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.

•       •       •

14948 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

That is too scary to be snarky about.

When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

Since it's a private school, I feel more pity than outrage.

We need more STEM, yet we get this shat.

It is a private school, to be fair.

Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors, etc. Be scared.

Well, the part where rubes part with their money to make their kids retards is what makes me sad.

You know anyone can print out tests and claim they are "real deals".

It...is really damn easy.  A few bad clip art pieces, some questions, and OMG INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY

MBK: You know anyone can print out tests and claim they are "real deals".

It...is really damn easy.  A few bad clip art pieces, some questions, and OMG INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY

Because millions of Americans haven't been clamoring for us to "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY" for how many years now?

I'm going to say "likely shenanigans". The creationist crowd doesn't use that kind of snark on themselves. PZ Meyers get trolled or something?

MisterTweak: I'm going to say "likely shenanigans". The creationist crowd doesn't use that kind of snark on themselves. PZ Meyers get trolled or something?

They don't teach exactly what is on that test? Check yourself.

"Probably true"
On top of that, it's from reddit.

PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

Difficulty: Those "true" Christians will do everything in their power to prevent anyone from being able to move to the stars.

/also, they put sugar in their porridge

These are the people we have to live with.

What this is is unacceptable.

I am unsure if this is due to ultrahyperpartisanship or not. Its hard to tell these days now that everything that the GOP does is extreme.

I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair.

Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors,

congressmen....

impaler: Since it's a private school, I feel more pity than outrage.

We need more STEM, yet we get this shat.

We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit.  We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Also, this apparently is a very small private school, so mock, but there shouldn't be outrage.  Stupid is as stupid does.

impaler: We need more STEM, yet we get this shat.

Sorry, here's the article:   http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-ma r ket-analysis/

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I know a nuclear engineer (by training, not by profession any longer) who believes this crap. He's a religious nutball, of course. He was posting on Facebook about how it's likely that God put fossils on the Earth for his own purposes, or something. Oy.

Lsherm: We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit. We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Well that's probably true, but I'm willing to take a salary hit to live in a better world.

impaler: Lsherm: We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit. We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Well that's probably true, but I'm willing to take a salary hit to live in a better world.

What the hell does that even mean?  Imagine you're a low-skilled worker in the US.  Illegal immigration has decimated the market for your skills, because people are willing to work for less than minimum wage to do your job.

Now extrapolate that out to whatever market you work in.  Someone with an H1B visa is willing to work for half your rate, so they get hired.  Then companies lobby congress for more H1B visas so they can replace everyone with less expensive workers.  More importantly, those workers are defined as temporary, so even if you're willing to work for that lower rate, you can't get hired, because you're an actual employee.

What "better world" is this?  How do you think you win?

The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

Lsherm: impaler: Lsherm: We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit. We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Well that's probably true, but I'm willing to take a salary hit to live in a better world.

What the hell does that even mean?  Imagine you're a low-skilled worker in the US.  Illegal immigration has decimated the market for your skills, because people are willing to work for less than minimum wage to do your job.

Now extrapolate that out to whatever market you work in.  Someone with an H1B visa is willing to work for half your rate, so they get hired.  Then companies lobby congress for more H1B visas so they can replace everyone with less expensive workers.  More importantly, those workers are defined as temporary, so even if you're willing to work for that lower rate, you can't get hired, because you're an actual employee.

What "better world" is this?  How do you think you win?

I meant more education, (specifically scientific) not more H1Bs.

Take a deep breath.

Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

Lsherm: Now extrapolate that out to whatever market you work in. Someone with an H1B visa is willing to work for half your rate, so they get hired. Then companies lobby congress for more H1B visas so they can replace everyone with less expensive workers. More importantly, those workers are defined as temporary, so even if you're willing to work for that lower rate, you can't get hired, because you're an actual employee.

Dude, can you do that with crayons and finger paint. You'd have to.

impaler: I meant more education, (specifically scientific) not more H1Bs.

Didn't we get that through Congress? More H1Bs? Do they have to pass the immigration bill for that. Awww f*ck.

We had better ramp up science, but I see no reason to deny a company the workers they need. Unless they are trying to undercut the market for labor.

It's a great school for Reading, Writing and Math.

Aren't those things more important than dinosaurs?

It's a great day in South Carolina™!!! Praise Jesus and the dinosaurs!

impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

Or when God created dinosaurs.  Man didn't come about until later on the sixth day.

So where is the Raptor Jesus pics?

Came for Dinosaur Jesus...had to bring him myself.

May was a good month

/oh wait

Sgt Otter: Or when God created dinosaurs. Man didn't come about until later on the sixth day.

No it was Noah who killed the dinosaurs. Because he couldn't fit them on the ark

My daughter is friends with a mormon girl. That girl is convinced that dinosaurs exist only so that humans can study history, whatever that means.

Kids of religious nutjobs are subjected to stupid shiat.

The idea that one-size-fits-all education isn't feasible because it doesn't take into consideration the peculiarities of the various localities around America is wrongheaded and leads to crap like this. There should absolutely be national standards that schools should be forced to teach.

NewportBarGuy: MisterTweak: I'm going to say "likely shenanigans". The creationist crowd doesn't use that kind of snark on themselves. PZ Meyers get trolled or something?

They don't teach exactly what is on that test? Check yourself.

You'd better do that before you wreck yourself.

Did not read article or thread, but sometimes I think extra-religious people underestimate their God.

impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

I think the thing that hits me most is the "were you there" refutation, which would single-handedly nullify most of history.

Seriously though, I would tell them that I would much rather dinosaurs have lived millions of years ago rather than having to accept that God planted millions of fossils with the express purpose of trying to dick with scientists and test the true faith of believers.

/I mean really, do you WANT your deity to have the mentality of a psychotic child?

Lsherm: impaler: Lsherm: We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit. We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Well that's probably true, but I'm willing to take a salary hit to live in a better world.

What the hell does that even mean?  Imagine you're a low-skilled worker in the US.  Illegal immigration has decimated the market for your skills, because people are willing to work for less than minimum wage to do your job.

Now extrapolate that out to whatever market you work in.  Someone with an H1B visa is willing to work for half your rate, so they get hired.  Then companies lobby congress for more H1B visas so they can replace everyone with less expensive workers.  More importantly, those workers are defined as temporary, so even if you're willing to work for that lower rate, you can't get hired, because you're an actual employee.

What "better world" is this?  How do you think you win?

It's not winning and losing.  It's about stopping exploitation.  it's staring us in the face.  The currently exploited workers in India and China will rise up.  In the next 3 decades the playing field will be leveled and Americans will have to strive even harder to find good jobs.  Simultaneously, all of our outsourcing will go to even poorer countries in Africa and the Middle East.  And we'll exploit those people as long as we can.

evil saltine: Sgt Otter: Or when God created dinosaurs. Man didn't come about until later on the sixth day.

No it was Noah who killed the dinosaurs. Because he couldn't fit them on the ark

Dummy: God created the earth 6 thousand years ago.

Me: Were you there?

Oh, look. Someone bought lesson plans from Ken Ham. Yay.

NewportBarGuy: MisterTweak: I'm going to say "likely shenanigans". The creationist crowd doesn't use that kind of snark on themselves. PZ Meyers get trolled or something?

They don't teach exactly what is on that test? Check yourself.

Oh yes.

Reading it right now. Makes me weep for humanity.

Strolpol: /I mean really, do you WANT your deity to have the mentality of a psychotic child?

Clearly they do. I think it's something like in the Matrix, where Agent Smith says something like they tried to give humans a paradise to live in, but they kept dying or waking up. They had to give us this sh*t world to make us believe it.

ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

So you're saying safety is not guaranteed?

FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

Four million thousand is a plural, I guess.

grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

Huh, count me in as one of those crazy people that thought there was some standards in education. Weird I know.

EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

I don't think an organization should be able to hide behind the facade of being a private school when they are deliberately crippling the children in their care.

The best thing about insane people saying "Were you there?" is that you can then ask "Were you?"

impaler: Lsherm: impaler: Lsherm: We don't, there's another link somewhere that got greenlit. We're already exceeding demand, companies just want cheaper labor from overseas.

Well that's probably true, but I'm willing to take a salary hit to live in a better world.

What the hell does that even mean?  Imagine you're a low-skilled worker in the US.  Illegal immigration has decimated the market for your skills, because people are willing to work for less than minimum wage to do your job.

Now extrapolate that out to whatever market you work in.  Someone with an H1B visa is willing to work for half your rate, so they get hired.  Then companies lobby congress for more H1B visas so they can replace everyone with less expensive workers.  More importantly, those workers are defined as temporary, so even if you're willing to work for that lower rate, you can't get hired, because you're an actual employee.

What "better world" is this?  How do you think you win?

I meant more education, (specifically scientific) not more H1Bs.

Take a deep breath.

What the hell does education have to do with taking a salary hit? the point is you wouldn't even be able to get a job at that point. Its not "less money", its unemployed.

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

While Catholic schools teach science (including evolution, big bang theory, dinosaurs, etc.) and don't see any conflict with their beliefs, not all private schools are Catholic.  I will say again: If your church makes the Catholics look like goddamn hippies, FIND ANOTHER CHURCH.

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

I went to a Catholic school too. Baptists are no Catholics.

Seriously, if the US was Catholic, this BS wouldn't exist. If anything, the bible explicitly describes bio-genesis and evolution (man was formed from clay). But we aren't talking about churches that have had power through a massive hierarchy through centuries. We're talking about churches where the most literate out of a few hundred nearly illiterates was king. The shat they came up with 200 years ago is still haunting us today.

Social and religious conservatives are retarded.
Social and religious conservatives are retarded.
Social and religious conservatives are retarded.
Social and religious conservatives are retarded.

PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

I'm not a Christian, but I kind of like the earth - are you going to leave me alone here with these crazies?

WOW, so we're supposed to feel superior to other countries, good old American Exceptionalism, and THIS is what i get to point at as proof?

BWHAHAHAHAHHA (gasp) thank god there's an internet.

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

Not fake.

I know the original submitter to both reddit and its subsequent submission to Snopes.

(I think he used to be a farker, but I am not sure anymore, but yeah)

impaler: iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

I went to a Catholic school too. Baptists are no Catholics.

Seriously, if the US was Catholic, this BS wouldn't exist. If anything, the bible explicitly describes bio-genesis and evolution (man was formed from clay). But we aren't talking about churches that have had power through a massive hierarchy through centuries. We're talking about churches where the most literate out of a few hundred nearly illiterates was king. The shat they came up with 200 years ago is still haunting us today.

Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with.

AIDS and contraception come to mind.

Gotta love the fundies.  They're so desperate to make sure they're relevant in today's world, that they're more than happy to sacrifice your child's ability to compete in the global workforce.  They don't care if it lowers their quality of living... poor undereducated people are what they want, after all.  Your kids suffer, the church gets more pennies in the pie tin.   And these people are the same ones who think they're in any position to dictate morality!  It's a farce, but a sickening farce.

Spiralmonkey: That is too scary to be snarky about.

No, no it isnt, watch:

Both theories are equally theories.  Done.  That was pretty simple.

/ just cause YOUR religion wears white coats when they conjecture about "facts".....

Get over it.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper after all....

Cheater71: What the hell does education have to do with taking a salary hit? the point is you wouldn't even be able to get a job at that point. Its not "less money", its unemployed.

If everyone decided they wanted a STEM degree, and got educated for it, the supply of STEM degrees would increase, and without a corresponding increase in demand, I (someone with a STEM degree) would get paid less.

I'm willing to be paid less if it means I'm not surrounded by morons.

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

The first person I personnally know who told me she was a creationist, was one of the most brilliant colleague I ever had.
She was also hot as hell.
And jewish, so that goes to show that not all creationists are christians.

SpdrJay: Get over it.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper after all....

And the 2nd Amendment is the only sacrosanct part

GungFu: Dummy: God created the earth 6 thousand years ago.

Me: Were you there?

Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there. As with so many things in religion it's open to interpretation. Man is flawed, so sayeth the bible, so isn't it more likely that the 6000 years interpretation is also flawed? The date of the earth 'controversy' has an interesting history and any knowledge junkies would love to read it I'm sure.

On my phone ATM so hard to look up but it's out there I promise you.

Use their own arguments against them. Most of these people claim to believe in an exact, literal interpretation of the bible so at the very least sputter and backtracking and "but, but" loops will provide some entertainment.

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I've got a family member like that. He's super smart, computer programmer... he's forgotten more about old hardware than I will ever know. He's a super nice guy, but yeah... young earth creationist. I can't figure it out.

/really thinks fossils were put on earth to test our faith.

Steak_Cake_Sause: Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with.

AIDS and contraception come to mind.

Not going to argue with that, but most Catholics in the US ignore the "contraception" rules of the church.

Calipataa: PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

I'm not a Christian, but I kind of like the earth - are you going to leave me alone here with these crazies?

Yep, in a heartbeat. Tell me you prefer your sad little patch of earth over interstellar travel, and you get the perfunctory "Well, have a good one," as I blast off to infinity, and beyond...

/not going anywhere. But only because too damn broke. Hell, Milwaukee would be welcome, at this point.

impaler: Steak_Cake_Sause: Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with.

AIDS and contraception come to mind.

Not going to argue with that, but most Catholics in the US ignore the "contraception" rules of the church.

Cafeteria Catholics, eh?

/Not that its only a Catholic thing.

Ahh -- Likely real.

I remember i went to a 7th day adventist private school for junior high... (wanted out of the public system -- bullying sucks -- when i came back to it 3 years later the problems were gone...) And the SDA schools do push this stuff.

We had a pretty good science text book -- it delved into genetics and evolution and all the usual crap quite well so that wasnt a problem for me. The textbook had a title page for each chapter with a little blurb relating the subject matter to god but other than that it left god out of science. I think part of that is they picked nonbiased books because the kids had to do well on provincial exams for them to keep getting a subsidy.

They would give tests like this to kids in the 3-6 grades. Yup. I have seen it.

More rambling:

The teacher and the school staff and board were not so cool. Let me stress -- i am NOT SDA. My two best friends growing up however were and i spent tons of time in their church. I however was a waaaay to geeky kid (as i said -- bullies) and anything involving natural science made my pants tingle... I remember the SDA pastor being at the school one day and he was talking to the students about evolution and i asked him some pointed questions regarding their 6000 year earth theory. He came back with some crap about how the flood would have changed the air pressure so even the dinosaurs on the ark would have died because their lung capacity was too small or something. Like he pulled it straight out of his ass. I knew damn well he was full of shiat. I remember at the age of 14 being completely disgusted with a grown mans capacity for rational thought.

They really honest to god believe the sharp dinosaur teeth on things like T-Rex or Albertosaurus were made to cut through plant matter. I challenged them on that when i heard it and they insisted the serrated blade like teeth were for munching tough plant matter.

They told me not to drink milk because Adam and Eve would have just had water and juice. Like milking a cow is somehow against gods plan. You know -- the same god that promised a land of milk and honey?

They believe that Jesus turned water into juice rather than wine (they are all teetotalers) -- despite tons of evidence in the surrounding text pointing to the fact that everyone was wasted.

They were convinced the catholic pope would one day rule the world and make observance of the Jewish holy day illegal and force everyone on earth to go to church on Sunday. Then Jesus would return and save those who went to church on Saturday instead of Sunday and kept up with Jewish food laws even though Jesus tell his disciples its not important...

They don't dance. At all. Even at weddings. When i asked why i was informed dance was nothing but 'thinly veiled sex acts'. Weddings with no booze or dancing (just someones cousin playing pachbels canon in D over and over on the cello they ostensibly play other things on however i have never heard anything but canon in D come out of that guys cello) Well those get terrible fast. My sister almost walked out of my best friends wedding because the vows were nothing but misogyny and there was no booze or dance reward for it.

They wouldn't allow drums in their church because thats how indigenous (read coloured) people talk to satan. Im not kidding about that. My friend wanted to play some music for a skit he was doing for vacation bible school and an elder forbid it because it had drums and he cited that as a reason. I was there. I heard it. My buddy tried to object but was told he was trying to 'rationalize sinning' and when he complained to his parents that the church was f'ing crazy they told him to sit on it because the elder was a crazy old man and he was a church elder and the church followed and sometimes they might not agree with the rules but they had to follow them. Yeah -- Basically admitted he was wrong but they said they would obey his crazy because he was in charge.

I love this line -- they use it soooo often: Don't rationalize sin.

Think about that -- dont rationalize sin... Its like an automatic screw you to any reasoned though that opposes their dogma.  And yet their lord rationalized 'sinning' to pull a lamb from a well on the sabbath...

I dont have any real beef with christians, I do have a beef with the SDA church. It seems more like a cult than a church.

King Something: /also, they put sugar in their porridge

You better not have just called me a Christian, you saline deficient son of Odin.

kxs401: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I know a nuclear engineer (by training, not by profession any longer) who believes this crap. He's a religious nutball, of course. He was posting on Facebook about how it's likely that God put fossils on the Earth for his own purposes, or something. Oy.

A nuclear engineer I can understand, sort of. But I know a microbiologist who believes this too. And she's actively working in the field as well!

mephox: Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there. As with so many things in religion it's open to interpretation. Man is flawed, so sayeth the bible, so isn't it more likely that the 6000 years interpretation is also flawed? The date of the earth 'controversy' has an interesting history and any knowledge junkies would love to read it I'm sure.

Yep. I used to argue with a creationist fundy that would get upset at the 6000 year notion. Funny he was smart enough to realize that "6000 years old" was so stupid it made his ilk sound like morons, yet he never bothered to question the rest.

Shadow Blasko: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I've got a family member like that. He's super smart, computer programmer... he's forgotten more about old hardware than I will ever know. He's a super nice guy, but yeah... young earth creationist. I can't figure it out.

/really thinks fossils were put on earth to test our faith.

ciberido: I was there, but I've only done this once before.

ciberido: You'd better do that before you wreck yourself.

I love you!

Steak_Cake_Sause: impaler: Steak_Cake_Sause: Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with.

AIDS and contraception come to mind.

Not going to argue with that, but most Catholics in the US ignore the "contraception" rules of the church.

Cafeteria Catholics, eh?

/Not that its only a Catholic thing.

No. Atheist.

/raised Catholic though
//seriously, you average northern Catholic is an atheist, science wise, compared to a Southern Baptist (by the Baptist's standards)

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

It is a form of attention whoring, I think.

Bumblefark:

Yep, in a heartbeat. Tell me you prefer your sad little patch of earth over interstellar travel, and you get the perfunctory "Well, have a good one," as I blast off to infinity, and beyond...

I might change my mind if there are any real M-class planets out there, with crazy space mangoes growing on the space mango trees and herds of 6-legged space giraffes running majestically across the space savannas, crazy sexy blue-stripey space people, etc. If I have to live in a spaceship, I think I'd get claustrophobic after a while. And if all you've got to offer is places like Mars, well, it's still a whole less hospitable than Antarctica. :)

Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

Steak_Cake_Sause: Shadow Blasko: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I've got a family member like that. He's super smart, computer programmer... he's forgotten more about old hardware than I will ever know. He's a super nice guy, but yeah... young earth creationist. I can't figure it out.

/really thinks fossils were put on earth to test our faith.

[controversy.wearscience.com image 300x300]

I bet answersingenesis would sell that down at the Creation Museum*.

