowoolfie: mjjt: But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.


As for the Bible, I was born-again at age 16. A few months later I was an atheist. The main thing that happened is I talked with my pastor and he told me to read the Bible. Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away. Like, 1 Samuel and 1 Ki ...


I, like most atheists, also focus on the contradictions as a proof of What-Supreme-Being-Wrote-This-Crap?, but l read an interesting apologia recently - filed Link (article 19)
 
2012-11-29 12:19:13 AM  

Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.

Primarily because the original question was not about trying to prove God's existence. It was about principles of biblical interpretation. But as for why reading real biblical scholarship is necessary, this kind of thing is a typical move among some of the less-than-entirely-intellecually-honest varieties of atheist: Ask a question that requires a complex answer. Dismiss all complex answers as academic obfuscation. With complexity ignored, all possible answers that remain are simplistic. Reject the simplistic answers for being simplistic. Declare victory.


If there is no God then the interpretation is simple: some of the Bible is historical, albeit embellished, mus-remembered, and altered to validate the Hebrew claims to land and excuse the wholesale slaughter of others, mixed in with old legends and a dash of how to best beat your slaves and sell your daughters. It is only with the starting premise that God is real and is as the Bible describes Him that it becomes complicated.

Accepting it for what it is, a book of fables written by human beings it is easy to deal with the complexities as the inevitable result of a book written and rewritten by many hands over many years. Only by trying to impose a divine author does it become difficult. The veracity of the god claim is paramount to understanding the Bible. Theology is not needed.
 
2012-11-29 12:31:35 AM  

xynix: abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.


I believe that Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the Old Testament laws were overturned by him
 
2012-11-29 01:04:59 AM  
Wow, that's weird, I always figured Marion "Non Specific Drip" Robertson would be all over Ussher.

/these threads are much more enjoyable since SteveyB got raptured.
 
2012-11-29 01:12:22 AM  

mjjt: I, like most atheists, also focus on the contradictions as a proof of What-Supreme-Being-Wrote-This-Crap?, but l read an interesting apologia recently - filed Link (article 19)


Taking a look now. Thanks!
 
2012-11-29 02:27:23 AM  

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


For next Secretary's Day you should give her the backside of your hand upside her head.
 
2012-11-29 06:42:59 AM  

abb3w: liam76: /atheist.

Out of curiosity, when did that come about?


Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.

I am not suprised you probably thought I was a fundie or a jew, since you have ahabit of cherry picking lines when you respond to me.

abb3w: liam76: Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.

Depends what sense of "prove" you mean....


Int he scientific sense. I am aware of the outrageous claims require outrageous proof argument, but peopel running around saying they can "disprove god" through science miss the mark. Both intellectually and as an actual argument against religion.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:39 AM  
This just goes to prove (again and again) that Religion is BS, but it doesn't mean you can't believe in God.
 
2012-11-29 10:17:49 AM  

verbaltoxin: common sense is an oxymoron: NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif

Bevets may look something like that right about now.

He's too busy being i drunk what in another thread.


Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves.

hey gaiz wats this thread?

/lets talk about science
 
2012-11-29 10:22:21 AM  

GilRuiz1: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Robertson is using the term to refer to the theological concept of "general revelation." General revelation refers to things that people can discover by exploring God's creation.


"General revelation is a term used by theologians which refers to a universal aspect of God, of God's knowledge and of spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe)" ~link

aw cheese not this shiate again

/hey gil, howzit goin?
 
2012-11-29 10:25:52 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Marine1: You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life.

Awesome, so Muslims are Christians, too?


how about mormons, catholics, branch davidians, etc.. and so on?

ghandi liked jesus, is he also a christian?
 
2012-11-29 01:44:13 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination?


Seeking out the best counter-arguments available, in an effort to actively avoid confirmation bias.

Son of Thunder: Molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath did something similar, and ended up converting from atheism to Christianity.


Conversion from an irreligious background to a religious one does happen sometimes, yes. It's more common in the more pronounced cases (larger shift in religiosity) to be associated with emotional stresses in life, and finding some sense of comfort from religion. Intellectual inquiry tends to be more often associated with religious-to-irreligious transition, particularly when some manner of doubt triggers an examination using sources arguing both for and against the original position, rather than merely looking for arguments supporting one's original position.