/for $80 a shirt... ArcadianRefugee: kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair. Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors, congressmen.... Not teaching kids basic science is scary, but so is encroaching upon the freedom to privately educate and exercise religion, so I don't know where to end up on this one.... That said, I don't know if this logic bears out. The atheists I knew in college were all educated in private Christian schools. It was a correlation I noticed so much that it in fact will inform my choice to NOT educate any kids I have in such schools if I want them to grow up with faith. There's no reason to write these kids off now. impaler: Steak_Cake_Sause: impaler: Steak_Cake_Sause: Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with. AIDS and contraception come to mind. Not going to argue with that, but most Catholics in the US ignore the "contraception" rules of the church. Cafeteria Catholics, eh? /Not that its only a Catholic thing. No. Atheist. /raised Catholic though //seriously, you average northern Catholic is an atheist, science wise, compared to a Southern Baptist (by the Baptist's standards) Sorry, didnt mean to implicate you specifically. I should have said 'they are Cafeteria Catholics.' I was raised Lutheran myself but now an atheist. I have seen my share of pickers and choosers growing up. One thing I can respect the Catholic Church for is their acceptance of science. Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment. but this has seriously bugged me for a long time and i've never received a good answer. so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong - 1 - god is loving, caring and benevolent, if perhaps a wee bit tempermantal or murderous at times. 2 - god created the universe and mankind about 6000 years ago 3 - shortly afterwards, adam and eve ate the apple and thus doomed all mankind to sin, and thus to eternal suffering in the afterlife unless they were saved. 4 - said salvation was given by his son, jesus, through his sacrifice about 2000 years ago. only through faith in jesus can sin be forgiven and humans can escape hell and enter heaven. the problem i have is that there is a pretty big gap between creation, or even the fall - even start with god rebooting the earth with the flood, and the appearance of jesus. in that time, there was no means of salvation. so that means that everyone must have been condemned to hell. everyone! that means everyone in the old testament, including the prophets. Abraham must be suffering in hell, as must noah, isaac, even moses was able to, thanks to god, lead the hebrews out of slavery and to the promised land, but still with no jesus not a one of them could escape the fires of hell. plus don't forget the others around. socrates, plato, aristotle, lao-tzu, confucious, all the great thinkers, the poets, the engineers and mathematicians who built civilisation, who looked up in wonder at the universe, who built the great library at alexandria, all roasting in hell because they had the misfortune to die before jesus. and that's just the locals. what about, say, the ones living in the americas? they had no way of learning about jesus and the one and only chance at salvation until after columbus. and what about the ones in oceania? or those wee islands in the south pacific? some of these places never had a missionary or a bible until the 20th century! and why? because our kind, just and loving god who is all powerful decidede to sit on his majestic arse for a few thousand years before finally sending his son, and then only sent him to one corner of the world. so whch is it? i'll come back once my meds have kicked in because i genuinely want to know. do i have my theology wrong or has god committed a massive injustice upon millions of people born with no chance of redemption? Steak_Cake_Sause: One thing I can respect the Catholic Church for is their acceptance of science. Go Jesuits! I hope the start a holy war the rest of us can just watch on TV. Shadow Blasko: Steak_Cake_Sause: Shadow Blasko: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it. I've got a family member like that. He's super smart, computer programmer... he's forgotten more about old hardware than I will ever know. He's a super nice guy, but yeah... young earth creationist. I can't figure it out. /really thinks fossils were put on earth to test our faith. [controversy.wearscience.com image 300x300] I bet answersingenesis would sell that down at the Creation Museum*. /for$80 a shirt...

Gordon Bennett: Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment. but this has seriously bugged me for a long time and i've never received a good answer.

so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

1 - god is loving, caring and benevolent, if perhaps a wee bit tempermantal or murderous at times.
2 - god created the universe and mankind about 6000 years ago
3 - shortly afterwards, adam and eve ate the apple and thus doomed all mankind to sin, and thus to eternal suffering in the afterlife unless they were saved.
4 - said salvation was given by his son, jesus, through his sacrifice about 2000 years ago. only through faith in jesus can sin be forgiven and humans can escape hell and enter heaven.

the problem i have is that there is a pretty big gap between creation, or even the fall - even start with god rebooting the earth with the flood, and the appearance of jesus. in that time, there was no means of salvation. so that means that everyone must have been condemned to hell.

everyone! that means everyone in the old testament, including the prophets. Abraham must be suffering in hell, as must noah, isaac, even moses was able to, thanks to god, lead the hebrews out of slavery and to the promised land, but still with no jesus not a one of them could escape the fires of hell.

plus don't forget the others around. socrates, plato, aristotle, lao-tzu, confucious, all the great thinkers, the poets, the engineers and mathematicians who built civilisation, who looked up in wonder at the universe, who built the great library at alexandria, all roasting in hell because they had the misfortune to die before jesus.

and that's just the locals. what about, say, the ones living in the americas? they had no way of learning about jesus and the one and only chance at salvation until after columbus. and what about the ones in o ...

During the 3 days Jesus was dead, he descended into Abraham's Bosom where the people who died prior to Jesus' sacrifice would have had the opportunity to receive God's gift or to reject it.

Wow. Some people really do want their children to grow up to be complete idiots.

I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Gordon Bennett: so whch is it? i'll come back once my meds have kicked in because i genuinely want to know. do i have my theology wrong or has god committed a massive injustice upon millions of people born with no chance of redemption?

oh and forgive again for banging oan about this but i do know the answer given in dante's inferno with the first circle of hell reserved for the virtuous pagans who suffer no punishment, but that's not in the bible, that's all dante's invention. nice idea but that's the same poem that depicts his own personal enemies being tortured in specific ways and a girl he wanted to shag as a guide to heaven. it's hardly something that can be taken by anyone as legitimate divine revelation.

EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

Is that really true?

mephox: Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there. As with so many things in religion it's open to interpretation. Man is flawed, so sayeth the bible, so isn't it more likely that the 6000 years interpretation is also flawed? The date of the earth 'controversy' has an interesting history and any knowledge junkies would love to read it I'm sure.

They think the bible is without flaw
They think that with prayer and honest intentions god sends divine guidance in matters relating to interpreting the bible.
They know jesus lived 2000 years ago and the bible has a bunch of genealogies relating him back to the line of david and the line of david back to adam and eve. They use all the info about how many generations there were and how long each poor bastard lived to count back to the rough date of the 'fall of man'
They came up with about 6000 years since adam and eve got tossed.
If you suggest anything to the contrary you have been 'led astray' and should read your bible and pray more.

The bible says men are flawed but they suggest the bible was divinely protected. Trying to get a fundie christian to admit the bible has some sort of cultural influence rather than all being entirely divinely inspired is like pulling teeth.

Gordon Bennett: Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment. but this has seriously bugged me for a long time and i've never received a good answer.

so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

This isn't the picture I was going for, but the caption is similar. (for some strange reason a GIS pulls up a bunch of watches for the quote. Damn you Dawkins)

I sound fat: Spiralmonkey: That is too scary to be snarky about.

/ just cause YOUR religion wears white coats when they conjecture about "facts".....

THIS is interesting. I have a feeling you're going to get jumped on here about this, but getting in real quick to say that I think you do have something of a point. Federal food legislation, for example, based on bad science, has resulted in dozens if not hundreds of restrictive laws and contributed directly to our country's obesity problem. When someone pointed out to me a month or two ago that science is the equivalent of a secular altar at which this country's academic elite worship, I initially reacted with something along the lines of, "okay, crazy." But it gave me pause, because although not a good analogy in all respects, there is definitely a tendency of some to just go, "Science, science, science, I can't hear you," the same way that the other side goes, "God, God, God, I can't hear you." Something to think about, at least for me.

The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

One day some of those kids are going to go to medical school, but hopefully none will ever be my doctor.

AverageAmericanGuy: During the 3 2 days Jesus was dead, he descended into Abraham's Bosom where the people who died prior to Jesus' sacrifice would have had the opportunity to receive God's gift or to reject it.

Jesus died on Friday afternoon, and arose Sunday morning.

/Also 3 distinct beings (father, son, holy spirit) is 1 being, because it has to be monotheistic.

Gordon Bennett: Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment. but this has seriously bugged me for a long time and i've never received a good answer.

so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

1 - god is loving, caring and benevolent, if perhaps a wee bit tempermantal or murderous at times.
2 - god created the universe and mankind about 6000 years ago
3 - shortly afterwards, adam and eve ate the apple and thus doomed all mankind to sin, and thus to eternal suffering in the afterlife unless they were saved.
4 - said salvation was given by his son, jesus, through his sacrifice about 2000 years ago. only through faith in jesus can sin be forgiven and humans can escape hell and enter heaven.

the problem i have is that there is a pretty big gap between creation, or even the fall - even start with god rebooting the earth with the flood, and the appearance of jesus. in that time, there was no means of salvation. so that means that everyone must have been condemned to hell.

everyone! that means everyone in the old testament, including the prophets. Abraham must be suffering in hell, as must noah, isaac, even moses was able to, thanks to god, lead the hebrews out of slavery and to the promised land, but still with no jesus not a one of them could escape the fires of hell.

plus don't forget the others around. socrates, plato, aristotle, lao-tzu, confucious, all the great thinkers, the poets, the engineers and mathematicians who built civilisation, who looked up in wonder at the universe, who built the great library at alexandria, all roasting in hell because they had the misfortune to die before jesus.

and that's just the locals. what about, say, the ones living in the americas? they had no way of learning about jesus and the one and only chance at salvation until after columbus. and what about the ones in o ...

One cop-out is that if they never received the Word then they go straight to haven just like an aborted fetus.

Gordon Bennett: Gordon Bennett: so whch is it? i'll come back once my meds have kicked in because i genuinely want to know. do i have my theology wrong or has god committed a massive injustice upon millions of people born with no chance of redemption?

oh and forgive again for banging oan about this but i do know the answer given in dante's inferno with the first circle of hell reserved for the virtuous pagans who suffer no punishment, but that's not in the bible, that's all dante's invention. nice idea but that's the same poem that depicts his own personal enemies being tortured in specific ways and a girl he wanted to shag as a guide to heaven. it's hardly something that can be taken by anyone as legitimate divine revelation.

Also, Satan is actually Pan.

Gordon Bennett: Gordon Bennett: so whch is it? i'll come back once my meds have kicked in because i genuinely want to know. do i have my theology wrong or has god committed a massive injustice upon millions of people born with no chance of redemption?

oh and forgive again for banging oan about this but i do know the answer given in dante's inferno with the first circle of hell reserved for the virtuous pagans who suffer no punishment, but that's not in the bible, that's all dante's invention. nice idea but that's the same poem that depicts his own personal enemies being tortured in specific ways and a girl he wanted to shag as a guide to heaven. it's hardly something that can be taken by anyone as legitimate divine revelation.

It's been a while since college where I studied this, but they were freed in the Harrowing of Hell. It's not really dealt with in the Bible and so is still subject to often-conflicting interpretation, but the basic doctrinal idea is that Jesus did free the righteous of the ages before His redemption of the rest.

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Just stop.

Steak_Cake_Sause: One cop-out is that if they never received the Word then they go straight to haven just like an aborted fetus.

True. Some day I mean to start a "Abortion - strengthening God's army" campaign....

kxs401: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I know a nuclear engineer (by training, not by profession any longer) who believes this crap. He's a religious nutball, of course. He was posting on Facebook about how it's likely that God put fossils on the Earth for his own purposes, or something. Oy.

"Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA."

Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

I'll let Ken Ham answer that for you.

The second part of that, if true, is upsetting even with it being a private school. Teaching your students to be that disrespectful to your parents doesn't sound particularly Christian and I can't imagine even a strict whackoo private school enjoying the PR fallout.

Ranger Rover: I sound fat: Spiralmonkey: That is too scary to be snarky about.

/ just cause YOUR religion wears white coats when they conjecture about "facts".....

THIS is interesting. I have a feeling you're going to get jumped on here about this, but getting in real quick to say that I think you do have something of a point. Federal food legislation, for example, based on bad science, has resulted in dozens if not hundreds of restrictive laws and contributed directly to our country's obesity problem. When someone pointed out to me a month or two ago that science is the equivalent of a secular altar at which this country's academic elite worship, I initially reacted with something along the lines of, "okay, crazy." But it gave me pause, because although not a good analogy in all respects, there is definitely a tendency of some to just go, "Science, science, science, I can't hear you," the same way that the other side goes, "God, God, God, I can't hear you." Something to think about, at least for me.

The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

I know you weren't asking me, but Id say that there is a big difference between science and the FDA or any other bureaucracy.

Otherwise, Id say close enough.

Gordon Bennett: everyone! that means everyone in the old testament, including the prophets. Abraham must be suffering in hell, as must noah, isaac, even moses was able to, thanks to god, lead the hebrews out of slavery and to the promised land, but still with no jesus not a one of them could escape the fires of hell.

From what i remember God had some sort of agreement where the jewish priest would symbolically take your sins and put them onto a goat and then the goat would be sacrifices or chased off. Hence the term 'scape goat'. Jesus was just a form of permanent scapegoat.

Death Eats a Cracker: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Just stop.

Why? This seems like a completely reasonable worldview. That leads to the ability to teach kids basic scientific principles while adhering to the glory of the creator, whatever that may mean to individual people. Really, at this point, what better could you ask for? That we stomp out freedom of religion altogether? I think kazikian's statement gets to the heart of the best of all compromises, (although doctrine means it may not bear out in all individual cases) - that science is taught in the science classroom and religion in the religion classroom (or church). Let smart kids draw their own conclusions - they will.

impaler: Steak_Cake_Sause: One cop-out is that if they never received the Word then they go straight to haven just like an aborted fetus.

True. Some day I mean to start a "Abortion - strengthening God's army" campaign....

Steak_Cake_Sause: I know you weren't asking me, but Id say that there is a big difference between science and the FDA or any other bureaucracy.

You got that right, for sure. But overall I guess FDA policies are just an indication of how quickly people are willing to legislate while the ink on the scientific studies is still busy just trying to dry.

Ranger Rover: Death Eats a Cracker: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Just stop.

Why? This seems like a completely reasonable worldview. That leads to the ability to teach kids basic scientific principles while adhering to the glory of the creator, whatever that may mean to individual people. Really, at this point, what better could you ask for? That we stomp out freedom of religion altogether? I think kazikian's statement gets to the heart of the best of all compromises, (although doctrine means it may not bear out in all individual cases) - that science is taught in the science classroom and religion in the religion classroom (or church). Let smart kids draw their own conclusions - they will.

Part of this worldview that you speak of consists of ancient mythology created by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

Again, just stop.

Ranger Rover: Death Eats a Cracker: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Just stop.

Why? This seems like a completely reasonable worldview. That leads to the ability to teach kids basic scientific principles while adhering to the glory of the creator, whatever that may mean to individual people. Really, at this point, what better could you ask for? That we stomp out freedom of religion altogether? I think kazikian's statement gets to the heart of the best of all compromises, (although doctrine means it may not bear out in all individual cases) - that science is taught in the science classroom and religion in the religion classroom (or church). Let smart kids draw their own conclusions - they will.

A NOMA argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

On one hand I would agree that compromise of that sort is good.  But on the other hand, it still allows faith as a virtue which is antithetical to science and human progress.

As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Does this teacher have big shoes, a red rubber nose, and kinky red hair?

Death Eats a Cracker: Part of this worldview that you speak of consists of ancient mythology created by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

Again, just stop.

Okay, so it was the part of my response that you didn't highlight - that we stomp out freedom of religion altogether.

Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: I know you weren't asking me, but Id say that there is a big difference between science and the FDA or any other bureaucracy.

You got that right, for sure. But overall I guess FDA policies are just an indication of how quickly people are willing to legislate while the ink on the scientific studies is still busy just trying to dry.

Sad but true. There are blind-faithful science enthusiasts that muck things up.

It seems that good science takes about a decade of peer review before it makes it to text books. Individual studies are just indicators, at best.

Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Ed Grubermann: Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

Why do people always want to pin this bullshiat on the Catholics? While they (like all other religions) have created some pretty dubious doctrine to shore up theological conflicts in their religion, they're not the ones running around the globe teaching young earth creationism bullshiat theory or in general crapping all over science. Quite the opposite actually - I went to a catholic school (Jesuit) growing up and was taught evolutionary theory and told in no uncertain terms that it was true and that it didn't conflict with a belief in God.

While I generally take a dim view of all organized religion, let's be honest here - the real problem is the evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects in the US. They are pants on head retarded.

Trust me, there are plenty of things to shake your fists at the Catholics for - but supporting the theory that Jesus rode a dinosaur is not one of them.

kxs401: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I know a nuclear engineer (by training, not by profession any longer) who believes this crap. He's a religious nutball, of course. He was posting on Facebook about how it's likely that God put fossils on the Earth for his own purposes, or something. Oy.

When you have to say the entire universe is a lie created by your God to protect the absolute truth of a book, you have to wonder about who would worship such a god of lies and deceit.

Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

God of the Gaps? It means that god exists where science is lacking. If science doesnt understand something, then god did it.

NOMA basically means religion describes one area of reality and science describes another. So as science progresses, the gaps where god exists grows smaller.

/ I'm amazed this hasnt devolved to the typical Fark thread yet. Must be the late hour.

ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

TwistedFark: Ed Grubermann: Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

Why do people always want to pin this bullshiat on the Catholics? While they (like all other religions) have created some pretty dubious doctrine to shore up theological conflicts in their religion, they're not the ones running around the globe teaching young earth creationism bullshiat theory or in general crapping all over science. Quite the opposite actually - I went to a catholic school (Jesuit) growing up and was taught evolutionary theory and told in no uncertain terms that it was true and that it didn't conflict with a belief in God.

While I generally take a dim view of all organized religion, let's be honest here - the real problem is the evangelical/fundamentalist Christian sects in the US. They are pants on head retarded.

Trust me, there are plenty of things to shake your fists at the Catholics for - but supporting the theory that Jesus rode a dinosaur is not one of them.

Why stop at western religion?

/ But I think we are in agreement.

Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

fusillade762: evil saltine: Sgt Otter: Or when God created dinosaurs. Man didn't come about until later on the sixth day.

No it was Noah who killed the dinosaurs. Because he couldn't fit them on the ark

Well actually there were two arks.  The Noah and the other animals went in the first ark.  Noah said he'd be back for the dinosaurs... um... err... later.

Steak_Cake_Sause: I'm amazed this hasnt devolved to the typical Fark thread yet. Must be the late hour.

Yeah, this is actually relatively pleasant.

Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.

I sound fat: Both theories are equally theories. Done. That was pretty simple.

I really hope you're trolling, but there's a HUGE difference between a scientific theory like evolution, and a "I have a theory that Jebus created everything in 6 days" theory.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-defini tio n-of-theory.html

Lsherm: Also, this apparently is a very small private school, so mock, but there shouldn't be outrage.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Yeah, but these are the private schools my Governor (Jindal) and legislature is appropriating tax dollars to without holding them to the same standards as public schools. One school in question consists of windowless portable buildings and a strong curriculum of Jesus DVDs. I really, really wish I were making this up.

The state is so poor in education that the argument of allowing parents to send their kids to sectarian or snake-handling schools in order to achieve a better quality of education is what drove this. But let me reiterate - these schools are not being held to any standard, and as of right now are licking chops waiting to bilk the government for as much money as however many students they can cram in.

Look, I went to an awesome Catholic school. We were taught the Classics, religion in not such a fervent light, ACTUAL SCIENCE, and though I was told there would be no math, we got real versions of that, too. But many of the schools lining at Jindal's trough are fly-by-night sh*tholes that issue tests like the one alleged here. And once again - because I can't stress this enough - the voucher program was wildly popular even when it became clear that many of these schools weren't being audited for effectiveness and funds the way the public ones are.

This state breaks my heart. New Orleans, for all her problems, is actually a wonderful cultural center and among the most unique places in the States. Blue as all hell, too - even the white folks. The suburbs, while Red, are at least populated by people who have decent jobs and merely want their kids to succeed in a properly academic religious school like my parents did. But then there's the rest of the state wanting that one asshole Sunday school teacher we all had as children to be responsible for teaching their kids full-time. With Jindal trying to position his TeaPubican cred for 2016, they got it. And once he starts really ramping up the speeches, he'll claim credit for giving Louisiana families the opportunity of giving their kids a quality education while no one in the 'liberal media' will bother to mention that it's often about Noah saving the ecosystem instead of those kids being taught fundamental life science.

Fark Louisiana. But please don't nuke my city from orbit. We're pretty cool. Hell, it's Jazz Fest right now. You'd be killing hundreds of thousands of tourists who are just here to Get Down.

Strolpol: I think the thing that hits me most is the "were you there" refutation, which would single-handedly nullify most of history.

Seriously though, I would tell them that I would much rather dinosaurs have lived millions of years ago rather than having to accept that God planted millions of fossils with the express purpose of trying to dick with scientists and test the true faith of believers.

/I mean really, do you WANT your deity to have the mentality of a psychotic child?

Is that better or worse than believing that your deity got really pissy one day and decided to drown the ENTIRE world and then tries to make up for it by giving us rainbows as a token phenomenon promising to not do it again? I mean just from a theological standpoint, God is perfect and supposedly we were made in his image, meaning we are all little Gods just without the powers, but we manage to fark up badly enough to warrant global genocide. If that act was okay for him to perform, and we are all little hims, why wasn't whatever we were doing okay too?  If he couldn't just make us so that we weren't so wicked in the first place, because we all had to be little [powerless] gods, what does that say about him? And if our wickedness exists because it's a part of him too (which the mass execution indicates) then why is he so pissed at us? What did he expect?  How shiatty is it to hold us to a level of accountability that he can't even live up to even with his ability to know everything always, everywhere, forever.

America, your dumb fundamentalists are making the dumb fundamentalists of those countries you hate look good by comparison

/what I'm saying is your dumb religious nuts are making the dumb religious nuts elsewhere look better

Ranger Rover: Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

(Hope i dont fark up the quoting here)

I think you are playing with prepositions. But I see what you mean.

This may be the ultimate gap. This is where science and religion (to me in my understanding) have pushed each other.

Science hasnt settled on the "Theory of Everything" yet. Last I read they can calculate everything back to less than a small fraction of a second after the big bang. There are a lot of unresolved issues, like are the laws of the universe contingent on themselves or are there a huge number of universes with varying laws, etc. (I cant go any further with this, I'm a geologist, not a theoretical physicist).

Religion.... err... Christianity accepting of science would say that the universe, big bang and all the laws, evolution, etc are caused by God. And God is eternal; without beginning or end.

To me, both are lacking. God requires explanation beyond 'hes just there.' And of coarse that means the Big Bang requires explanation beyond 'it just happened.'

So to me the best anyone can say is 'we dont know.' But that doesnt imply a creator, especially one as specific as the God of Abraham.  Thats why I'm an atheist.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 317x159]

No, I just wanted to point out what a crowded place that hill would have been if either time travelers or vampires (whe are kinda iike time travelers who can only go forward) existed. In either case, if you were there you would need your own weapon

Incidentally, assuming the blood didn't kill them cuz holy and all that, how much would a vampire LOVE Jesus? Essentially immortal, self healing, he's the ubiquitous bottomless drink cup, but fresh blood.

Ranger Rover: Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

Same thing. It only applies to that particular type of religious belief though.

There are plenty of people who can learn about evolutionary biology to broaden their understanding of science and then go to their church/synagogue/mosque/favorite tree/whatever and try to figure out how to find peace and be less of a jerk to other people. There really doesn't need to be a conflict between science and spirituality.

I HATE this teacher

mikefinch: They think the bible is without flaw

They think the King James version of bible is without flaw. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they come to this conclusion. Seriously, how can anyone who knows the history of how the bible came to be, believe that any version is the infallible truth?

Ed Grubermann: Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

There is a good argument that the 1500+ years between Rome contracting Christianity and say the Renaissance, the entire stalling of any significant technologicial, economic, political, and social progress was halted in and around Europe to avoid breaking all the inherent contradictions inside Christianity (especially as a state faith, as opposed to a grasping of straws from the poor, oppressed and needy that somehow after they die things will finally get better)

TwistedFark: Ed Grubermann: Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself.

Why do people always want to pin this bullshiat on the Catholics?

What? Limbo? Limbo, and ONLY Limbo was what I pinned on the Catholics. Unbunch your knickers.

Bumblefark: Calipataa: PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

I'm not a Christian, but I kind of like the earth - are you going to leave me alone here with these crazies?

Yep, in a heartbeat. Tell me you prefer your sad little patch of earth over interstellar travel, and you get the perfunctory "Well, have a good one," as I blast off to infinity, and beyond...

/not going anywhere. But only because too damn broke. Hell, Milwaukee would be welcome, at this point.

Assuming Ned Lud doesn't interfere in order to prevent you from questioning his faith through your interstellar discoveries.

Philbb: mikefinch: They think the bible is without flaw

They think the King James version of bible is without flaw. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they come to this conclusion. Seriously, how can anyone who knows the history of how the bible came to be, believe that any version is the infallible truth?

But it's so simple!

gibbon1: fusillade762: evil saltine: Sgt Otter: Or when God created dinosaurs. Man didn't come about until later on the sixth day.

No it was Noah who killed the dinosaurs. Because he couldn't fit them on the ark

Well actually there were two arks.  The Noah and the other animals went in the first ark.  Noah said he'd be back for the dinosaurs... um... err... later.

That was the B-Ark, with all of the hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, management consultants, telephone sanitizers, etc...

Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 317x159]

No, I just wanted to point out what a crowded place that hill would have been if either time travelers or vampires (whe are kinda iike time travelers who can only go forward) existed. In either case, if you were there you would need your own weapon

Incidentally, assuming the blood didn't kill them cuz holy and all that, how much would a vampire LOVE Jesus? Essentially immortal, self healing, he's the ubiquitous bottomless drink cup, but fresh blood.

Haven't you seen the penitent man? Time travelers generally can only view the past ; )

wallywam1: Ranger Rover: Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

Same thing. It only applies to that particular type of religious belief though.

There are plenty of people who can learn about evolutionary biology to broaden their understanding of science and then go to their church/synagogue/mosque/favorite tree/whatever and try to figure out how to find peace and be less of a jerk to other people. There really doesn't need to be a conflict between science and spirituality.

Well, there is kind of a conflict in that science attempts to explain everything and so does spirituality/religion. At best they are describing the same thing.

I've only known a few creationists and in my few conversations with them I was struck with how they viewed evolution and science. For them, at least the ones I spoke to, if evolution were true and the bible was fallible it would mean that there would be no purpose to life. It either had to all be true, or none of it was true, which is just a ludicrous set of conditions if you ask me.

But they never disputed evolution on any sort of scientific grounds. They never spoke of intelligent design, or god burying fossils or any of that nonsense, it was simply "I don't believe that because it means we'd have no purpose". Their view of the world was completely centred around there being a god that created the Earth as it was and made a heaven and a hell. They couldn't part with this belief any more than they could part with the marrow in their bones. It was true ignorance, but ignorance coming from a sense of self-preservation.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 317x159]

No, I just wanted to point out what a crowded place that hill would have been if either time travelers or vampires (whe are kinda iike time travelers who can only go forward) existed. In either case, if you were there you would need your own weapon

Incidentally, assuming the blood didn't kill them cuz holy and all that, how much would a vampire LOVE Jesus? Essentially immortal, self healing, he's the ubiquitous bottomless drink cup, but fresh blood.

Haven't you seen the penitent man? Time travelers generally can only view the past ; )
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 198x255]

I have not, but it' on  "the list" now, Incidentally, I think this is possible (with FTL travel and good optics) get ahead of the lit leaving earth then turn around and watch for a while, you will be watching the past =D

Here are the basics, for me, and the heart of the question:
1) Not teaching kids basic science sucks. It puts our kids fundamentally behind children of other developed nations, and we're already far behind enough that there needs to be cause for concern. The nation that gave the world the polio vaccine, the car, the television, the moon landing, the Internet, and countless other achievements of the twentieth and the twenty-first century should be ashamed of itself for the obstructions it now wants to put in the way of children who could continue this tradition.
2) Freedom of speech, association, and religion are among the most venerable protections our Constitution offers, and in a world where they are increasingly threatened by even the most "developed" countries among us, we should fight for our status as guarantors of these rights at all costs. These are among the most basic protections a civilized country can offer its citizens, and Americans should be proud that we have led the way in these protections being adopted by any country who has modeled its constitution after ours, and these are many.
3) Going about reconciling these basic objectives is going to be difficult. It just is. There's no wishing this away. The best, maybe the only, way this can be achieved, is by both sides being willing to afford some sort of compromise; at the least being willing to hear each other out. It is no less a tragedy that certain citizens want to teach their children (especially in a private school setting, no less) that God made the world than it is that other citizens want to force them to teach their children that God did not. If it is an invasion of privacy when religious values are mandated in personal choices, it is no less an invasion of privacy when the absence of religious values are mandated in personal choices.

So what's the right answer? How do we balance these objectives?

drxym: Wow. Some people really do want their children to grow up to be complete idiots.

Which is GREAT for your kids when they enter the job market, right?

Gordon Bennett: Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment.

I don't want to thread-jack, but: When the aura appears, I start chugging coffee. Two or three cups before the aura fades will often stop the migraine in it's tracks, or at least dampen it. Other farkers say energy drinks have the same effect.

Probably too late by the time you read this, but ...maybe next time.

Just to make the post slightly on topic:

Uchiha_Cycliste: Is that better or worse than believing that your deity got really pissy one day and decided to drown the ENTIRE world and then tries to make up for it by giving us rainbows as a token phenomenon promising to not do it again?
The earth was wicked -- he was god. Don't tell him what he can and cant do.

I mean just from a theological standpoint, God is perfect and supposedly we were made in his image, meaning we are all little Gods just without the powers, but we manage to fark up badly enough to warrant global genocide.
Free will and all. And if god really is a god i dont think he would look at it as 'global genocide' -- thats how YOU see it. He might just see it as rearranging an office.

If that act was okay for him to perform, and we are all little hims, why wasn't whatever we were doing okay too? If he couldn't just make us so that we weren't so wicked in the first place, because we all had to be little [powerless] gods, what does that say about him? And if our wickedness exists because it's a part of him too (which the mass execution indicates) then why is he so pissed at us?
Some would suggest he isn't pissed at all. Heres what John Calvin said about it:
God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.
So he doesnt really have any dickish intent behind it exept to prove how farking bad ass he is?  I'm just saying -- if you know the will and whim and reason of god then he sort of ceases to be. I guess the explanation would be along the lines of 'if god tried to explain it to you your head would pop'

What did he expect? How shiatty is it to hold us to a level of accountability that he can't even live up to even with his ability to know everything always, everywhere, forever.
He is god. -- he doesn't have accountability.

I'm just saying -- God doesn't have to do any of that stuff. He's god. Your values of right and wrong and good and bad are not necessarily his and its crazy to think that a god would be constrained by human logic.

I'm just saying -- if your really going to ask questions about the nature of god don't do it with an anthropomorphized dude in a chair in the sky version some fundie organized religion pimps out.

Ranger Rover: The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

That's not the only differenc e(or the biggest one) Science is beliefs based on evidence amd confirmation (bascally the scientific method) the other is by definition belief based on the ack of evidence. Because if you did have evidence you couldn't have faith. Faith requires belief without proof. They are diametrically opposed methodologies for coming to a conclusion  It's why scientists look down upon the religious with such disdain. Person A says I believe this because I can demonstrate it's validity. Person B says I believe this because I have faith and there is no way to prove it's validity... therefore it must be right.

Ranger Rover: 3) Going about reconciling these basic objectives is going to be difficult. It just is. There's no wishing this away. The best, maybe the only, way this can be achieved, is by both sides being willing to afford some sort of compromise; at the least being willing to hear each other out. It is no less a tragedy that certain citizens want to teach their children (especially in a private school setting, no less) that God made the world than it is that other citizens want to force them to teach their children that God did not. If it is an invasion of privacy when religious values are mandated in personal choices, it is no less an invasion of privacy when the absence of religious values are mandated in personal choices.

Who's religious tenets do we teach in public schools? The only fair answer, the only answer that does not violate the Constitution, the only answer that does not tell believers in religion X that, "no, those guys over in religion Y are correct, you're going to hell, sorry" is to stick to secular facts and theories. If people want to teach their kids that Raven freed humans from the great clams, they can do it at home.

Steak_Cake_Sause: wallywam1: Ranger Rover: Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

Same thing. It only applies to that particular type of religious belief though.

There are plenty of people who can learn about evolutionary biology to broaden their understanding of science and then go to their church/synagogue/mosque/favorite tree/whatever and try to figure out how to find peace and be less of a jerk to other people. There really doesn't need to be a conflict between science and spirituality.

Well, there is kind of a conflict in that science attempts to explain everything and so does spirituality/religion. At best they are describing the same thing.

I guess my point is that neither one should attempt to explain everything. Imagine trying to understand art using only science. What is the chemical composition of this paint? What wavelength of light is reflected off the canvas? Those questions don't help you understand art any more than Jesus riding around on a dinosaur helps you understand science.

Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 317x159]

No, I just wanted to point out what a crowded place that hill would have been if either time travelers or vampires (whe are kinda iike time travelers who can only go forward) existed. In either case, if you were there you would need your own weapon

Incidentally, assuming the blood didn't kill them cuz holy and all that, how much would a vampire LOVE Jesus? Essentially immortal, self healing, he's the ubiquitous bottomless drink cup, but fresh blood.

Haven't you seen the penitent man? Time travelers generally can only view the past ; )
[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 198x255]

I have not, but it' on  "the list" now, Incidentally, I think this is possible (with FTL travel and good optics) get ahead of the lit leaving earth then turn around and watch for a while, you will be watching the past =D

It's defiantly worth the watch. It raises some interesting questions about time travel. It's a bit slow but stick with it. I enjoyed it.

Oh and I remember someone telling me the Hubble would be able to see dinosaurs because it was actually looking into the past of our galaxy.
/Yea really
//Granted we were kids.
/// Oh, and I didn't have many friends since most of them were stupid : (

Ranger Rover: The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

Science rarely actually reverses itself. Most of that is just bad science reporting.  Research results shouldn't be published to the general public until they've been confirmed, but the media likes controversial headlines that will draw page-hits. Reality is, depending on the field, up to 90% of original research turns out to not be repeatable when independent researchers try to confirm it.

Science, at its heart, is a process for uncovering human error, fraud and wishful thinking. The most important part of that process is, it isn't real until someone else has confirmed it. Naturally, in America the science news never bothers explaining how science works. They're busy looking for the latest grad student paper where coffee either gave mouse cells cancer or made them immortal. :(

Calipataa: Philbb: mikefinch: They think the bible is without flaw

They think the King James version of bible is without flaw. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they come to this conclusion. Seriously, how can anyone who knows the history of how the bible came to be, believe that any version is the infallible truth?

But it's so simple!

Wow, that is an amazing example of circular logic. Thanks for sharing.

But, that is still from people who don't really know the origin of the bible. It didn't exist in anything close to it's current form until the third century C.E. or in any form at all really until 40 to 120 years after the time of Christ.

http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

WERE YOU THERE!?  WERE YOU THERE!? WERE YOU THERE!?

GET.  IN.  THE.  F*CKING.  CAR.

wallywam1: I guess my point is that neither one should attempt to explain everything. Imagine trying to understand art using only science. What is the chemical composition of this paint? What wavelength of light is reflected off the canvas? Those questions don't help you understand art any more than Jesus riding around on a dinosaur helps you understand science.

And the study of perception, symbolism, metaphor, culture, etc... isn't science. Thanks. I had not known that before.

Why shouldn't science try to explain everything? Why should we artificially wall off portions of our experience from scientific scrutiny?

MBK: You know anyone can print out tests and claim they are "real deals".

It...is really damn easy.  A few bad clip art pieces, some questions, and OMG INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY

You haven't been paying attention to the Senate, have you?

Steak_Cake_Sause: So to me the best anyone can say is 'we dont know.' But that doesnt imply a creator, especially one as specific as the God of Abraham. Thats why I'm an atheist.

Well said (the whole comment, not just what I'm quoting here). I think that's the heart of it, and we just take different routes to get at the same essence. I am an agnostic. I don't know anything, and that's what (I hope) separates me from the religious nutjobs who think they do and want to prescribe/proscribe the actions of everyone else based on that. Can't remember the last time I was on the phone with God and he told me what exactly he wanted, or how I should make the life of anyone who disagreed a living hell. Hell, maybe there are seven-two virgins waiting for the 9/11 bombers. Or maybe we do just all return to the earth and become compost. I don't know, and I don't aim to act like I know and regulate the actions of other people on the basis of it.

/Glad to talk with an atheist who seems to understand agnosticism.

Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: So to me the best anyone can say is 'we dont know.' But that doesnt imply a creator, especially one as specific as the God of Abraham. Thats why I'm an atheist.

Well said (the whole comment, not just what I'm quoting here). I think that's the heart of it, and we just take different routes to get at the same essence. I am an agnostic. I don't know anything, and that's what (I hope) separates me from the religious nutjobs who think they do and want to prescribe/proscribe the actions of everyone else based on that. Can't remember the last time I was on the phone with God and he told me what exactly he wanted, or how I should make the life of anyone who disagreed a living hell. Hell, maybe there are seven-two virgins waiting for the 9/11 bombers. Or maybe we do just all return to the earth and become compost. I don't know, and I don't aim to act like I know and regulate the actions of other people on the basis of it.

/Glad to talk with an atheist who seems to understand agnosticism.

From an atheist to an agnostic, you don't know and I don't care.

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

The Catholics have their issues, but they're not NEARLY as anti-evolution as the our home-grown fundies.

Multiple members of my family get yearly membership passes to the creation "museum" in Kentucky... Thankfully, I've never been there, and wouldn't last long if i was forced to go...

Seriously, they have a room labeled "The world without God", which features various displays like a newspaper that headlines "Children attacked by packs of wolves" and a video clip of a mother telling her 12 year old to get an abortion, Another newspaper article that reads "Homosexuals recruiting children" and a bunch of other stupid nonsense...

When my parents showed me pictures of this i turned to them and said, "Wait, isn't the whole point of fundamentalism that you believe God created the earth? Should the "World without God" exhibit actually just be a pitch black room with sensory deprivation systems so you can't see or hear ANYTHING? You know since had there been no god there would BE no world?

Her response:  "Well it's just an exhibit"

I love my family, but they are buying into this garbage...

You can be there. It's called stratification.

CeroX: Seriously, they have a room labeled "The world without God", which features various displays like a newspaper that headlines "Children attacked by packs of wolves" and a video clip of a mother telling her 12 year old to get an abortion, Another newspaper article that reads "Homosexuals recruiting children" and a bunch of other stupid nonsense...

This hurt my brain.

Ranger Rover: ArcadianRefugee: kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair.

Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors,

congressmen....

Not teaching kids basic science is scary, but so is encroaching upon the freedom to privately educate and exercise religion, so I don't know where to end up on this one....

Easy.  Make it illegal to take a kid to church, temple, synagogue, or mosque until they turn 18.

After that, go nuts.

Be interesting to see which religions would thrive if they had to rely on ADULT converts.

Ed Grubermann: Ranger Rover: 3) Going about reconciling these basic objectives is going to be difficult. It just is. There's no wishing this away. The best, maybe the only, way this can be achieved, is by both sides being willing to afford some sort of compromise; at the least being willing to hear each other out. It is no less a tragedy that certain citizens want to teach their children (especially in a private school setting, no less) that God made the world than it is that other citizens want to force them to teach their children that God did not. If it is an invasion of privacy when religious values are mandated in personal choices, it is no less an invasion of privacy when the absence of religious values are mandated in personal choices.

Who's religious tenets do we teach in public schools? The only fair answer, the only answer that does not violate the Constitution, the only answer that does not tell believers in religion X that, "no, those guys over in religion Y are correct, you're going to hell, sorry" is to stick to secular facts and theories. If people want to teach their kids that Raven freed humans from the great clams, they can do it at home.

Uchiha_Cycliste: Ranger Rover: The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

That's not the only differenc e(or the biggest one) Science is beliefs based on evidence amd confirmation (bascally the scientific method) the other is by definition belief based on the ack of evidence. Because if you did have evidence you couldn't have faith. Faith requires belief without proof. They are diametrically opposed methodologies for coming to a conclusion  It's why scientists look down upon the religious with such disdain. Person A says I believe this because I can demonstrate it's validity. Person B says I believe this because I have faith and there is no way to prove it's validity... therefore it must be right.

Sure, I would agree with that - I meant for that summation to be encompassed by my assertion that religious assertions are based on "incontrovertible truth" - which requires faith.

miss diminutive: This hurt my brain.

wifey and i want to get banned from there just so our parents will stop asking us to go...

But yeah... abortions, nazis, homosexuals, and animals attacking people, all in a world without god... which, coincidentally, is the world we live in!

dickfreckle: Lsherm: Also, this apparently is a very small private school, so mock, but there shouldn't be outrage.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Yeah, but these are the private schools my Governor (Jindal) and legislature is appropriating tax dollars to without holding them to the same standards as public schools. One school in question consists of windowless portable buildings and a strong curriculum of Jesus DVDs. I really, really wish I were making this up.

The state is so poor in education that the argument of allowing parents to send their kids to sectarian or snake-handling schools in order to achieve a better quality of education is what drove this. But let me reiterate - these schools are not being held to any standard, and as of right now are licking chops waiting to bilk the government for as much money as however many students they can cram in.

Look, I went to an awesome Catholic school. We were taught the Classics, religion in not such a fervent light, ACTUAL SCIENCE, and though I was told there would be no math, we got real versions of that, too. But many of the schools lining at Jindal's trough are fly-by-night sh*tholes that issue tests like the one alleged here. And once again - because I can't stress this enough - the voucher program was wildly popular even when it became clear that many of these schools weren't being audited for effectiveness and funds the way the public ones are.

This state breaks my heart. New Orleans, for all her problems, is actually a wonderful cultural center and among the most unique places in the States. Blue as all hell, too - even the white folks. The suburbs, while Red, are at least populated by people who have decent jobs and merely want their kids to succeed in a properly academic religious school like my parents did. But then there's the rest of the state wanting that one asshole Sunday school teacher we all had as children to be responsible for teaching their kids full-time. With Jindal trying to position his TeaPubican cre ...

Just started watching Treme.  Interesting series, but kinda rough...how accurate is it?

thamike: [markblackspeaks.com image 400x400]

WERE YOU THERE!?  WERE YOU THERE!? WERE YOU THERE!?

[i75.photobucket.com image 295x349]

GET.  IN.  THE.  F*CKING.  CAR.

As someone who lived "north of Greer" I can tell you there is no private schools north of Greer. And it's pretty much Greer, then nothing, then nothing that belongs to North Carolina.

Philbb: Calipataa: Philbb: mikefinch: They think the bible is without flaw

They think the King James version of bible is without flaw. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they come to this conclusion. Seriously, how can anyone who knows the history of how the bible came to be, believe that any version is the infallible truth?

But it's so simple!

Wow, that is an amazing example of circular logic. Thanks for sharing.