It's quite possible that Alister McGrath is an outlier, of course.

However, if you're professionally interested as a psychologist on such conversions, you might look into the Altemeyer/Hunsberger "Amazing Conversions" study I mentioned earlier.

Son of Thunder: And the snarkfest you linked to is hardly a thoughtful engagement or even an honest attempt to understand.


Rather, the snarkfest is Dr. Coyne's social signaling of the outcome of his evaluation (using a couple brief excerpts as highlights), from having made attempts to read the arguments of "sophisticated theology" with a critical eye, and identified what Dr. Coyne considers severe weaknesses in the argument. The one I linked is one of the later pieces he's done; he's been reading for a while, and subjectively has gotten more snarky with time. But in short, he appears to understand the arguments; he just doesn't think they adequately supports the conclusions. (Mene, mene, tekel....)

And, more to the point, he has indeed made an effort to read it.

liam76: Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.


About four years back, you seemed to be using some of the common religious critiques on atheism, but hokay.

liam76: Int he scientific sense.


In the scientific sense, proof is never absolute, and thus in that sense proof of a negative is actually possible, via parsimony. (Or in Popper's terms, simplicity -- though he was significantly mistaken about a few points with that.)

liam76: peopel running around saying they can "disprove god" through science miss the mark


Miss which mark?
 
2012-11-29 02:10:07 PM  

abb3w: liam76: Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.

About four years back, you seemed to be using some of the common religious critiques on atheism, but hokay.


Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.


abb3w: Miss which mark?


Enlighten people? Educate people?

Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.
 
2012-11-29 02:13:02 PM  

I drunk what: General revelation is a term used by theologians which refers to a universal aspect of God


Yeah, "they" got 'em trained to say that. err... it's all in the wording see:

A "universal aspect of God" is just a universal saying. More so, the universal IS the only aspect to God. Universalism, on the other hand is a theological constant in the primary sense, especially when considered as the very human concept of a superhuman agency or agencies.

See in this discussion, it would be proper to say, God is the universe or abstract matter/antimatter and the whole space considered.

In short, God IS nature. Both the physical and non-physical

It's just easier to make that distinction.
 
2012-11-29 02:44:57 PM  

abb3w: In the scientific sense, proof is never absolute


that's why we have faith

to get stuff done

abb3w: Miss which mark?


IDW's One True Definition of Nature, and furthermore an elementary understanding of Science vs. Religion, which the definition brings clarity to

abb3w: xynix: From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated.

That's a pretty common attitude among the mainline protestant churches; the more fundamentalist protestants tend to disagree.


that's because the Imbecile Squad makes the same mistakes the Idiot Brigade makes, and tries to argue that any words that appear in the Bible are equally valid and haven't the foggiest clue of what makes the New Testament different from the Old, nor who it even applies to.

how many thousands of times have we already covered this? do we need to revisit it again??

abb3w: There are other verses of the NT to argue the other way.


such as?
 
2012-11-29 02:48:20 PM  

vactech: In short, God IS nature.


what are the physical properties of God?

which part of Sin is God?
 
2012-11-29 03:19:23 PM  

I drunk what: what are the physical properties of God?


You have some of them listed in your definition (but mine is more comprensive). Let's look at your definition again. Please pay attention this time. This is from a previous post:

Nature is MIND. Wrong! God IS Mind and God is in all of our minds. God Mind (see. my definition).

Nature is Physical....such as Heat, energy, and temperature. BUZZ! Wrong again IDW! God IS Fire. God IS Light.

Nature is Spiritual. FAIL! He IS the spirit.

Nature is Life. Pfft! God IS Life

I drunk what: which part of Sin is God?


It's hard to say. God has more dimensions than we can evaluate here on Earth (or this set). Jesus tried to explain this when he said Heaven was like 7 virgins lighting your lamp. The 7 may refer to dimensions...(I'm working on it).