But, that is still from people who don't really know the origin of the bible. It didn't exist in anything close to it's current form until the third century C.E. or in any form at all really until 40 to 120 years after the time of Christ.

http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

Says you - but

!!

(I'm starting to really dig this guy's take on things) ;) )

Have you ready any Bart Ehrman? He's really interesting on the evolution of biblical manuscripts - how errors and interpolations come about, etc.

miss diminutive: CeroX: Seriously, they have a room labeled "The world without God", which features various displays like a newspaper that headlines "Children attacked by packs of wolves" and a video clip of a mother telling her 12 year old to get an abortion, Another newspaper article that reads "Homosexuals recruiting children" and a bunch of other stupid nonsense...

This hurt my brain.

Surely either the world has God or not, are they admitting their god doesn't exist then?

Ed Grubermann: wallywam1: I guess my point is that neither one should attempt to explain everything. Imagine trying to understand art using only science. What is the chemical composition of this paint? What wavelength of light is reflected off the canvas? Those questions don't help you understand art any more than Jesus riding around on a dinosaur helps you understand science.

And the study of perception, symbolism, metaphor, culture, etc... isn't science. Thanks. I had not known that before.

Why shouldn't science try to explain everything? Why should we artificially wall off portions of our experience from scientific scrutiny?

I'm referring to the physical sciences. Social sciences do explain those types of things. I'm also not talking about building a wall around anything. My point is to use the most suitable approach for the issue at hand.

Back to what started this whole discussion...Trying to teach religion in an earth science class is not a good approach because it's not consistent with the core concepts of the subject matter. Rather it's completely different subject matter.

If by "science" we are referring to philosophy, anthropology, etc. than yes you can attempt to explain everything that way.

thamike: From an atheist to an agnostic, you don't know and I don't care.

And that is a nicely turned phrase. Nothing to argue with there. :)

mikefinch: Uchiha_Cycliste:

Dude... I spent hald an hour typing a response ad then Windows decided to auto-update without asking me first... so bear with me while I try to do it again.

On the upside the unfortunate timing pissed me off enough I'm not half as tired as I was so it should be quicker this time. grrrrr

:(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

CeroX: miss diminutive: This hurt my brain.

wifey and i want to get banned from there just so our parents will stop asking us to go...

But yeah... abortions, nazis, homosexuals, and animals attacking people, all in a world without god... which, coincidentally, is the world we live in!

Which implies that they've gone more than once. How many new exhibits can there possibly be?

"Come see the wonders of the Great Flood as seen from the eyes of the drowning disbelievers! See the Zipporah exhibit and use our virtual reality foreskin slicer to save Moses from God's wrath!"

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

I attended those very same classes.  They were a bit fuzzy about whether or not evolution was real, but what they did say, definitively, was that everything that exists today was created by God and everything those things can do was intended by God.  That could encompass "ability to evolve".

I sound fat: Spiralmonkey: That is too scary to be snarky about.

No, no it isnt, watch:

Both theories are equally theories.  Done.  That was pretty simple.

/ just cause YOUR religion wears white coats when they conjecture about "facts".....

Well THERE'S your problem.  You think theory means "unsure".  The actual definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".  Thus when we say the theory of Evolution we are actually talking about a well-documented aspect of the natural world that has evidence backing it up.  Lots and lots of evidence.

Also, you're mistakenly elevating Creationism to the level of a theory.  Creationism is, at best, unsubstantiated guesswork.

Shadowtag: The second part of that, if true, is upsetting even with it being a private school. Teaching your students to be that disrespectful to your parents doesn't sound particularly Christian and I can't imagine even a strict whackoo private school enjoying the PR fallout.

Any pissed off parents will be met with a thorough shaming.  That's how all religious institutions respond when someone calls them out for doing something bad.

We taught your kid to give a disrespectful, snippy answer to you?  You should be ashamed for having to be corrected by a 10-year-old.

We spent 85% of the money you donated on "administrative fees"?  Shame on you for even thinking those administrative costs aren't the best thing to spend that money on.

Your son got molested by your local parish priest?  Well if you weren't such a shiatty, oblivious parent you would have noticed the warning signs and kept your child away from him.

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

Like I alluded to above, this is basically what my religious school taught me.  Well, the first one.  The second one was insane.  Regardless, it's a nice idea.  If I'm going to believe in a God, I'd like it to be one who is that clever.

Ranger Rover: Ranger Rover: Steak_Cake_Sause: As a compromise, it would relegate religion to the ever shrinking 'God of the Gaps.'

Have not heard this before, but it sounds interesting. What does it mean?

In case you feel the temptation to send me a "let me google that for you" meme, I will google it myself. But interested in your take on it.

Okay, did. And glad I did. This is exactly why I justify "time-wasting" on fark - I usually learn a thing or two.

Very good argument. And I think some sort of anticipation of it is why I tried to qualify my statement with the fact that doctrinally this compromise would be impracticable in many cases. But is kazikian's statement really necessitating a "God of the Gaps" argument, or could it maybe be a more God IN the Gaps argument? Am I just stupidly playing around with prepositions, or does that make any kind of sense?

No no, it makes sense.  A faith in God and acceptance of Evolution can be distinctly more than just "God of the Gaps" if you believe that whatever God meant to produce in the end, what he actually created was the first building blocks of life that then went on to evolve over millions of years to become us. "God of the Gaps" only comes in if you insist on attributing everything scientifically unexplainable to a deity or supernatural event, rather than "science we can't explain yet."

Frankly, I like to think of God as a sort of brilliant scientist running an experiment.  Put some primordial ooze on a planet (or several) in a universe, watch and see what happens.  Bonus, leave behind the ability to observe and interact with the universe on a fundamental level and see how long it takes life to figure it all out.  Maybe step in once or twice if the experiment isn't going to your liking.

thamike: [markblackspeaks.com image 400x400]

WERE YOU THERE!?  WERE YOU THERE!? WERE YOU THERE!?

[i75.photobucket.com image 295x349]

GET.  IN.  THE.  F*CKING.  CAR.

They should have put a little girl in the car rather than Marty McFly.  The Doc and his 'companion'.

/Daleks!

What a horrible thing to do to children...

Honestly, the fundies in this country have grown increasingly insane over the decades. I went to a born-again Christian grammar and middle school and, while this type of nonsense was believed by most of the teachers and administration, it wasn't really pushed in the science curriculum, but rather in "Bible class" and weekly chapel.

I feel sorry for these kids. They're going to get a real wake-up call when they find themselves out in the world surrounded by people who don't believe nonsense like this.

mikefinch: Uchiha_Cycliste: Is that better or worse than believing that your deity got really pissy one day and decided to drown the ENTIRE world and then tries to make up for it by giving us rainbows as a token phenomenon promising to not do it again?
The earth was wicked -- he was god. Don't tell him what he can and cant do.

I mean just from a theological standpoint, God is perfect and supposedly we were made in his image, meaning we are all little Gods just without the powers, but we manage to fark up badly enough to warrant global genocide.
Free will and all. And if god really is a god i dont think he would look at it as 'global genocide' -- thats how YOU see it. He might just see it as rearranging an office.

If that act was okay for him to perform, and we are all little hims, why wasn't whatever we were doing okay too? If he couldn't just make us so that we weren't so wicked in the first place, because we all had to be little [powerless] gods, what does that say about him? And if our wickedness exists because it's a part of him too (which the mass execution indicates) then why is he so pissed at us?
Some would suggest he isn't pissed at all. Heres what John Calvin said about it:
God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.
So he doesnt really have any dickish intent behind it exept to prove how farking bad ass he is?  I'm just saying -- if you know the will and whim and reason of god then he sort of ceases to be. I guess the explanation would be along the lines of 'if god tried to explain it to you your head would pop'

What did he expect? How shiatty is it to hold us to a level of accountability that he can't even live up to even with his ability to know everything always, everywhere, forever.
He is god. -- he doesn't have accountability.

I'm just saying -- God doesn't have to do any of that stuff. He's god. Your values of right and wrong and good and bad are not necessarily his and its crazy to think that a god would be constrained by human logic.

I'm just saying -- if your really going to ask questions about the nature of god don't do it with an anthropomorphized dude in a chair in the sky version some fundie organized re ligion pimps out.

Okay, so first off, I understand a lot of what you are saying but I feel like you are dismissing or ignoring my initial point that supposedly we were made in his image. God made a mold of himself, then made it pint sized and created Adam and Eve. Granted without all the groovy powers, but he is a jealous god after all.  Obviously I can't tell him what he can and can't do, the very notion is absurd, since he can do anything except microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it. I can however say Dude! Dick move!

It's said over and over that god just loves us to death. If that's the case I'd hope that our genocide was a difficult and painful decision, ad much more so a painful action. If he's such a psychopath that killing us all can be likened to reorganizing the office furniture I don't think he really deserves out admiration, love, respect and worship.  Further, if it was all pre-ordained because he was power tripping, who was he showing off to? He farking killed everyone who could have used the lesson and Noah was already in his corner. Likewise, there are tons of other ways that he can show off his godly abilities, just ask our Lady of Fatima. I can appreciate that maybe we don't have to know his motivations, a la the verbal smackdown he gives Job at the very end of his suffering when Job finally asks god WTF mate? But that's not the case here, hes very clear that he killed us all because of our grievous sinfulness.

So, he can't make us sinless because he gave us free will. But he also didn't just create a blank slate and see what happened. He created us like him, meaning whatever we did he could do (and possibly did) too. If anything it feels like an instance of self flagellation  but instead of spanking himself because of his capacity for evil, he took it out on us, who were only acting like him in the first place.

I disagree that he has no accountability, I think it just manifests differently. What he want is worshipers and people not being pricks. If he doesn't behave accordingly he will lose both those things. He just measures his success in ways that we can not.  If I'm going to question the nature of God I have to go down the anthromorphized path, all I know about hi is that he is a lot like us, but with more power. Well. like us and te only dude in the middle east who's Son was blond haired, fair skinned and blue eyed somehow... talk about miracles =P.

I think I had more to say, and that I said it more eloquently, but f*ck it. I need sleep as t's near 4 am and I gottabbe up in like 3 or so hours. On that note, I have every intention, nay desire, to continue with disussion with you in depth. But if I don't respond immediately to you, I will come 10/11am PST.

Nite bro

miss diminutive: CeroX: miss diminutive: This hurt my brain.

wifey and i want to get banned from there just so our parents will stop asking us to go...

But yeah... abortions, nazis, homosexuals, and animals attacking people, all in a world without god... which, coincidentally, is the world we live in!

Which implies that they've gone more than once. How many new exhibits can there possibly be?

"Come see the wonders of the Great Flood as seen from the eyes of the drowning disbelievers! See the Zipporah exhibit and use our virtual reality foreskin slicer to save Moses from God's wrath!"

oh yeah, like i said, they get yearly passes to the place... it makes have a sad because I went to the same school as my mother, and they do teach biology and evolution there... and i had many of the same teacher that she had when she was there (small town, solid teachers union, etc etc etc...) so it's not like she grew up in the deep south or anything, and my dad is college educated and from farther north in ohio than my mother... but there they are, enthralled by the place...

Let me say this about the article so i'm not completely hijacking here:

If this private school wasn't an accredited school for basic education as required by federal law, meaning, if it was an extracurricular school (like Sylvan) then i wouldn't have an issue with this, but I do because our children's education should not be compromised with drivel. There needs to be a standard that all schools who wish to be considered for credited basic education as required by the government should be required to follow which should be modeled around leading the way in education materials, methods, and subjects, and prepares future generations for global competition. Instead, we have to contend with this garbage and the infiltration of theology for what? More followers? More "believers"? Why are the minority extremists dictating this country's education direction? How did we get to this point? Who let this happen? You can't say it's from the mega-corps, the degradation of an entire population's education CAN'T be sustainable as a business model unless you plan on cutting and running...

tinfoil-hat maggie: I have not, but it' on  "the list" now, Incidentally, I think this is possible (with FTL travel and good optics) get ahead of the lit leaving earth then turn around and watch for a while, you will be watching the past =D

It's defiantly worth the watch. It raises some interesting questions about time travel. It's a bit slow but stick with it. I enjoyed it.

Oh and I remember someone telling me the Hubble would be able to see dinosaurs because it was actually looking into the past of our galaxy.
/Yea really
//Granted we were kids.
/// Oh, and I didn't have many friends since most of them were stupid : (

I'll definitely check it out, thanks.
Sorry about the stuid kids, that always blows. I avoided it be only having a handful of close friends, which was also the result of being a social outcast and angsty scape goat for everyone from kindergarten on up because I had hearing aids. The kids in south Orange County are unbelievably pretentious, shallow, image obsessed and clique so I spent 12 years or so being known as deaf boy by all of my 4K student HS but ,y few close friends. On the upside those few friendships were something very special and I've been best friends with, um, my best friend since we were 6.  We (she) decided to start dating (finally) last July at my little sister's wedding and for us the tough part is over. We know *everything* about each other, we know how to communicate, have lots of the same interests and have been madly and deeply in love for years. Everything from here on out is fun =D ♥

Ranger Rover: Uchiha_Cycliste: Ranger Rover: The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

That's not the only differenc e(or the biggest one) Science is beliefs based on evidence amd confirmation (bascally the scientific method) the other is by definition belief based on the ack of evidence. Because if you did have evidence you couldn't have faith. Faith requires belief without proof. They are diametrically opposed methodologies for coming to a conclusion  It's why scientists look down upon the religious with such disdain. Person A says I believe this because I can demonstrate it's validity. Person B says I believe this because I have faith and there is no way to prove it's validity... therefore it must be right.

Sure, I would agree with that - I meant for that summation to be encompassed by my assertion that religious assertions are based on "incontrovertible truth" - which requires faith.

Yeah, I just wanted to elaborate that faith *requires* there be no evidence, which makes scientists sort or cross (heh) and as science requires proof its fallacious for religious dillweeds to try to claim that science is a religion since the two couldn't be more mutually exclusive.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

CSB time ...
After growing up in New England, my parents briefly moved to Texas when I was in fourth grade. Remember the capitalization quizzes they'd give you in school? I vividly remember getting the following one marked wrong: "Capitalize the correct word(s) in this sentence: 'the indians worshipped many different gods.' " I was docked for not capitalizing the word "gods." When I asked the teacher about this, since I was pretty sure I was right in only capitalizing the word "the", I was called out in front of the class and told "You always capitalize the name of our lord and savior!!" And yes, this was a public school, albeit in 1980.

/ I've been a bit skeptical of religion and authority figures since

// Oh and yes, a hearty GFY to you, Mrs. Farr, wherever you are

kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair.

It's a school the way Liberty University is a college.

Ah well, those kids will be working for mine.

TomD9938: Did not read article or thread, but sometimes I think extra-religious people underestimate their God.

They try to turn God into a man with the same limitations as themselves. It's sad, really.

So someone posted it on Reddit, wouldn't give up the school's name and Snopes won't even fully say it's real? Yea I'm not buying it

yoursafewordisharder: CSB time ...
After growing up in New England, my parents briefly moved to Texas when I was in fourth grade. Remember the capitalization quizzes they'd give you in school? I vividly remember getting the following one marked wrong: "Capitalize the correct word(s) in this sentence: 'the indians worshipped many different gods.' " I was docked for not capitalizing the word "gods." When I asked the teacher about this, since I was pretty sure I was right in only capitalizing the word "the", I was called out in front of the class and told "You always capitalize the name of our lord and savior!!" And yes, this was a public school, albeit in 1980.

/ I've been a bit skeptical of religion and authority figures since

// Oh and yes, a hearty GFY to you, Mrs. Farr, wherever you are

yoursafewordisharder: CSB time ...
After growing up in New England, my parents briefly moved to Texas when I was in fourth grade. Remember the capitalization quizzes they'd give you in school? I vividly remember getting the following one marked wrong: "Capitalize the correct word(s) in this sentence: 'the indians worshipped many different gods.' " I was docked for not capitalizing the word "gods." When I asked the teacher about this, since I was pretty sure I was right in only capitalizing the word "the", I was called out in front of the class and told "You always capitalize the name of our lord and savior!!" And yes, this was a public school, albeit in 1980.

/ I've been a bit skeptical of religion and authority figures since

// Oh and yes, a hearty GFY to you, Mrs. Farr, wherever you are

Heh... I think most fundies would say she was wrong, as well. Those indian gods weren't the one true GOD and therefor didn't deserve to be capitalized.

My favorite are the ones who get bent out of shape when someone says something like, "Thanks the gods!" or "The hockey gods are smiling down on the Bruins tonight!". They usually respond with a snarky, "There's only one God!"

Hmmmm... Format fail, there. Apologies.

Tragically, I can confirm this- if not this story, one nearly identical. I went to a small private Christian school for several years (after the year of this story, I got pulled and homeschooled on account of the county school in my area having a mortality rate. College went much better, I'm now an astrophysicist.)

These schools are horribly poorly funded. 10th grade, we had a bible teacher who taught this BS. We were old enough that none of the students took her seriously- but for the sake of an A, would put down whatever answers she wanted, then promptly forget the whole class. Her lessons included bibles on the ark, young earth, and satan owning the radio (something about being "on the air" and him being prince of the powers of it or summat silly).

She only worked there the one year, and for free (she had 2 kids as students, and worked in return for reduced tuition). Dunno if she left or was fired.

We also had a history teacher who taught some insanity, like how Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans were pagan heretics, not realizing he had a few in his class (me among them).

We also had a physics/math teacher who taught the scientific age of the earth universe and other good stuff, and a bio teacher who taught evolution, and both taught 7 days as a metaphor.

Those two teachers had the students' respect in a way neither of the nutjobs could... And worked there for years after I left.

Catholic schools usually do ok- they have better funding and an interest in not alienating themselves. Micro-private schools, particularly non-denom like mine was, tend to spiral into this kind of stuff. My suspicion is that poor funding leads to either poor schooling, which then attracts the attention of one wealthy nutjob who donated heavily out of a desire to support and spread his nutty ideas. They become dependent on his support and keep teaching the drivel, only better... And poof. You get a whole densely packed bunch of young mixed nuts in a can, because they're young and impressionable, and their parents don't know or don't care what they're being taught.

Luckily, mine did. Kudos to the parent here for the same, if the story is true... And I have no reason to think otherwise.

Well, considering that a liberal TN school is teaching kids that blowing up Israeli teenagers is a good thing, this seems pretty mild, if stupid.

Death Eats a Cracker: EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

Is that really true?

WERE YOU THERE?!?!

ChubbyTiger: TomD9938: Did not read article or thread, but sometimes I think extra-religious people underestimate their God.

They try to turn God into a man with the same limitations as themselves. It's sad, really.

Well when the all knowing "god" doesn't even know some guys name, he seems pretty limited:

Genesis 32:27
And he [God] said unto him [Jacob], What is thy name?

Thunderpipes: Well, considering that a liberal TN school is teaching kids that blowing up Israeli teenagers is a good thing, this seems pretty mild, if stupid.

zzzzzzzz

When I was in the first grade one of my classmates told me that if ever I didn't know the answer to a science question to just say God made it.  Well alrighty.  A bit later we have a quiz that asks, "How are rainbows made?"  Now I didn't have the foggiest hint of an idea how rainbows were made so you can guess what answer I gave.  Now keep in mind that this was very small-town Texas in the 1960s.  That town had, and still has, more Southern Baptist churches than eating establishments. The teacher marked it wrong!  I couldn't believe it.  My explanation is that she must have been a Yankee married to a soldier at the nearby base.  My Mother wasn't particularly sympathetic to my complaints which tells me simply that in 1969 she hadn't yet started watching that Pat Robertson shiat.

Did I skim over this too fast, or has no one yet invoked the great Bill Hicks clip?

NSFW language (/obvious)

Excellent!  A Fark thread on creationism.  Humanity can FINALLY put this argument behind it after the resident titans of intellect weigh in with their prepared statements.

redundantman: Excellent!  A Fark thread on creationism.  Humanity can FINALLY put this argument behind it after the resident titans of intellect weigh in with their prepared statements.

That has already happened. Creationists are a punchline.

Rep senator: does e.coli evolve into people?

But to those saying they have smart co-workers or friends that are creationists, I just have to wonder if they aren't just pulling your legs and secretly feel disappointed in you.

Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

My reply: No. Were you? Did you see Skyman create the heavens and Earth? Oh, it's in a book? Did you see the book get written?

It's a seriously dumb lack of an argument.

HotWingConspiracy: redundantman: Excellent!  A Fark thread on creationism.  Humanity can FINALLY put this argument behind it after the resident titans of intellect weigh in with their prepared statements.

That has already happened. Creationists are a punchline.

I wish i could agree with you, but these people are dictating curriculum in states and trying to control curriculum nation wide from a federal level... I'm not saying that the feds are seriously considering it right now, but who knows what will happen if more of these idiots are elected into office...

That "Where you there?" comment would get a backhand from me.