But you are going about this backward again, and missing the larger point of my post. I was talking about universal terms. Imagine God like a universal concept, an abstraction if you will. All encompassing in his Glory. Where questions about "sin", and "ethics" and "morality" don't really apply. HE is beyond all that smallness. Universal. Like, everything and nothing all at the same time. It's abstract, I know. But you've got to try IDW!

Take nothingness for instance. Close your eyes, and think about God being nothing...the alpha and the omega...

...
...
...
Did you see now? That's is True(TM) belief my friend.
 
2012-11-29 03:27:06 PM  

vactech: That's is


It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the-if he-if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement

vactech: Nature is MIND. Wrong! God IS Mind and God is in all of our minds. God Mind (see. my definition).

Nature is Physical....such as Heat, energy, and temperature. BUZZ! Wrong again IDW! God IS Fire. God IS Light.

Nature is Spiritual. FAIL! He IS the spirit.

Nature is Life. Pfft! God IS Life


so then God isn't Nature? i concur
 
2012-11-29 03:29:25 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.


i heard jesus was a myth, don't bother

only a fool would believe there is a god
 
2012-11-29 03:33:57 PM  

abb3w: Conversion from an irreligious background to a religious one does happen sometimes, yes. It's more common in the more pronounced cases (larger shift in religiosity) to be associated with emotional stresses in life, and finding some sense of comfort from religion.


do you dream of electric sheep?

abb3w: Intellectual inquiry tends to be more often associated with religious-to-irreligious transition, particularly when some manner of doubt triggers an examination using sources arguing both for and against the original position, rather than merely looking for arguments supporting one's original position.


that's an awfully longwinded way to say, "religious people are dumb and skeptical freethinkers iz smrt"

/have you been hanging around KB again?
 
2012-11-29 03:34:39 PM  

I drunk what: so then God isn't Nature?


In a universal sense you are correct, in so much as life is not nature, or heat is not, etc. But in another way, you have totally missed the meaning of what I have typed, again.

There is just no getting through to these ISers.

I drunk what: vactech: That's is


Yes. I farked that up.
 
2012-11-29 03:37:11 PM  

vactech: HE is beyond all that smallness.


and how about Man? are we ok?
 
2012-11-29 03:40:27 PM  

vactech: Yes. I farked that up.


deep breathes lad, take your time

vactech: There is just no getting through to these ISers.


tell me more about this "Imbecile Squad" i'm intrigued...
 
2012-11-29 03:49:37 PM  

liam76: Enlighten people?


yes

liam76: Educate people?


yes

liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.


but what happens when speaking the Truth inevitably ends up pissing the other guy off?

presuming the previous two conditions were met
 
2012-11-29 03:54:48 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: Yes. I farked that up.

deep breathes lad, take your time


This is strictly a 8am-4pm thing for me. I have to get my posts in or wait until tomorrow morning.

I drunk what: and how about Man? are we ok?


Hell no! We're screwed.

bluraymedia.ign.com 

Haven't you read your bible, dude?
 
2012-11-29 04:23:33 PM  
bluraymedia.ign.com

This pic is funny.

You've got Merle from the Walking Dead photo bombing. Ringo is all like "I drank what?". And the guy in the back, on the horse, is like "Yo! Toss me one of 'dem Coronas!"
 
2012-11-29 06:30:58 PM  

I drunk what: liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.

but what happens when speaking the Truth inevitably ends up pissing the other guy off?

presuming the previous two conditions were met


Bound to happen, but there is a difference between trying to do that.
 
2012-11-29 09:49:19 PM  

liam76: Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.


The thread I flagged was 3512545; the "why be good if no-one's watching" part of your argument seemed that sort. There were a couple others around that time, I think.

liam76: Enlighten people? Educate people?


Hey, I've managed to teach a few Farkers some of the basics of logic and set theory, anyway. Incremental, but education nonetheless.

liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.


Ah; you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to.

I drunk what: such as?


The bit in Matthew 5:17-20 is one of the most common sections taken as a supporting proof text.

I drunk what: do you dream of electric sheep?


Nope.

I drunk what: that's an awfully longwinded way to say, "religious people are dumb and skeptical freethinkers iz smrt"


That's an oversimplification, and much harder to solidly support with particular evidence.
 