Ed Grubermann: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

I'll let Ken Ham answer that for you.

And on a lower, more primal level if you accept that life evolves, that life changes, that human is NOT created as a beautiful replica of perfection and therefore the closest in the world to perfection, that Humanity (and more specifically the theist) is not the center of the universe; well that's just horrifying.  If we are truly alone in a vast, uncaring universe, we suddenly realize it's very, very cold.

Even more existentially terrifying?  "Human" is only transitional as well, and will ultimately give way to something greater.  Meaning we are something lesser.  Meaning OH GOD THE EMOTIONAL ANGUISH!

HotWingConspiracy: redundantman: Excellent!  A Fark thread on creationism.  Humanity can FINALLY put this argument behind it after the resident titans of intellect weigh in with their prepared statements.

That has already happened. Creationists are a punchline.

I was convinced we'd put the argument behind us in the 80s until the internet started telling me different.

Nezu Chiza: The best thing about insane people saying "Were you there?" is that you can then ask "Were you?"

Likely answer: 'no, but God was and he wrote it in the Bible so I believe Him.'

While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

"Were you there?"

In my ramblings about the internet I have actually heard this as a come back from an adult Atheist more than once. I've responded in a variety of ways but I think this is the best one...

'You're right, I wasn't there. You make a good argument. How about we both gather up all of the physical and biological evidence and present it in a court and see whose right?'

You will be amazed how many creationists will confidently tell you that their ideas would easily withstand a court test at least as well as if not better than evolution.

That's when you tell them that it was already done and the major witness of 'intelligent design' had to admit under oath that various forms of psychic reading were just as valid as ID under his definition of 'science'. To say that the creations lost when this went to court would be a vast understatement and that's putting aside the fact that the people who came up with ID backed out of defending it it court, leaving poor Behe by himself to be made a fool of.

Why does nobody question why it's titled "4th Grade Science Quiz?"!

Smells like total bullshiat to me.

yoursafewordisharder: CSB time ...
After growing up in New England, my parents briefly moved to Texas when I was in fourth grade. Remember the capitalization quizzes they'd give you in school? I vividly remember getting the following one marked wrong: "Capitalize the correct word(s) in this sentence: 'the indians worshipped many different gods.' " I was docked for not capitalizing the word "gods." When I asked the teacher about this, since I was pretty sure I was right in only capitalizing the word "the", I was called out in front of the class and told "You always capitalize the name of our lord and savior!!" And yes, this was a public school, albeit in 1980.

/ I've been a bit skeptical of religion and authority figures since

// Oh and yes, a hearty GFY to you, Mrs. Farr, wherever you are

Pretty sure she also forgot to teach you Indians should have been capitalized in that sentence as well.

ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

They're also better prepared to vote for the GOP's agenda of "God decides when the world ends, therefore Keystone XL"

MBK: You know anyone can print out tests and claim they are "real deals".

It...is really damn easy.  A few bad clip art pieces, some questions, and OMG INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY

For who? Some anonymous poster? And, I mean, why? Why would anyone want "INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY" for something like this?

keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

Well, in new york anyway. Its an easy Google, and posting links from my cell is a pain.

I was not there.

But let me show you what was...

9/10 troll.

The different handwriting (3/28/13 vs. 6th and Plants) and nicely circled answers (4th graders don't circle answers quickly, they take their time and the circle is more round) = doctored. Too obvious, but it got a couple hundred replies, so...

It's not really as bad as people are making it out to be.  However the real answers are:

1. True
2. True
3. Friday
4. False.  But if you stretch the definition of dinosaurs a bit, then true.
5. Pretty much everything and then some.
6. None of the below.
7. False

yukichigai: Frankly, I like to think of God as a sort of brilliant scientist running an experiment.  Put some primordial ooze on a planet (or several) in a universe, watch and see what happens.  Bonus, leave behind the ability to observe and interact with the universe on a fundamental level and see how long it takes life to figure it all out.  Maybe step in once or twice if the experiment isn't going to your liking.

AverageAmericanGuy: keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

Not so much overstating as talking out of his ass, I would say...

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, in 2009, 33% of 4th grade public school students are at or below the "Basic" level and 26% of 8th grade public school students performed at or below the "Basic" level on the NAEP reading test.

Still pretty bad, no doubt, but no where near 80%.

Britney Spear's Speculum: "Probably true"
On top of that, it's from reddit.

"probably true" is the Snopes version of "eh, whatever" and if you read the article they don't know anything more than the rest of us(all they say is do is summarize what was posted online) but as we all know nothing fake ever gets posted to Reddit(particularly by the geniuses on the Atheism board), so yeah seems totally legit.

/I put that chances of it being real around 10% or so(which is probably still too generous)

Ok -- Just to preface i'm not a bible thumper by any means im just offering a theists view.
Okay, so first off, I understand a lot of what you are saying but I feel like you are dismissing or ignoring my initial point that supposedly we were made in his image. God made a mold of himself, then made it pint sized and created Adam and Eve. Granted without all the groovy powers, but he is a jealous god after all. Obviously I can't tell him what he can and can't do, the very notion is absurd, since he can do anything except microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it. I can however say Dude! Dick move!

Image might just mean we are free conscious thinking creating creatures. Our natures are similar. And very fickle.

. If he's such a psychopath that killing us all can be likened to reorganizing the office furniture I don't think he really deserves out admiration, love, respect and worship.

But he does. Because killing us all would be like reorganizing his office. You know what the bible demands we show god first? Fear. Then respect. God is to be feared and respected. He does not want our love or admiration or respect. He demands fear. God doesn't have to conform to any 'nice guy' traits. He is god -- the whole point here is that if god exists he would require your faith and worship whether he was loving or not. He doesn't need you to think he deserves it. He deserves it. Cause hes god.

Further, if it was all pre-ordained because he was power tripping, who was he showing off to? He farking killed everyone who could have used the lesson and Noah was already in his corner.

He wasn't showing off. He turned his etcha-sketch upside down and shook it like a bastard. He wasn't showing off -- he was plowing the road for the few things he left around. And for some reason he wanted to do it that way? From what i remember part of the whole thing about the flood was because god made a covenant with Noah to never wipe out earth again he implied the eventual comming of jesus.. And thats only if you take that story in its most literal sense. Allot of people see it as a parable or an apocryphal story.

So, he can't make us sinless because he gave us free will. But he also didn't just create a blank slate and see what happened. He created us like him, meaning whatever we did he could do (and possibly did) too. If anything it feels like an instance of self flagellation but instead of spanking himself because of his capacity for evil, he took it out on us, who were only acting like him in the first place.

But he didn't take it out on us. You're looking at it like god is either hands off or hands on -- couldnt it be both? For instance -- consider that he has the capacity for evil but is not inherently evil and does not have an evil nature. He isn't punishing us or anything -- he's giving us the ability to screw things up and be assholes should we so choose.

I disagree that he has no accountability, I think it just manifests differently. What he want is worshipers and people not being pricks. If he doesn't behave accordingly he will lose both those things. He just measures his success in ways that we can not. If I'm going to question the nature of God I have to go down the anthromorphized path, all I know about hi is that he is a lot like us, but with more power. Well. like us and te only dude in the middle east who's Son was blond haired, fair skinned and blue eyed somehow... talk about miracles =P.

But he doesn't have accountability. To whom is he accountable? All his followers are creations of his very whim. I guess you could count self accountability but then god is also described as vengeful and jealous so i suppose the criteria for accountability was whether he was happy with what he did or not. And i suppose if he really is god then the only stuff that exists is the stuff he was happy with.

And you cant anthropomorphize god. I'mean -- theism doesn't mean you belive in a certain TYPE of god -- it just means you believe in a/multiple god/s. Saying god doesn't exist because you don't agree with whats in the bible is like declaring all authors retarded because you read the fountainhead.

How can you be an atheist if you only let the most retarded of your opponents set the rules for what constitutes god?

have a good night uchi -- I feel your pain having lost your post.

ThrobblefootSpectre: keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

Well, in new york anyway. Its an easy Google, and posting links from my cell is a pain.

That's wrong, as well. I believe the 80% number is from NYC not the entire state of New York, and I'm sure you are aware that neither NYC or New York state constitute the entirety of the United States... No matter how much they like to think it does. : )

iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

Ditto.

Aaaaaaaand wtf happened to my post? Wheres the blue text? whatever. Fark ate your post and crapped all over my formatting. Time for bed is right.

Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

227 comments in, and no Bevets? :P

stryed: Rep senator: does e.coli evolve into people?

But to those saying they have smart co-workers or friends that are creationists, I just have to wonder if they aren't just pulling your legs and secretly feel disappointed in you.

I would doubt it only because this phenomenon of otherwise intelligent people doing and saying incredibly retarded things can manifest in more ways than wacky religions. Take ,my father for instance, he's a smart guy. SW engineer near the embedded side of things, also has his own business doing SW dev. However this otherwise smart healthy individual would have voted for Dubya for a third term had he been given the option.  I mean, what the fark? He doesn't make even a quarter of the money that would warrant making a decision so magnificently retarded.

CeroX: Seriously, they have a room labeled "The world without God", which features various displays like a newspaper that headlines "Children attacked by packs of wolves" and a video clip of a mother telling her 12 year old to get an abortion, Another newspaper article that reads "Homosexuals recruiting children" and a bunch of other stupid nonsense...

WTF is it with fundies and children? Why does all the bad stuff ONLY happen to kids? Doesn't anyone make it to adulthood in that "world without God?" Where are the farking adults?? They continually play the CHILDREN card like they're infatuated with them, or something.

That should tell you something.

Around here, the Catholic schools teach evolution. I thought that was the official stance of the church.

Fake. At least the teacher should know the bible-- on the 6th day God created man. Animals were on Day 5.

CeroX: HotWingConspiracy: redundantman: Excellent!  A Fark thread on creationism.  Humanity can FINALLY put this argument behind it after the resident titans of intellect weigh in with their prepared statements.

That has already happened. Creationists are a punchline.

I wish i could agree with you, but these people are dictating curriculum in states and trying to control curriculum nation wide from a federal level... I'm not saying that the feds are seriously considering it right now, but who knows what will happen if more of these idiots are elected into office...

The word you are looking for is scum assholes dominionists. Sorry,  I don't know what got into me there.

Also, the 80% number isn't "80% can't read", but rather 80% of NYC public high school graduates taking entrance exams to Community Colleges lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a big problem with the lack of basic skills in reading and writing, but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

kd1s: That "Where you there?" comment would get a backhand from me.

Expulsion aside, the fact a school child can't be arrested for assault thanks to age would SO make this worth it. =D

Fake - I know the original submitter to both reddit and its subsequent submission to Snopes.

Since my wife taught 4th grade in SC for 10 years and is now an assistant principal I can say this is not taught in SC public schools. Probably some Baptist private school. Glad vouchers didn't pass.

PunkTiger: WTF is it with fundies and children? Why does all the bad stuff ONLY happen to kids? Doesn't anyone make it to adulthood in that "world without God?" Where are the farking adults?? They continually play the CHILDREN card like they're infatuated with them, or something.

Those things are targeted at children. There's really only two times in your life when you're susceptible to people selling afterlife insurance: when you are too young to identify bullshiat or preparing to die and terrified of death. Indoctrinate the kids in your hermetically sealed world view by associating not believing in it with the worst things they can imagine, being burned, being devoured by wolves, being locked away forever, etc and they'll shy away from anything that questions that world view for the rest of their life.

Ahhh, the power of Faith.

How are the American Fundamentalists any different from the savages in Southern Africa that rape infants to cure AIDs, or these people in Chile who have plenty of similarities with the people here at home. It isn't just Christians either, there is a whole town in upstate New York where women are physically attacked for not covering their heads in public, and the local "law enforcement" agency consults with a full-time Rabbi on the city's payroll before leveling charges, even in the cases of rape, incest and domestic violence including outright murder.

Humans are not going to mature as a species until we forsake these pre-literacy, old world belief systems. The big religion companies know this, and that is why they are doing everything they can, legal and otherwise to destroy the public education system in this country.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Indoctrinate the kids in your hermetically sealed world view by associating not believing in it with the worst things they can imagine, being burned, being devoured by wolves, being locked away forever, etc and they'll shy away from anything that questions that world view for the rest of their life.

Thankfully, that approach has the complete opposite effect in some cases... Anecdotally, I went to a born-again christian grammar and middle school and all it did was help make me into the happily areligious person I am today. : )

TheBigJerk: Even more existentially terrifying?  "Human" is only transitional as well, and will ultimately give way to something greater.  Meaning we are something lesser.  Meaning OH GOD THE EMOTIONAL ANGUISH!

It's been argued that intelligent life stops evolving because we change the environment to suit us.  Natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz relies upon a species doing battle with a harmful environment and being predated upon. When these pressures cease there is no longer any reason for the species to further advance. Also, given our species tendency to shun and discard anything not *exactly* like us, even if a newer, better, mutated human came about the odds are very poor that they will have the opportunity to reproduce their mutations.

\neat argument huh?

impaler: Since it's a private school, I feel more pity than outrage.

We need more STEM, yet we get this shat.

Why do we need more STEM?  It's not like an American kid will get the job as long as there are poor kids from China and India willing to do the job for a fraction of the cost....

keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

Seriously! That's unbelievable, I literally can not believe that almost half of American kids can't read

No, no, NO!

God created the dinosaurs and our human-like ancestors in his first attempt at creation. (Yes, dinosaurs and human-ish creatures were here at the same time! Duh!) He didn't much like them because they were jerks and so he destroyed them. Then he took a break and then made all the animals we know and us.

Carbon dating and other stuff that science types do to tell us how old stuff is are INACCURATE!!!!111

Scientists are NOT GOD!!!!! Their smarts come from God, but they turn away from God and choose to use their brains for the world/man. (Sin!)

/know someone who believes this.

mikefinch: its crazy to think that a god would be constrained by human logic.

But logic is not a creation of humans, it's merely an astute observation OF realty.  God - if it exists, MUST NECESSARILY be constrained by logic.

The first law of logic is called the law of identity and states that a thing IS what it IS:  A=A.

If the biblical god is not necessarily the god defined in the bible, then what is it?  IF God isn't subject to A=A, then A could equal anything at all.   God could be ANYTHING - a small blue soapdish, or an insignificant mote of dust.

IF God is not constrained by logic, then God can simultaneously both exist and NOT exist; it would be exactly as accurate to say that God doesn't exist as to say that He does.

In fact, if God is not subject to A=A, then ANY - EVERY - STATEMENT made about God is equally true/accurate and false/misleading.

So yeah, as far as I can suss it out, God must necessarily be subject to logic.

TheBigJerk: Ed Grubermann: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

I'll let Ken Ham answer that for you.

And on a lower, more primal level if you accept that life evolves, that life changes, that human is NOT created as a beautiful replica of perfection and therefore the closest in the world to perfection, that Humanity (and more specifically the theist) is not the center of the universe; well that's just horrifying.  If we are truly alone in a vast, uncaring universe, we suddenly realize it's very, very cold.

Even more existentially terrifying?  "Human" is only transitional as well, and will ultimately give way to something greater.  Meaning we are something lesser.  Meaning OH GOD THE EMOTIONAL ANGUISH!

I dont see why god wouldnt be able to think it all out start to finish and then toss it into motion. Why would god care about science? They would effectively be rules he came up with.

Whats more existentially terrifying for me is that the vast uncaring universe exists at all. And to be honest i do have emotional anguish related to it. I get freaking depressed. Very very depressed. Mostly because i feel like my soul is caught doing a permanent impression of Edvard munches 'the scream' in reaction to just being here. Its not just terrifying and horrifying enough to be conscious and have to live and die and figure all that shiat out but people have to be horrible terrible sunsofbiatches while you try to do it... And then to comprehend your unintended propagation of that system that so disgusts you... Its just... farked up. Whether you believe in god or not life is farked up and existentially horrifying.

AGremlin: [www.disbeliefnet.com image 481x261]

Came for Dinosaur Jesus...had to bring him myself.

That raptor always looks so traumatized to me I can't help but wonder what Jesus is saying to him. "Shhh. Shhh. Yes, I'm going to murder you all with a giant fireball and you aren't eligible for heaven but some fat monkeys will enjoy bringing their whiny snot-nosed offspring to come and stare at your reassembled skeleton so it'll all work out in the end!"

Uchiha_Cycliste: keylock71: ThrobblefootSpectre: While I can't agree with the curriculum, few jobs in the US depend on solid understanding of evolution. Sadly these kids are probably better prepared for a job in science or engineering than the 80 percent the students in the public school system who can't read.

80% of kids in public school can't read?

Seriously! That's unbelievable, I literally can not believe that almost half of American kids can't read

...And what's worser, besides that 80%, the other 75% lack basic math skills. Literally... : )

grxymkjbn: So yeah, as far as I can suss it out, God must necessarily be subject to logic.

No...

grxymkjbn: But logic is not a creation of humans, it's merely an astute observation OF realty.

And god is not constrained by reality -- rather reality is constrained by god.

keylock71: Also, the 80% number isn't "80% can't read", but rather 80% of NYC public high school graduates taking entrance exams to Community Colleges lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a big problem with the lack of basic skills in reading and writing, but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

My apologies for not couching the 80 percent figure in as favorable terms as possible. Lol. One can only assume you are ten times more upset about the other dozens of posts with hyperbole about this private school.

mikefinch
I have very intention of continuing this with you in a few hours.
On the downside I only got an hour or two of sleep. On the upside, it's a nice morning and I think I'm going to gear up and ride to work soon. I'll jump back in when I get settled in at work.

I hope I never implied you were a bible thumper. I was raised Catholic myself and would consider myself to bee agnostic these days (or Catholic when my family asks =/) You are giving me new and different ways to approach my view of God, that's good.

One final question before I leave, it appears to me both from my posts and your replies that we have limited our discussion to OT God. At this point I think it would muddy the waters substantially to discuss NT God too. Is that your reading of things as well?

Whats more existentially terrifying for me is that the vast uncaring universe exists at all. And to be honest i do have emotional anguish related to it. I get freaking depressed. Very very depressed. Mostly because i feel like my soul is caught doing a permanent impression of Edvard munches 'the scream' in reaction to just being here. Its not just terrifying and horrifying enough to be conscious and have to live and die and figure all that shiat out but people have to be horrible terrible sunsofbiatches while you try to do it... And then to comprehend your unintended propagation of that system that so disgusts you... Its just... farked up. Whether you believe in god or not ...

Try Buddhism. Seriously. It can help make peace with that terror by embracing that terror - and letting it go.

Strolpol: /I mean really, do you WANT your deity to have the mentality of a psychotic child?

Sure. My ex-wife does. Why not my god?

mikefinch: Aaaaaaaand wtf happened to my post? Wheres the blue text? whatever. Fark ate your post and crapped all over my formatting. Time for bed is right.

that's what you get for bad mouthing our lord and savior!
=P

\j/k

thamike: [markblackspeaks.com image 400x400]

WERE YOU THERE!?  WERE YOU THERE!? WERE YOU THERE!?

[i75.photobucket.com image 295x349]

GET.  IN.  THE.  F*CKING.  CAR.

so.much.lol.cant.see.straight.

give me doughnuts: Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

I was not aware of that.

When did Christians lose their faith and feel the need to prove that what they believe in is literally true?

What are they trying to accomplish with this?

Uchiha_Cycliste: give me doughnuts: Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

I was not aware of that.

Neither is Wikipedia : "The word "Milwaukee" may come from Algonquin/Ojibwa language and on 1673 map by Marquette and Joliet was shown Mesquakinin (people of Mesquakie or ME-SEKI-wa-KI). Now they have casino in Iowa. A special quarry provided famous yellow bricks as well as a unique color of orange clay to protect natives from insects. Mesquakie means "bodies of color red and yellow" --an orange or red as noted by the French. "

I always thought it meant "Cheap beer."

ThrobblefootSpectre: keylock71: Also, the 80% number isn't "80% can't read", but rather 80% of NYC public high school graduates taking entrance exams to Community Colleges lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a big problem with the lack of basic skills in reading and writing, but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

My apologies for not couching the 80 percent figure in as favorable terms as possible. Lol. One can only assume you are ten times more upset about the other dozens of posts with hyperbole about this private school.

No, my friend... You stated "80% of students in the public school system cannot read." That statistic is wrong. I'm not sugar-coating anything. I'm just showing you that you were wrong. I'm not upset about anything, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of hyperbole and inaccurate talking points in this thread. However, I saw your incorrect statement and provided you with some information regarding it.

Apologies for doing so, as my intention was not to bruise your ego.

Venus: Fake. At least the teacher should know the bible-- on the 6th day God created man. Animals were on Day 5.

The fundamentalists are to the bible what tea party patriots are to the constitution. Tireless defenders of what they think (and want) the bible to say, not what it actually does say. I mean shiat... I probably have a superior working knowledge of the bible than this tool of a teacher (assuming he exists).

\and math, engineering, science, English, sociology, health, cycling, anime and science-fiction. =P

mikefinch: But he doesn't have accountability. To whom is he accountable?

To His creation, of course.  If you decide to procreate and have a red headed child - but you don't like red hair - is it ethically acceptable for you to toss it in the trash and try again?

If you create something that is self-aware, ethics demand that you take some responsibility for your choice to bring that being into existence.

To say otherwise is unethical.

Calipataa: Uchiha_Cycliste: give me doughnuts: Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

I was not aware of that.

Neither is Wikipedia : "The word "Milwaukee" may come from Algonquin/Ojibwa language and on 1673 map by Marquette and Joliet was shown Mesquakinin (people of Mesquakie or ME-SEKI-wa-KI). Now they have casino in Iowa. A special quarry provided famous yellow bricks as well as a unique color of orange clay to protect natives from insects. Mesquakie means "bodies of color red and yellow" --an orange or red as noted by the French. "

I always thought it meant "Cheap beer."

someone needs to watch Wayne's world again =(

randomjsa: "Were you there?"

In my ramblings about the internet I have actually heard this as a come back from an adult Atheist more than once. I've responded in a variety of ways but I think this is the best one...

'You're right, I wasn't there. You make a good argument. How about we both gather up all of the physical and biological evidence and present it in a court and see whose right?'

You will be amazed how many creationists will confidently tell you that their ideas would easily withstand a court test at least as well as if not better than evolution.

That's when you tell them that it was already done and the major witness of 'intelligent design' had to admit under oath that various forms of psychic reading were just as valid as ID under his definition of 'science'. To say that the creations lost when this went to court would be a vast understatement and that's putting aside the fact that the people who came up with ID backed out of defending it it court, leaving poor Behe by himself to be made a fool of.

RickTheVote: Fake - I know the original submitter to both reddit and its subsequent submission to Snopes.

Well, I guess that settles it. We're done here.

mikefinch: And god is not constrained by reality -- rather reality is constrained by god.

You don't realize it, but you just said "God doesn't exist."

keylock71: but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

We don't *do* that here. Where do you think you are, grad school?

Uchiha_Cycliste: Calipataa: Uchiha_Cycliste: give me doughnuts: Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

I was not aware of that.

Neither is Wikipedia : "The word "Milwaukee" may come from Algonquin/Ojibwa language and on 1673 map by Marquette and Joliet was shown Mesquakinin (people of Mesquakie or ME-SEKI-wa-KI). Now they have casino in Iowa. A special quarry provided famous yellow bricks as well as a unique color of orange clay to protect natives from insects. Mesquakie means "bodies of color red and yellow" --an orange or red as noted by the French. "

I always thought it meant "Cheap beer."

someone needs to watch Wayne's world again =(

grxymkjbn: mikefinch: And god is not constrained by reality -- rather reality is constrained by god.

You don't realize it, but you just said "God doesn't exist."

Victory is mine!  BUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Lsherm: impaler: We need more STEM, yet we get this shat.

Sorry, here's the article:   http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-ma r ket-analysis/

"Our examination of the IT labor market, guestworker flows, and the STEM education pipeline finds consistent and clear trends suggesting that the United States has more than a sufficient supply of workers available to work in STEM occupations... "

Bwhahaha!  They analyzed the IT labor market as an indicator for STEM fields?  Nothing about the aerospace, mechanical, electrical, industrial, civil, computer, chemical, nuclear, systems or any of the other actual engineering fields?

F. A. I. L.

/it was a long article, so I skimmed towards then end, but I didn't see any indication that they drew their conclusions from any other sample set than I highlighted

I killed John Denver, and I'm going to kill you. -God

mikefinch:

And god is not constrained by reality -- rather reality is constrained by god.

That's an interesting Dogma

keylock71: Also, the 80% number isn't "80% can't read", but rather 80% of NYC public high school graduates taking entrance exams to Community Colleges lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a big problem with the lack of basic skills in reading and writing, but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

This is ALSO wrong.

It was incoming freshman to City University of NY (community college) who graduated from a NYC public school who were not performing at college level not basic level.  IE, kids who were not proficient in calculus, technical or structured writing, or college level reading comprehension.

FURTHER, the 80% figure is bullshiat.  It was something along the lines of 34% of students need remedial math, 24% writing, and 22% reading (percentages similar, I forget the link to the article I read that broke it down completely).  34% + 24% + 22% = 80% right?  RIGHT?  No.  There is overlap, as struggling students tend to struggle in more than one subject. Reading/Writing in particular have a high degree of correlation.  The actual figure is probably closer to 40-50%.  This kind of twisted statistical logic would be like me conducting a survey where we had 50% male respondents, 70% white respondents, and 60% Christian.  That does not mean that 180% of my respondents were White Christian males.

Finally, these were kids who went to a community college in the city.  The best and brightest do not go to community colleges, they go to Columbia, or NYU, or Princeton, or a good school outside the city.

So an accurate headline would have been something like "40-50% of the lowest percentiles of college-bound NYC public school graduates had to take remedial coursework in math, writing, and/or reading upon entering a CUNY school".  But that headline won't grab your attention will it?

If God was here before reality and outside of reality, then God is necessarily "unreal"... ie nonexistent.

Words mean things.

Uchiha_Cycliste: Victory is mine!  BUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Still better than Nicolas Malebranche, who in the course of explaining the problem of evil argued God is subordinate to man.

CeroX: randomjsa: "Were you there?"

In my ramblings about the internet I have actually heard this as a come back from an adult Atheist more than once. I've responded in a variety of ways but I think this is the best one...

'You're right, I wasn't there. You make a good argument. How about we both gather up all of the physical and biological evidence and present it in a court and see whose right?'

You will be amazed how many creationists will confidently tell you that their ideas would easily withstand a court test at least as well as if not better than evolution.

That's when you tell them that it was already done and the major witness of 'intelligent design' had to admit under oath that various forms of psychic reading were just as valid as ID under his definition of 'science'. To say that the creations lost when this went to court would be a vast understatement and that's putting aside the fact that the people who came up with ID backed out of defending it it court, leaving poor Behe by himself to be made a fool of.

I believe it refers to this case: Kitzmiller vs. Dover

...and yeah, the Intelligent Deign folks got their asses handed to them including admitting on the stand that psychics and Astrology were "Science" under their definition.

They also proved they had just taken a previously rejected ID text book, changed all instances of "Creationism" to "intelligent design", repackaged it, and tried to get it used as a text in schools, as well.

Kriggerel: 227 comments in, and no Bevets? :P

He finally ascended into Heaven.

xria: Ed Grubermann: Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

There is a good argument that the 1500+ years between Rome contracting Christianity and say the Renaissance, the entire stalling of any significant technologicial, economic, political, and social progress was halted in and around Europe to avoid breaking all the inherent contradictions inside Christianity (especially as a state faith, as opposed to a grasping of straws from the poor, oppressed and needy that somehow after they die things will finally get better)

The Dark Ages weren't. Europe had plenty of progress in technology, economics, and social structures. It didn't all just spring into being one day in the 1400s.

Free Radical: When did Christians lose their faith and feel the need to prove that what they believe in is literally true?

What are they trying to accomplish with this?

I'd wager that given they started as an apocalyptic cult who's end of days never came and morphed into a power structure whose aim was to displace feudalism in a vain (yet nearly successful) attempt at absolute control and conformity that they never actually had faith and that they have been trying to prove their piety and demonstrate just how big their belief is since about 60 years after Jesus died (if he actually existed and was crucified)

"Existence" is a word that means the opposite of "nonexistence".  I'd be interested in seeing anyone define "existence" in a way that can include the biblical God, but exclude leprechauns, elves, Vulcans or any other imaginary entities.

that bosnian sniper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Victory is mine!  BUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Still better than Nicolas Malebranche, who in the course of explaining the problem of evil argued God is subordinate to man.

He sure put de cart before de horse.

\sigh, no one will get this lame joke.

ciberido: impaler: Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

And the stupidest. No one was there for 6000 years either.

Or Jesus.

I was there, but I've only done this once before.

And here folks, we have unidentified a time lord.

The Bible is inerrant truth!

How do you know?

Because God wrote it!

Were you there?

Tsu-na-mi: keylock71: Also, the 80% number isn't "80% can't read", but rather 80% of NYC public high school graduates taking entrance exams to Community Colleges lack basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a big problem with the lack of basic skills in reading and writing, but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

This is ALSO wrong.

It was incoming freshman to City University of NY (community college) who graduated from a NYC public school who were not performing at college level not basic level.  IE, kids who were not proficient in calculus, technical or structured writing, or college level reading comprehension.

FURTHER, the 80% figure is bullshiat.  It was something along the lines of 34% of students need remedial math, 24% writing, and 22% reading (percentages similar, I forget the link to the article I read that broke it down completely).  34% + 24% + 22% = 80% right?  RIGHT?  No.  There is overlap, as struggling students tend to struggle in more than one subject. Reading/Writing in particular have a high degree of correlation.  The actual figure is probably closer to 40-50%.  This kind of twisted statistical logic would be like me conducting a survey where we had 50% male respondents, 70% white respondents, and 60% Christian.  That does not mean that 180% of my respondents were White Christian males.

Finally, these were kids who went to a community college in the city.  The best and brightest do not go to community colleges, they go to Columbia, or NYU, or Princeton, or a good school outside the city.

So an accurate headline would have been something like "40-50% of the lowest percentiles of college-bound NYC public school graduates had to take remedial coursework in math, writing, and/or reading upon entering a CUNY school".  But that headline won't grab your attention will it?

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Falling victim to the talking points, myself, I guess.

Okay... one more carafe of coffee and then I'm out of here.

Religion is mental illness

And inflicting it on children is abuse

Uchiha_Cycliste: keylock71: but let's use these numbers accurately and and leave hyperbole out of it.

We don't *do* that here. Where do you think you are, grad school?

Ha... Yeah, I know.

Funnily enough, I'm Farking now in order to avoid working on my statement of purpose and selecting my portfolio pieces for my grad school application...

Uchiha_Cycliste: He sure put de cart before de horse.

Rene would probably get your joke.

jm105: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

I've never been so happy to see the Onion's logo.

/Seriously thought for a second there were anti-gravity lunatics.

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: He sure put de cart before de horse.

Rene would probably get your joke.

Ostman: jm105: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

I've never been so happy to see the Onion's logo.

/Seriously thought for a second there were anti-gravity lunatics.

there actually are =(

"Where you there?" is going to be new response for everything.

btw Mikefinch, it takes a lot less wakefulness and giveashiat to snark on and put off riding than it does to form a coherent and compelling counter-argument. Don't think I'm ignoring or forgetting you. I'll be considering how to do battle with you as I ride in (instead of contemplating work like usual)

GungFu: Dummy: God created the earth 6 thousand years ago.

Me: Were you there?

Same here.  two can play that game.

Really?  How do we know?  Were you there?

themightyboof: "Where you there?" is going to be new response for everything.

So its come to this...

themightyboof: "Where you there?" is going to be new response for everything.

I think if I were a parent, my response would be, "Yes, yes I was... See, here's something you don't know about your dear old dad, kid. I'm immortal. In fact, I'm over 6 million years old, and I can tell you from first hand experience, the earth is a lot older than I am. Make sure you tell your teacher that tomorrow..."

Probably a good idea I don't have any kids, actually. : )

NOOOOOOOOOO I refreshed and no new comments. Wat do? need mind occupyinng

kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair.

Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors, etc. Be scared.

On the whole they are not any more harmful or scary than these Voters, coworkers, neighbors, future leaders etc

college students hold pro-North Korea regime rallies in New York City

Charles Rangel Wins 22nd Term in Congress

gender neutral parenting-raising my boychick

The Nation Bemoans Plight of OWS Protester \$35K in Debt for Puppetry Degree

Apos: The "were you there?!" retort is undeniably the creepiest aspect of this indoctrination.

"You didn't build that!" is also an acceptable reply.

Uchiha_Cycliste: Ostman: jm105: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

I've never been so happy to see the Onion's logo.

/Seriously thought for a second there were anti-gravity lunatics.

there actually are =(

*puts hands over ears* LA LA LA Not listening! LA LA LA

Uchiha_Cycliste: need mind occupyinng

Take my challenge to define "existence" in any way that the word could include the biblical God but exclude Vulcans.  You don't have to believe your definition accurate; it's just a fun game for those who enjoy occupying their minds.

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: need mind occupyinng

Take my challenge to define "existence" in any way that the word could include the biblical God but exclude Vulcans.  You don't have to believe your definition accurate; it's just a fun game for those who enjoy occupying their minds.

Unfortunately I must admit that I am only familiar with the new (2009) Star Trek Movie. It's one of those things I've always meant to get around to, like the God father, but have never watched. I'm pitifully unprepared for this task =(

Uchiha_Cycliste: Unfortunately I must admit that I am only familiar with the new (2009) Star Trek Movie. It's one of those things I've always meant to get around to, like the God father, but have never watched. I'm pitifully unprepared for this task =(

No prob; feel free to substitute any known-to-be-fictional entity(s) you prefer.

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Unfortunately I must admit that I am only familiar with the new (2009) Star Trek Movie. It's one of those things I've always meant to get around to, like the God father, but have never watched. I'm pitifully unprepared for this task =(

No prob; feel free to substitute any known-to-be-fictional entity(s) you prefer.

Interesting game, I'll keep... in mind... when bored.
Whelp. finally time to ride. Talk to you guys in an hour or two.

Death Eats a Cracker: EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

Is that really true?

No. Buddah is spelled Buddha.

mikefinch: Ahh -- Likely real.

I remember i went to a 7th day adventist private school for junior high... (wanted out of the public system -- bullying sucks -- when i came back to it 3 years later the problems were gone...) And the SDA schools do push this stuff.

We had a pretty good science text book -- it delved into genetics and evolution and all the usual crap quite well so that wasnt a problem for me. The textbook had a title page for each chapter with a little blurb relating the subject matter to god but other than that it left god out of science. I think part of that is they picked nonbiased books because the kids had to do well on provincial exams for them to keep getting a subsidy.

They would give tests like this to kids in the 3-6 grades. Yup. I have seen it.

More rambling:

The teacher and the school staff and board were not so cool. Let me stress -- i am NOT SDA. My two best friends growing up however were and i spent tons of time in their church. I however was a waaaay to geeky kid (as i said -- bullies) and anything involving natural science made my pants tingle... I remember the SDA pastor being at the school one day and he was talking to the students about evolution and i asked him some pointed questions regarding their 6000 year earth theory. He came back with some crap about how the flood would have changed the air pressure so even the dinosaurs on the ark would have died because their lung capacity was too small or something. Like he pulled it straight out of his ass. I knew damn well he was full of shiat. I remember at the age of 14 being completely disgusted with a grown mans capacity for rational thought.

They really honest to god believe the sharp dinosaur teeth on things like T-Rex or Albertosaurus were made to cut through plant matter. I challenged them on that when i heard it and they insisted the serrated blade like teeth were for munching tough plant matter.

They told me not to drink milk because Adam and Eve would have just had water and juic ...

Wow...that is mortifying. I don't remember any of that BS being that I grew up SDA, but then again I may have been too young to notice or got out before the crazy really set in. I knew some of the crap at the church was just that, like the whole no bacon or any good seafood thing. I farking love bacon and shrimp...did when I was a kid and I still do. I am a practicing Pagan now, although I don't get to practice often enough. You should check up on the history of how the SDA church was formed...remember that guy a year or so ago that said the world would end on some off-the-wall day? Yea...that was basically how the SDA church started...

SoCalChris: I sound fat: Both theories are equally theories. Done. That was pretty simple.

I really hope you're trolling, but there's a HUGE difference between a scientific theory like evolution, and a "I have a theory that Jebus created everything in 6 days" theory.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-defini tio n-of-theory.html

You be surprised by the number of people who don't know the difference. Around these parts of NC, the people I run into have little or no understanding of basic scientific concepts in general, outside of a small pool of people. The small pool of people are often criticized for being too educated and a stain on society. It often makes me sad when I see that happens.

TeaCozy: No, no, NO!

God created the dinosaurs and our human-like ancestors in his first attempt at creation. (Yes, dinosaurs and human-ish creatures were here at the same time! Duh!) He didn't much like them because they were jerks and so he destroyed them. Then he took a break and then made all the animals we know and us.

Carbon dating and other stuff that science types do to tell us how old stuff is are INACCURATE!!!!111

Scientists are NOT GOD!!!!! Their smarts come from God, but they turn away from God and choose to use their brains for the world/man. (Sin!)

/know someone who believes this.

what's even better is when you show them where christian scientists use carbon dating on various biblical sites or artifacts to show that carbon dating matches the bible...

"In 2010, Noah's Ark Ministries International l (NAMI) released videos of their discovery of the wood structures.[18] Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old "

Professor Mike Finnegan and Jonathan Tubb started by working out whether Sodom and Gomorrah actually existed. They found 2 cities near the Dead Sea as potential sites, both devastated by earthquakes in which the beams of a tower which collapsed in the event were carbon dated. "Carbon dating put the date of the tower's beams at 2350 BC - the early Bronze Age. " which they use to corroborate their story.

Samples from the Siloam tunnel, which the books of Kings and Chronicles say was constructed in ancient Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah, have been dated using radiometric techniques by researchers from Israel and the UK. Amos Frumkin at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues at the Geological Survey of Israel and Reading University calculate that the tunnel was built in about 700 BC, and that the biblical text provides an accurate historical record of the tunnel's construction (A Frumkin et al. 2003 Nature 425 169).

kxs401: It is a private school, to be fair.

Then again, these kids are going to be our fellow citizens. Voters, coworkers, neighbors, etc. Be scared.

Yeah, don't private schools still have to maintain some sort of standards? Are there seriously no rules to prevent teaching absolute bullshiat?

"Religion.  Letting people think they have the answers when they really dont"  Bill Mahr - Religulous

NewportBarGuy: MBK: You know anyone can print out tests and claim they are "real deals".

It...is really damn easy.  A few bad clip art pieces, some questions, and OMG INSTANT INTERNET CELEBRITY

Because millions of Americans haven't been clamoring for us to "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY" for how many years now?

how is that proof though? You're still just assuming.

Calipataa: Try Buddhism. Seriously. It can help make peace with that terror by embracing that terror - and letting it go.

I did and it really does. I'm still a bit depressed reagrding some things but its more a thing of pity and sadness than despair. That and i had a really weird dream one night and when i awoke i just wasn't upset anymore. Like i had some sort of epiphany while sleeping.

Uchiha_Cycliste: I hope I never implied you were a bible thumper. I was raised Catholic myself and would consider myself to bee agnostic these days (or Catholic when my family asks =/) You are giving me new and different ways to approach my view of God, that's good.

mmm no worries -- i have a cold and i am aswell up far past my bedtime. You never implied i was a bible thumper -- I just didnt want to have to explain to anyone up in arms about religion that i wont defend some crazy literal interpretation of the bible.

Personally i consider myself a theist... but i had an argument with a nice SDA girl one day about whether you could call yourself a theist without honestly thinking of atheism as a viable alternative -- That is -- How could you believe in god if it was impossible for you to not believe in god? For it to be a belief it has to be an honest choice. She got pretty pissed when i suggested she had to accept that god might not exist for her to actually have faith that he did... Otherwise its indoctrinated. Its the only thing you know. How can you know if pb&j sandwiches are the best if you have never even considered putting another sandwich in your mouth and giving it an honest chance? -- Idk, i would describe my faith as a bit mystic. Buddhism is great but i wouldnt call myself a Buddhist. I like their way of looking at things though.

Uchiha_Cycliste: One final question before I leave, it appears to me both from my posts and your replies that we have limited our discussion to OT God. At this point I think it would muddy the waters substantially to discuss NT God too. Is that your reading of things as well?

Idk -- The new testament is weird. Jesus shows up and explains that everyone was taking the Torah way too litterally and they were following the law of god without following the spirit. They were loopholing god as it were. Most of what jesus says is almost heretical to allot of evangelical churches. Like when jesus said 'let he without sin cast the first stone' or when he said 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword' or 'its not what goes into the mouth that makes the body unclean but what comes out of it' or when his diciples were pissed at the annoying kids running around and jesus said 'suffer not the little children'

Pretty much everything he said and did pointed towards an attitude of 'Hey man -- dont be such a freaking dick'.  -- Honestly -- evangelicals love to cast the first stone, they love to claim the things you put in your body like certain meats or penises make you a dirty bad person. They love getting geared up to whup infedel asses. And they like to act like being a stuffy pious bum makes you more important to god than other people.

The way i had it explained to me was that god only gave us rules we would get. The 10 commandments can be summed up in 'treat others as you would like to be treated' but in the time of moses people would have interpreted that to be something allong the lines of 'an eye for an eye'. So god dumbed down the rules in the old testament and when jesus shows up in the new testament it signals a new covenant with god.