2012-11-30 08:10:39 AM  

abb3w: liam76: Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.

The thread I flagged was 3512545; the "why be good if no-one's watching" part of your argument seemed that sort. There were a couple others around that time, I think.


Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.


abb3w: Ah; you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to.


I think anybody on the fence is going to be tune you out with those type of broad "attacks".
 
2012-11-30 09:01:00 AM  

abb3w: Hey, I've managed to teach a few Farkers some of the basics of logic and set theory, anyway. Incremental, but education nonetheless.


and to your credit you're the only farker, that i've ever witnessed that is able to comprehend simple to intermediate logic

and everyone knows how hard it is to get that endorsement from me

that still doesn't address the enlighten part which i think could use some major improvement

abb3w: you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to


tell you what, how about we change up for a bit, you take the IB and i'll take the IS...

the current format of IDW versus them all is probably beginning to appear as the ole crazy guy vs windmills scenario

abb3w: Nope.


www.scifitv.com.au

whatever you say

i'll just leave this here for ya

ombresblanches.files.wordpress.com

abb3w: why be good if no-one's watching


liam76: Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.


i'm your huckleberry

shall i reread the entire thread or can you summarize the problem?

liam76: I think anybody on the fence is going to be tune you out with those type of broad "attacks".


neither abbey or IDW have a problem with knocking people off the fence

in fact the only major disagreement we seem to have, is which side of the fence to knock them over to...

however unlike most others we don't suffer from the problem of overly broad brushed strokes, we have simply chosen efficiency over minimizing the amount of feelings that will get bruised, luckily we don't hesitate to remind each other, and will gladly welcome any input you have as well

liam76: Bound to happen, but there is a difference between trying to do that.


inevitable. including conversations one has with oneself

you are completely correct that there is a significant difference between trolling for teh lulz and consistently sticking with the Truth regardless of whose toes get stepped on

and unfortunately we've reached a point in our society (global even) where we cannot sugar coat the Truth enough to make it palatable for everyone's tongue

in fact very very very very very few can manage to swallow that jagged pill once they've gotten to the crunchy center

but we can save that for another thread
 
2012-11-30 09:14:14 AM  

I drunk what: liam76: Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.

i'm your huckleberry

shall i reread the entire thread or can you summarize the problem?


Never heard a solid reason as to why one should do "good" when they can get away with "evil". I wouldn't call it a problem. Most ansers boiled down to empathy (not a reason) becasue you may be on the other side of that choice (not a reaon, karma isn't real).

I am not saying this as a reason why we need god. I am not saying we are not capable of doign that without god. IIRC it was in a conversation about religion only being evil.
 
2012-11-30 11:07:14 AM  

liam76: Never heard a solid reason as to why one should do "good" when they can get away with "evil".


if there is no God, then we are gods and can determine what is "good" or "evil", which is exactly why we have ethics

liam76: I wouldn't call it a problem.


of course it isn't, IF there is no God there is NO Morality

liam76: Most ansers boiled down to empathy (not a reason) becasue you may be on the other side of that choice


correct, though your spelling is atrocious (is english your primary language?)

liam76: karma isn't real


oh it's definitely real, it just may not manifest itself in this life (which is the traditional teaching)

and we don't call it karma, we call it Justice

liam76: I am not saying this as a reason why we need god.


there's plenty of other reasons (mainly just the important ones)

liam76: I am not saying we are not capable of doign that without god.


accidents do happen, but still lack value

you'd be surprised how many xians still don't understand the concept of Faith AND Works not OR

liam76: IRC it was in a conversation about religion only being evil.


this is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard, i'm trying to imagine how to make a statement that could be more wrong than this... but i'm at a loss
 
2012-12-01 12:33:07 AM  
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you don't get it.

After all, the very best villains have always believed what they were doing was right.
 
2012-12-01 12:33:53 AM  
I thunk what?
 
2012-12-01 09:01:07 AM  

scalpod: After all, the very best villains have always believed what they were doing was right.


and that's why you have ethics

some of them even do it "in the name of God" and call it "religion"

they are dead wrong

i'm glad we agree
 
Displayed 193 of 193 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report