One of the biggest most blatant errors in the bible is in the NT. (the disciples say some stuff in the books after the gospels and acts that get weird.) I think its somewhere in Corinthians but the phase is something like 'doesn't nature teach us that baldness is a shame unto women and long hair is a shame unto men?' But the thing is that that idea is very culturally inspired. Clearly evidence of the bible having stuff in it that isnt true.

Lots of dudes have long hair. In japan it was a dishonor NOT to have your hair long as a guy. I know some native dudes that only cut their hair when a family member dies. So nature does not teach us that. So we have to admit that some of the bible is culturally inspired. And if we accept that part of it is culturally inspired than we can't treat any rules in it as hard and fast. Indeed i think a huge portion of jesus's message amounted to 'the rules are there to make your life better -- not keep people down'. The bible is a history book alright and its history is that bad shiat happens and its always going to happen so stop bad shiat when you can and try not to be a source of new shiat.

Jesus always spoke in parables and metaphors -- woudnt it make sense that the book of faith god sent to the isrialites was also full of parables and metaphores?

I dunno -- just figured i would expound and tap at my keyboard for a bit and them BAM birds are singing and its light out.

mikefinch: I dont see why god wouldnt be able to think it all out start to finish and then toss it into motion. Why would god care about science? They would effectively be rules he came up with.

Whats more existentially terrifying for me is that the vast uncaring universe exists at all. And to be honest i do have emotional anguish related to it. I get freaking depressed. Very very depressed. Mostly because i feel like my soul is caught doing a permanent impression of Edvard munches 'the scream' in reaction to just being here. Its not just terrifying and horrifying enough to be conscious and have to live and die and figure all that shiat out but people have to be horrible terrible sunsofbiatches while you try to do it... And then to comprehend your unintended propagation of that system that so disgusts you... Its just... farked up. Whether you believe in god or not ...

I used to feel much the same way. I was raised Catholic (spent 13 years in Catholic schools) and was, at various points in time, quite devout. Or at least I tried to be... Deep down, I could never reconcile the logical inconsistencies with Christian doctrine. While my faith (such as it was) appealed to my warm-and-fuzzy emotional side, it left my logical side with too many questions.

I suspect this is why many fundamentalist believers cling so strongly to their beliefs even after they're proven completely wrong - because once you start questioning one aspect of your faith, the whole house of cards comes down & you have to question the very nature of existence. It's scary as hell & life is hard enough to get through as it is.

FWIW, from both an emotional & logical point of view, it helped me a lot to read some Lao Tzu and James Allen (The Tao Te Ching and As a Man Thinketh, respectively). The general idea I grokked from both works is that the universe isn't good or evil - it's just neutral - and that we decide (based on our own free will) what to do with it & in it. Instead of feeling like a reactive pawn, we are proactive gods in our own right. The philosophy made a lot of sense to me; it also helped me get over the fear/guilt-based worldview that had been instilled in me since birth - often by well-intentioned people who were also trapped in a fear/guilt-based mindset.

Just a thought; YMMV.

Steak_Cake_Sause: impaler: iheartscotch: FAKE! I went to a catholic school; even there they fit evolution to genesis. It wasn't six calendar days, no, it was six metaphorical days that stretched back from the moment god created the earth, till he created man.

/ but, then again, that was right around the time that rocks were invented

I went to a Catholic school too. Baptists are no Catholics.

Seriously, if the US was Catholic, this BS wouldn't exist. If anything, the bible explicitly describes bio-genesis and evolution (man was formed from clay). But we aren't talking about churches that have had power through a massive hierarchy through centuries. We're talking about churches where the most literate out of a few hundred nearly illiterates was king. The shat they came up with 200 years ago is still haunting us today.

Yeah, we'd have a hole different mess of BS to deal with.

AIDS and contraception come to mind.

Are you sure?  Cuz Spain is Catholic, and it is pretty damn cool (debt notwithstanding).  And do you really think that a Jesuit-style Catholic leader would do worse with AIDS than Reagan?  Jesuits are scary smart and nearly always pragmatic (although they are staggeringly power hungry).

And if nuns ran the country there wouldn't be any damn rape.  Those penguins were awesome at mental castration.

/ 12 years Catholic schooling
// Taught evolution quite well by nuns
/// not a Catholic anymore

EvilPun: grimlock1972: Sadly its this kind of crap why we need federal oversight of education curriculum.

It's a private school so no, they could teach Hitler and Buddah had a gay sex orgy in Guam if they wanted to.

Pretty sure theres still standards for private schools, state and possibly federally mandated curriculum.

Wasnt there something a while back about colleges and universities not accepting degrees from high schools that didnt teach a comprehensive (factual) science curriculum?

Calipataa: Uchiha_Cycliste: give me doughnuts: Calipataa: Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

There must be. After all, it's Algonquin for "the good land."

I was not aware of that.

Neither is Wikipedia : "The word "Milwaukee" may come from Algonquin/Ojibwa language and on 1673 map by Marquette and Joliet was shown Mesquakinin (people of Mesquakie or ME-SEKI-wa-KI). Now they have casino in Iowa. A special quarry provided famous yellow bricks as well as a unique color of orange clay to protect natives from insects. Mesquakie means "bodies of color red and yellow" --an orange or red as noted by the French. "

I always thought it meant "Cheap beer."

mephox: GungFu: Dummy: God created the earth 6 thousand years ago.

Me: Were you there?

Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there. As with so many things in religion it's open to interpretation. Man is flawed, so sayeth the bible, so isn't it more likely that the 6000 years interpretation is also flawed? The date of the earth 'controversy' has an interesting history and any knowledge junkies would love to read it I'm sure.

You're thinking of James Ussher, who calculated "the time and date of the creation as the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC,"   to quote Wikipedia.  If you think pointing out that the Bible doesn't give an exact date and it might have been the 25 of October instead is winning the argument, have fun.  It's not going to shake the belief of someone that fundamentalist to hear that the Earth might be 6,007 years old instead of only 6,000.

Trust me, anyone who's a fundamentalist in adulthood in lhe USA (or any other Western nation) is likely armored against any argument you could think of.  I'm not saying that you couldn't ever hope to reason with a fundamentalist, but it's not going to be as easy as pointing out one little logical flaw in their worldview and watching the whole thing collapse like a house of cards.

iaazathot: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

It is a form of attention whoring, I think.

It's almost ironic, but highly intelligent people are even more likely to believe something irrational or unscientific, even (especially) when it contradicts everything else they believe.  There was a thread earlier this week about people who believe in conspiracy theories, and one of the things TFA pointed out was that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in a second conspiracy theory even if the two conspiracy theories contradict each other.

There's a phenomenon called the "clever silly," a highly intelligent person who believes something that is, well, just silly: that anyone of average, or even below average, intelligence would reject out of hand as obviously untrue.  The clever silly person convinces himself that it's true and comes up with arguments to defend his irrational belief.

If I may resort to homilies, "Man is not a rational animal.  Man is a rationalizing animal."  Very often we decide what we WANT to believe  and then we muster arguments to defend those beliefs.  Yes, it's putting the cart before the horse, and yes, it's the exact opposite of how science works, but it is, sadly, how most people think ---- or really, it's how ALL people think, at least some of the time, but perhaps some people more so than others.

If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any religious people.

I forget who said that.  Besides me, I mean.

This is why my wife and I had to make the unfortunate decision that in the fall when our oldest starts first grade, she'll be attending the local public school.  It is the best in the area, but still mediocre.  The only other options are private schools run by religious groups.  I know she would get a much better education in math, reading, etc., but it's not worth it to have her exposed to nonsense like this being presented as fact by the people she will see as the keepers of knowledge (her teachers).

StandsWithAFist: logical rant...

\csb:
I also came to this realization when I did a 2 week trip to the bush a couple years ago. 2 day survival class (which was just refresher course for me) and 9 days in the bush. Tools were limited to what you can carry, and you come to realize that nature (and thus the universe) just is. There were no messengers, no angels, no spirits, no divine guidance. It just is, and it is beautiful. Living in modern society doesn't let you see that perspective. You see everyday the influence of man on the world and think there is a purpose, some goal, and because of that, people look to the heavens for answers. But out there, with a handful of people or alone by yourself and you are hungry because you haven't eaten in 2 days, you are tired and exhausted because you've been walking up and down hills and through knee deep bush and bramble and it begins to sink in. God isn't going to send a beaver or a deer your way because you pray for it. You have to rely on yourself, your skills, and your training to get you to the next step, and when rather or not you live or die nature is there, and your presence makes no difference and THAT'S the moment you realize that you must make your own way and survival is up to you and you only. You live, you die, and and you will likely be forgotten by both man, and the universe.
\end CSB

Instead of teaching evolution or creationism, they should only teach Ancient Aliens.

Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: ciberido: I was there, but I've only done this once before.

If every vampire that says he was at the crucifixion was actually there it would have been as crowded as Woodstock.

I think you missed something.
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 317x159]

No, I just wanted to point out what a crowded place that hill would have been if either time travelers or vampires (whe are kinda iike time travelers who can only go forward) existed. In either case, if you were there you would need your own weapon

Incidentally, assuming the blood didn't kill them cuz holy and all that, how much would a vampire LOVE Jesus? Essentially immortal, self healing, he's the ubiquitous bottomless drink cup, but fresh blood.

Wouldn't Jesus' blood burn a vampire like holy water does?

Deep Contact: Instead of teaching evolution or creationism, they should only teach Ancient Aliens.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 605x412]

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

It's so cool, in fact, that no god is needed to accomplish such a feat. How cool is that?

Deathfrogg: savages in Southern Africa

Are you from the 1880s or something?

This is all crap.

Everyone who isn't in complete Religious Denial knows the last dinosaurs were killed off by the Mexicans toward the end of the Mexican and Indian Conflict of 1844. As the true historians among you know, the Mexicans sent sappers through the indian minefield one cold night in November 1844.

The sappers drug sacks of Maize Corpus de Christi which was maize grown using only holy water and the sacred dung shat by the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos. Directed by God and his adult-human infant-god son, Jesus, the Mexican sappers, once through the minefield, lobbed the holy corn grenades into the dinosaur encolsures. As most scholars know, pointed teeth do not a meat-eater make! Dinsoaurs were herbivores and the indian dinosaurs were partial to maize. The great beasts set upon the holy maize with great hunger and furious heathen appetites. Once they ingested the Maize Corpus de Christi, or "body of Christ's maize", the dinosaurs turned into what we know today as Felis catus*.

You people really do believe all of the secularist lies the socialist vanguard has been spoon-spoon feeding you since Abraham Lincoln freed the catamites upon the world, don't you?

Well, you'll all rue the day! When the pig-iron, glowing red from the stok'd hellfire, is slap't unto thy dirty fissure: YOU'LL RUE THE DAY. You will. Just wait and see.

*This is how, in tales of fantasy and woe, the common house cat became to be associated with succubus witches and evil, rapscallion warlocks.

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

just ask him why whales have leg and foot bones in thier tails that never emerge, and if, since he knows that evolution is a lie, if he'd be willing to help everybody out by taking last year's flu shot instead of the new one

Feral_and_Preposterous: This is all crap.

Everyone who isn't in complete Religious Denial knows the last dinosaurs were killed off by the Mexicans toward the end of the Mexican and Indian Conflict of 1844. As the true historians among you know, the Mexicans sent sappers through the indian minefield one cold night in November 1844.

The sappers drug sacks of Maize Corpus de Christi which was maize grown using only holy water and the sacred dung shat by the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos. Directed by God and his adult-human infant-god son, Jesus, the Mexican sappers, once through the minefield, lobbed the holy corn grenades into the dinosaur encolsures. As most scholars know, pointed teeth do not a meat-eater make! Dinsoaurs were herbivores and the indian dinosaurs were partial to maize. The great beasts set upon the holy maize with great hunger and furious heathen appetites. Once they ingested the Maize Corpus de Christi, or "body of Christ's maize", the dinosaurs turned into what we know today as Felis catus*.

You people really do believe all of the secularist lies the socialist vanguard has been spoon-spoon feeding you since Abraham Lincoln freed the catamites upon the world, don't you?

Well, you'll all rue the day! When the pig-iron, glowing red from the stok'd hellfire, is slap't unto thy dirty fissure: YOU'LL RUE THE DAY. You will. Just wait and see.

[farm6.staticflickr.com image 700x406]

*This is how, in tales of fantasy and woe, the common house cat became to be associated with succubus witches and evil, rapscallion warlocks.

Sorry, that should have been, "Maize de Corpus Christi", I think. I'm a scholar of history, not latin.

Spiralmonkey: That is too scary to be snarky about.

Hold me and we'll get through this together.

Shadow Blasko: I've got a family member like that. He's super smart, computer programmer... he's forgotten more about old hardware than I will ever know. He's a super nice guy, but yeah... young earth creationist. I can't figure it out.

/really thinks fossils were put on earth to test our faith.

I worked with someone like that at my last job. He was a fellow software developer close to my age at the time - about 30.  I wouldn't go so far as to call him brilliant, but he definitely seemed to be a very sharp guy.  We wend on a business trip together for a week one time.  After a night out at the bars in central america, we got to talking about religion for some very regrettable reason and I found out that he is a fundamentalist christian and believes in a literal interpretation of everything in the bible, including that the earth was created in 7 days just a few thousand years ago.

I was absolutely broadsided.  I used to frequent Eastern Kentucky and I met all kinds of strange flavors of religious nuttiness there, but he was the first seemingly normal, intelligent person I'd ever met who believed this type of stuff.  We talked about it a few times after that and I was always respectful about his beliefs and tried really hard to understand his point of view.  It got more and more awkward for me to be around him, even once we simply agreed to disagree and entirely stopped discussing anything remotely related to religion.  We both left that company 6-7 years ago, but to this day I ignore requests from him on social networks because it is so terribly difficult for me to mentally deal with the juxtaposition of his technical intelligence & religious ridiculousness.  Just writing about this brings back that weird, slightly creepy feeling I used to get being around him.

This sounds like homeschool curriculum.  Support the GOP's education initiatives and protect a parents right to permanently fark up their own children.   Social Darwinism indeed!

The Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II.

Were you there?

/facepalm
///slashies

grxymkjbn: mikefinch: But he doesn't have accountability. To whom is he accountable?

To His creation, of course.  If you decide to procreate and have a red headed child - but you don't like red hair - is it ethically acceptable for you to toss it in the trash and try again?

If you create something that is self-aware, ethics demand that you take some responsibility for your choice to bring that being into existence.

To say otherwise is unethical.

Goddamnit -- god doesn't have to be ethical. Everything he does is ethical by the pure virtue that HE did it. Thats the whole thing about god. What ethics? Ethics are a human thing -- what leads you to believe god is bound by the same honor system? And couldnt 'responsibility' be just killing it with a hammer and starting over? I'mean -- you dont have to like it. Its his toy. He can do what he wants with it.

God being forced to be accountable sound to me like telling someone they are cheating at a game with no rules.

grxymkjbn: If God was here before reality and outside of reality, then God is necessarily "unreal"... ie nonexistent.

Words mean things.

Just because something is outside reality doesn not imply it doesnt exist. Think of reality as a box you live in. God lives in that box. He also lives outside the box. All you can see are the dark walls of a room -- but to god thats you in a box.  You really cant get how god would have to be above all mortal concepts for him to really be god?

grxymkjbn: "Existence" is a word that means the opposite of "nonexistence".  I'd be interested in seeing anyone define "existence" in a way that can include the biblical God, but exclude leprechauns, elves, Vulcans or any other imaginary entities.

grxymkjbn: If God was here before reality and outside of reality, then God is necessarily "unreal"... ie nonexistent.

Words mean things.

Ahh -- i see -- you equate unreal and nonexistient as being the same thing. They may be under the same column in the thesaurus but they are not the same thing. Words mean things but god isn't disproved because you picked shiatty words to describe him.

The whole idea behind a god is a creature that lives above and beyond reality. Wouldn't a god be able to occupy the space inside reality and without? Both at the same time? Imean he his omnipresent right?

Just seems like your trying to "get" god on a technicality you invented. There are no GOTCHA moments with an all knowing all powerful all present being.

DeathCipris: Wow...that is mortifying. I don't remember any of that BS being that I grew up SDA, but then again I may have been too young to notice or got out before the crazy really set in. I knew some of the crap at the church was just that, like the whole no bacon or any good seafood thing. I farking love bacon and shrimp...did when I was a kid and I still do. I am a practicing Pagan now, although I don't get to practice often enough. You should check up on the history of how the SDA church was formed...remember that guy a year or so ago that said the world would end on some off-the-wall day? Yea...that was basically how the SDA church started...

The millerites.. Omg when i heard about that whole affair my jaw dropped. Its like they fell for a Nigerian prince scam and kept on running. I should say though that most of them had very good intentions. They were very kind people... Their education system was just to keep kids cloistered though.
Sooo cloistered. I convinced a college sophmore that penises had two holes. One for urine in the front and the one for semen was halfway down on the underside. Like a dolphins blow hole.

A 20 year old girl bought that. She was in university. When your religion starts interfering with adults understanding of basic anatomy something is going wrong...

Go pagan! My wife told me that after our first date she liked me so much she went out and cast a love spell in the woods near her house. Then she ended up worrying that i was only smitten because she had actually gotten it to work or something. Be careful what you wish for lol.

If your into the pagan thing you might want to look into Thoth tarot cards. If nothing else they are beautiful beautiful cards.

Magorn: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

just ask him why whales have leg and foot bones in thier tails that never emerge, and if, since he knows that evolution is a lie, if he'd be willing to help everybody out by taking last year's flu shot instead of the new one

Those are "tail bones". They give the whale-tail strength for smiting and swimming. Because your tiny mind can't comprenend how two similar things can be used for completely different purposes let me offer the following example using an ordinary item, the spoon.

John goes to Bed Bath and Beyond and buys a decorative spoon. It is stainless steel and is designed to look like bamboo. He takes it home and eats a simple, one-color, sherbet with it.

Raul goes to Bed Bath and Beyond and buys a decorative spoon. It is stainless steel and is designed to look like bamboo. He takes it home and murders his life-partner, Phillip, by shoving the handle of that spoon through Phillip's ear-drum and deep into his amygdala. Then Raul takes the spoon, digs out Phillips eyes, and fills the sockets with rainbow sherbet. He then sits in front of his new 80" Samsung flat-screen TV and watches Big Bang Theory. Raj is trés cute! Oh, how Raj makes Raul laugh!

Now both of those spoons were made by the same guy in the same factory in China. They have the same bamboo pattern and same chemical composition. But they have led very different lives. Now you're going to tell me they weren't made by the same guy?

Uchiha_Cycliste: Ranger Rover: Sure, I would agree with that - I meant for that summation to be encompassed by my assertion that religious assertions are based on "incontrovertible truth" - which requires faith.

Yeah, I just wanted to elaborate that faith *requires* there be no evidence, which makes scientists sort or cross (heh) and as science requires proof its fallacious for religious dillweeds to try to claim that science is a religion since the two couldn't be more mutually exclusive.

No, it doesn't.  Faith is indifferent to evidence.  There can be lots of evidence, noevidence  evidence against, it doesn't matter.  Faith doesn't require anything but faith.  Unless, maybe, your evidence is  a Babel fish.

PC LOAD LETTER: Deathfrogg: savages in Southern Africa

Are you from the 1880s or something?

Do you deny that raping infants would indicate otherwise? How about burning down schools and butchering the students? There are savages in the United States, there are savages in Germany, France, Italy and China. There are people in the United States that openly all for the extermination of Jews, Black folks, Native Americans, Mexicans (meaning anyone from south of the border), there are people that cannot or will not obey even the most basic laws of civilization. They wrap it up all nice and tidy in their belief that they are the ones being threatened and must defend themselves, even though all they are really doing, is rationalizing their own psychotic behavior.

Anyone that rationalizes psychotic behavior, whether it is through religion or some other belief system is a savage.

Uchiha_Cycliste: themightyboof: "Where you there?" is going to be new response for everything.

So its come to this...

There is a xkcd for any situation.

Uchiha_Cycliste: NOOOOOOOOOO I refreshed and no new comments. Wat do? need mind occupyinng

Shhhhh.... everybody keep hiding from UC.  We can post after he leaves.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion. God could very well have created creatures that are able to evolve to better suit their needs as time passes and things change. If anything that would seem to add to the glory of God; I mean, not only is He able to create life, but He creates life that continues to function and adapt independently of further supernatural meddling. How cool is that, right?

It's so cool, in fact, that no god is needed to accomplish such a feat. How cool is that?

That's somehow less cool. It would all be so PoMo.

Dear America,

I know that radical belief in the Christian Bible doesn't reflect your entire country's way of thinking. However, it is worryingly present in a number of areas. Think about how your citizens feel about Middle Eastern countries teaching their children a literal interpretation of the Koran for science class and you'll understand how the rest of the Western world feels about you teaching your children a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible for science class. It scares us, because you have the most nukes.

Sincerely,

The internet

/personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.
//people still confuse specific scientific findings with the scientific method
///shame

mike_d85: As someone who lived "north of Greer" I can tell you there is no private schools north of Greer. And it's pretty much Greer, then nothing, then nothing that belongs to North Carolina.

There's Landrum, although I can understand why you would overlook it.

DeathCipris: mikefinch: Ahh -- Likely real.

I remember i went to a 7th day adventist private school for junior high... (wanted out of the public system -- bullying sucks -- when i came back to it 3 years later the problems were gone...) And the SDA schools do push this stuff.

We had a pretty good science text book -- it delved into genetics and evolution and all the usual crap quite well so that wasnt a problem for me. The textbook had a title page for each chapter with a little blurb relating the subject matter to god but other than that it left god out of science. I think part of that is they picked nonbiased books because the kids had to do well on provincial exams for them to keep getting a subsidy.

They would give tests like this to kids in the 3-6 grades. Yup. I have seen it.

More rambling:

The teacher and the school staff and board were not so cool. Let me stress -- i am NOT SDA. My two best friends growing up however were and i spent tons of time in their church. I however was a waaaay to geeky kid (as i said -- bullies) and anything involving natural science made my pants tingle... I remember the SDA pastor being at the school one day and he was talking to the students about evolution and i asked him some pointed questions regarding their 6000 year earth theory. He came back with some crap about how the flood would have changed the air pressure so even the dinosaurs on the ark would have died because their lung capacity was too small or something. Like he pulled it straight out of his ass. I knew damn well he was full of shiat. I remember at the age of 14 being completely disgusted with a grown mans capacity for rational thought.

They really honest to god believe the sharp dinosaur teeth on things like T-Rex or Albertosaurus were made to cut through plant matter. I challenged them on that when i heard it and they insisted the serrated blade like teeth were for munching tough plant matter.

They told me not to drink milk because Adam and Eve would have just had wat ...

I grew up SDA before I was able to leave once I turned 18.  Every single thing he said about this church is true.  Every. single. thing.

They even gave us comic books as "teen" lesson plans which talked about how there were two different anti-christs that would rise up against saturday-worshippers.  The first was america and the second was catholicism.  You cannot make this stuff up.

The religion was started by a lady who was hit in the face by a rock at age 13.  Ellen G. White.  They always talk about not listening to "false" prophets but make an exception for her.

Feral_and_Preposterous: *This is how, in tales of fantasy and woe, the common house cat became to be associated with succubus witches and evil, rapscallion warlocks.

"Rapscallion Warlocks" would be a great name for a band.

Oh, one more thing. This is still the most straightforward and powerful argument for evolution that I've ever come across:

/most criticisms of evolution forget about the natural selection part

Magorn: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

just ask him why whales have leg and foot bones in thier tails that never emerge, and if, since he knows that evolution is a lie, if he'd be willing to help everybody out by taking last year's flu shot instead of the new one

Those are left over from when the whale ate Jonah, of course.

CrazyCracka420: [s22.postimg.org image 280x384]

[s21.postimg.org image 600x485]

Poe's Law, how you mock me.

I just want to say that Lene Hau is my god. She can slow light down to about 13 mph, stop it, turn it into matter, then turn that matter back into light. The best your god did was turn water into wine.

Global Thermonuclear Derp

violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

Because this whole "christian" movement in the US has become a gigantic cheer-leading contest instead of an act of faith.

"Look at how hardcore Christian I am! I wear only Christian T-Shirts, only listen to Christian music, worship with guns, hate the gays, hate taxes, and disbelieve evolution!"

If Jesus came back to earth today he'd biatchslap a bunch of these nutty evangelicals.

There is absolutely no reason why you can't believe in God and also acknowledge the scientific basis of evolution. NONE!

Evolution does not answer biogenesis or the existential question as to why the universe exists in the first place, that's a question for the religions and philosophers.

This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

johnnyq: mike_d85: As someone who lived "north of Greer" I can tell you there is no private schools north of Greer. And it's pretty much Greer, then nothing, then nothing that belongs to North Carolina.

There's Landrum, although I can understand why you would overlook it.

Overlook Landru?

Are you not of the Body?

a_real_human_being: /personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.

I think you've got it backwards.

ciberido: Uchiha_Cycliste: Ranger Rover: Sure, I would agree with that - I meant for that summation to be encompassed by my assertion that religious assertions are based on "incontrovertible truth" - which requires faith.

Yeah, I just wanted to elaborate that faith *requires* there be no evidence, which makes scientists sort or cross (heh) and as science requires proof its fallacious for religious dillweeds to try to claim that science is a religion since the two couldn't be more mutually exclusive.

No, it doesn't.  Faith is indifferent to evidence.  There can be lots of evidence, noevidence  evidence against, it doesn't matter.  Faith doesn't require anything but faith.  Unless, maybe, your evidence is  a Babel fish.

I don't know that I agree with you. At least with respect to religion, the whole shindig seems to be premised on the idea of having faith despite having no evidence. It's what makes the faith so valuable and elusive. I mean if God were to come down here and give me a wedgie in order to make his presence known I'd have to be an idiot (or a masochist) to not hop on board the Jesus train. I feel like knowing because of the presence of proof, and wondering because of it's absence are opposite sides of the same coin.  To me, Jesus seemed pretty clear about this when he chastised Thomas and said, "shiat bro, you know it's me! what? Do you really need to stick your fingers through the holes in my hands? What the hell? We've been over this over and over and over. Have a little faith in me. And when your secret heart Cannot speak so easily Come in darlin' from a whisper start To have a little faith in me"
I think your interpretation is applicable to virtually everything else but religion because religiously faith itself is actually sentient. Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. I think somehow faith and the holy spirit are tight with each other. Faith in this case doesn't exist in a vacuum (except for religious astronauts doing spacewalks) and faith knows and cares whether or not you actually believe or just say you do.

Furthermore, and elaborating on faith not existing in a vacuum, if you actually have faith and actually understand and have internalized Jesus' message your actions will reflect that. You can't actually have faith, proclaim that you believe Jesus was the son of God and savior of mankind and still be a dick to people. If you believe you will be drawn towards loving and helping your fellow man and the least of your brothers. Likewise, abstaining from these behaviors would indicate you lack faith and your words are as empty as your heart. Simply put, you are playing Pascal's wager (poorly) and simply saying you have faith because you are scared of Hell.

What does everyone else think with regards to faith and evidence and religion?

CrazyCracka420: [s22.postimg.org image 280x384]

\subtle?

ciberido: Uchiha_Cycliste: NOOOOOOOOOO I refreshed and no new comments. Wat do? need mind occupyinng

Shhhhh.... everybody keep hiding from UC.  We can post after he leaves.

*sniffle* you bastards! I knew it!

Ranger Rover: The biggest difference, though, is that science is dynamic and tends to reverse itself in the face of irrefutable proof, whereas religious beliefs are static - based on incontrovertible truths - and don't. What would you say to that?

-=-
I would say "Follow the money".

In both situations there are cases (no, not going to cite them) where truth and logic get tossed for the sake of money, and with it comes "control" in some form or fashion.

We know what is causing cancer, but it would cause economic hardships on the profiteers of such items that they throw money (a monkey wrench) into the machine to have a preferred outcome of continuation, rather than the logical one of regulation or cancellation.

We know religion has it's great points such as caring for the elderly, helping those who can't help themselves, etc. (what I would call "purpose"), but there are those who will twist it to benefit them over the purpose. They have to drive fine cars, eat very well, have gold plated faucets in the bathroom, travel first class and stay at the best hotels, all the while causing hate, division and fear among and from the believers, sucking money from them and using it to fund their aberrant behavior.

People, usually the ones making the money, are the cause of the rest of us having to ingest the cancerous "bad" we know is there and try to avoid. (It's not the gun the shoots a person, but the one pulling the trigger.)

Science is your friend. Doing good, in the name of religion (if you must), is also your friend.
But YOU MUST be aware of those who will cause them to be your enemy.

errr....
(It's not the gun that shoots a person, but the one pulling the trigger.)

ah the South. back in the 80's when I was in high school, the snap response was "PROVE IT!". Also, "Dinosaurs were made up by scientists to fool people."  I guess these days they accept that dinosaurs actually existed, but were wiped out by the flood.

Funny how the dressing changes over time but the underpinnings stay the same. The Southern fundies used to be vocally anti-semitic back in the day, but now it's all rah rah Israel. The sentiment only goes so far (since they really want war in the Middle East to bring on the Rapture).

give me doughnuts: a_real_human_being: /personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.

I think you've got it backwards.

Indeed, it's surely a reciprocal relationship, with both sides contributing to the rise of the other.

/worth clarifying
//thx

a_real_human_being: give me doughnuts: a_real_human_being: /personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.

I think you've got it backwards.

[img13.imageshack.us image 320x301]

Indeed, it's surely a reciprocal relationship, with both sides contributing to the rise of the other.

/worth clarifying
//thx

radical atheism? What, like not giving a fark as hard as you can?

CeroX: StandsWithAFist: logical rant...

\csb:
I also came to this realization when I did a 2 week trip to the bush a couple years ago. 2 day survival class (which was just refresher course for me) and 9 days in the bush. Tools were limited to what you can carry, and you come to realize that nature (and thus the universe) just is. There were no messengers, no angels, no spirits, no divine guidance. It just is, and it is beautiful. Living in modern society doesn't let you see that perspective. You see everyday the influence of man on the world and think there is a purpose, some goal, and because of that, people look to the heavens for answers. But out there, with a handful of people or alone by yourself and you are hungry because you haven't eaten in 2 days, you are tired and exhausted because you've been walking up and down hills and through knee deep bush and bramble and it begins to sink in. God isn't going to send a beaver or a deer your way because you pray for it. You have to rely on yourself, your skills, and your training to get you to the next step, and when rather or not you live or die nature is there, and your presence makes no difference and THAT'S the moment you realize that you must make your own way and survival is up to you and you only. You live, you die, and and you will likely be forgotten by both man, and the universe.
\end CSB

That was beautifully said.

/agree totally
//wouldn't survive 4 hours in the bush

mikefinch: The whole idea behind a god is a creature that lives above and beyond reality.

1) You seem to have missed that I am limiting my discussion to the biblical god.  The biblical god is not a 'creature' because a 'creature' is something that was created.

2) Unless you can provide objective evidence that anything exists 'outside of reality', then the only rational course is to disregard that phrase as meaningless word salad.

3)  If the biblical god is not subject to the law A=A, then every statement made about that god is equally and simultaneously true AND false.

4)  I also noticed that you seem to have no interest in attempting to provide us with an operational definition of "existence" which could include the biblical god but exclude any other fictional entity.  (shrug)  Not surprising.

Uchiha_Cycliste: What does everyone else think with regards to faith and evidence and religion?

Webster's dictionary defines faith, in part, as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". And this makes sense, as such a strong position would be required for the concept of faith to differentiate itself from related concepts (e.g., hope).

I think the problem comes into view with the more colloquial uses of the word. For instance, people may cling to individual pieces of supportive evidence, while ignoring others that dispute it ("confirmation bias" in psychology) and then claim that they have "faith" that their position will be verified one day. Technically, once you make use of evidence to support your belief, it no longer qualifies as faith, you are now engaged in the scientific method. Indeed, the process of having faith is the opposite of the scientific method.

mikefinch: Just because something is outside reality doesn not imply it doesnt exist.

Finally - yes, it most certainly does.  Words mean things.  Perhaps your error lies in not grasping this simple fact.

Uchiha_Cycliste: What does everyone else think with regards to faith and evidence and religion?

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

11Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

According to the bible, faith IS evidence.

PunGent: Just started watching Treme.  Interesting series, but kinda rough...how accurate is it?

It's extremely accurate. They even get the accents right, where every other film/tv portrays us as having a thick Southern drawl. In fact, the series is so rife with little details that only a local would catch, the series can be slow-moving for everyone else.

I remember when Saturn had 5 rings.  It was on the test.

Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: give me doughnuts: a_real_human_being: /personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.

I think you've got it backwards.

[img13.imageshack.us image 320x301]

Indeed, it's surely a reciprocal relationship, with both sides contributing to the rise of the other.

/worth clarifying
//thx

radical atheism? What, like not giving a fark as hard as you can?

I think there's often confusion around what it means to be an "atheist", at least colloquially. For instance, someone who is a devout Christian might claim that I'm an "atheist" because, when it comes to all man-made, religious explanations of the origins of the Universe, I believe they are all false. However, technically, that's not an "atheist". As Webster's suggests, an atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

As I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, I reject man-made tales of religious origins because there is no evidence for them (there is as much evidence for Christianity as there is for Scientology as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster). But disbelieving in the story of Scientology, for instance, doesn't make someone an atheist. Again, due to the scientific method, I cannot categorically state that there is NO "diety", because: (a) that's an INSANELY vague statement. (b) there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

Accordingly, in my opinion, those who are entrenched in the scientific method have only one scientifically reasonable position: Agnosticism. Of course, by taking this position, one is perfectly able to refute and disbelieve all man-made religious explanations for the origin of the universe. So that's the separation that I was making between "atheism" (relative atheism, actually agnostic) and "radical atheism" (absolute atheism)

Ed Grubermann: Gordon Bennett:  so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

Chrsitians have no farking idea how their theology works due to it being a religion by committee. A camel of a faith, you might say. Things were so bad that the Catholic Church invented Limbo for all those unbaptized babies to keep the distraught mothers from telling the Pope to go fark himself. They've tried bolting on other exceptions, such as the Noble Savage idea that people who never heard The Word could not be condemned as they had not refused salvation.

The thing is, until recently, you didn't question the leaders of your church under pain of excommunication or death. Now that religions have been castrated and muzzled in the west, people can question their church leaders and the accumulated cruft of thousands of years of "because I said so!!!!" is breaking the camel's poor back.

that right there is a bunch of intellectual dishonesty being spewed all over.

I can refute your entire argument by a single fact. Christians in islamic or other countries where Christianity is highly oppressed.

Farkers tend to view Christianity from the very myopic aspect of the average Christian living in present day America and formed negative opinions strictly based on that.

If only they are even semi aware or cognizant of what Christians in other countries and especially those in highly oppressive states go through on a daily basis they opinion of Christianity and Christians will surely change.

miss diminutive: CeroX: StandsWithAFist: logical rant...

\csb:
I also came to this realization when I did a 2 week trip to the bush a couple years ago. 2 day survival class (which was just refresher course for me) and 9 days in the bush. Tools were limited to what you can carry, and you come to realize that nature (and thus the universe) just is. There were no messengers, no angels, no spirits, no divine guidance. It just is, and it is beautiful. Living in modern society doesn't let you see that perspective. You see everyday the influence of man on the world and think there is a purpose, some goal, and because of that, people look to the heavens for answers. But out there, with a handful of people or alone by yourself and you are hungry because you haven't eaten in 2 days, you are tired and exhausted because you've been walking up and down hills and through knee deep bush and bramble and it begins to sink in. God isn't going to send a beaver or a deer your way because you pray for it. You have to rely on yourself, your skills, and your training to get you to the next step, and when rather or not you live or die nature is there, and your presence makes no difference and THAT'S the moment you realize that you must make your own way and survival is up to you and you only. You live, you die, and and you will likely be forgotten by both man, and the universe.
\end CSB

That was beautifully said.

/agree totally
//wouldn't survive 4 hours in the bush

Yeah, that's a great way of putting it. I had a similar experience reading "Shake Hands with the Devil", although it was a vicarious experience - through the stories of the victims of the massacre. For instance, dozens of Tutsi families congregating in a church, hoping to survive the onslaught. Hutu rebels become aware of this, go to the church, and cut off the genitals of the children while their parents watch, minutes before slitting all their throats. And, of course, the whole world watched this unfold, relatively indifferent to it all, only to forget the whole thing after the next episode of their favourite TV show.

ciberido: Unless, maybe, your evidence is a Babel fish.

Wasn't it actually Douglas Adams who defined (or re-iterated) faith as "belief in the absence of proof?" Always liked that one.

shortymac: There is absolutely no reason why you can't believe in God and also acknowledge the scientific basis of evolution. NONE!

You try telling a fundie, "hey, what if natural selection and evolution are the means through which God acts on Earth to enact His will?". The look you get in response is somewhere between "you raped my cat", "you drank my last beer while nuking Israel", and "did you just speak Old Church Slavonic?".

a_real_human_being: Yeah, that's a great way of putting it. I had a similar experience reading "Shake Hands with the Devil", although it was a vicarious experience - through the stories of the victims of the massacre. For instance, dozens of Tutsi families congregating in a church, hoping to survive the onslaught. Hutu rebels become aware of this, go to the church, and cut off the genitals of the children while their parents watch, minutes before slitting all their throats. And, of course, the whole world watched this unfold, relatively indifferent to it all, only to forget the whole thing after the next episode of their favourite TV show.

Simply put, we humans are capable of great and terrible things, some of which are both, neither of which could happen without us...

Gordon Bennett: Awright farkers, please forgive me for mistakes in this post but i'm getting a migraine and am half-blind from the aura at the moment. but this has seriously bugged me for a long time and i've never received a good answer.

so let's take the evangelical christian view as given, at least the core of it and forgive my jewish arse for getting a detail wrong -

1 - god is loving, caring and benevolent, if perhaps a wee bit tempermantal or murderous at times.
2 - god created the universe and mankind about 6000 years ago
3 - shortly afterwards, adam and eve ate the apple and thus doomed all mankind to sin, and thus to eternal suffering in the afterlife unless they were saved.
4 - said salvation was given by his son, jesus, through his sacrifice about 2000 years ago. only through faith in jesus can sin be forgiven and humans can escape hell and enter heaven.

the problem i have is that there is a pretty big gap between creation, or even the fall - even start with god rebooting the earth with the flood, and the appearance of jesus. in that time, there was no means of salvation. so that means that everyone must have been condemned to hell.

everyone! that means everyone in the old testament, including the prophets. Abraham must be suffering in hell, as must noah, isaac, even moses was able to, thanks to god, lead the hebrews out of slavery and to the promised land, but still with no jesus not a one of them could escape the fires of hell.

plus don't forget the others around. socrates, plato, aristotle, lao-tzu, confucious, all the great thinkers, the poets, the engineers and mathematicians who built civilisation, who looked up in wonder at the universe, who built the great library at alexandria, all roasting in hell because they had the misfortune to die before jesus.

and that's just the locals. what about, say, the ones living in the americas? they had no way of learning about jesus and the one and only chance at salvation until after columbus. and what about the ones in o ...

It depends on the exact sect of Christianity, there's some that believe as long as you're a good person you get into heaven or a very brief stint in purgatory. Mormons believe that post-mortom baptisum works.

Everyone who died before Jesus (except for certain Jewish prophets like Moses) or people who never heard the "word of god" souls are "sleeping" in a limbo-like place. Upon Judgement Day the dead souls will rise and everyone will be judged in accordance to their deeds.

Even more traditional medieval thinking is that everyone's soul is "sleeping" in that limbo-like place and will only be awakened on Judgement Day.

lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

a_real_human_being: As Webster's suggests, an atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

Yeah, but I prefer the OED definition instead: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods...

Again, due to the scientific method, I cannot categorically state that there is NO "diety", because: (a) that's an INSANELY vague statement. (b) there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

It's not about stating categorically what the absolute reality of the situation is, but merely about stating your belief about what the situation is... I think most of us atheists are indeed agnostic as well... We don't claim absolute knowledge that there's no god... We just don't believe in one... Many of us may even actively disbelieve that there are any at all... But, you show us some evidence of one, and we might change our minds... Until then, we'll choose to believe there's probably not one... Just like we go on believing there's probably no bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster, even though there could possibly be...

Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

lordaction: moral relativity

It's nice to see the old canards trotted out every now and then.

that bosnian sniper: shortymac: There is absolutely no reason why you can't believe in God and also acknowledge the scientific basis of evolution. NONE!

You try telling a fundie, "hey, what if natural selection and evolution are the means through which God acts on Earth to enact His will?". The look you get in response is somewhere between "you raped my cat", "you drank my last beer while nuking Israel", and "did you just speak Old Church Slavonic?".

I know I've tried, I gotta keep believing that by being polite and with gentle direction I can save people from the WHARGARBL.

/Wish me luck

a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: give me doughnuts: a_real_human_being: /personally, I believe the rise in radical atheism has contributed the rise of creationism in the U.S.

I think you've got it backwards.

[img13.imageshack.us image 320x301]

Indeed, it's surely a reciprocal relationship, with both sides contributing to the rise of the other.

/worth clarifying
//thx

radical atheism? What, like not giving a fark as hard as you can?

[img835.imageshack.us image 320x240]
I think there's often confusion around what it means to be an "atheist", at least colloquially. For instance, someone who is a devout Christian might claim that I'm an "atheist" because, when it comes to all man-made, religious explanations of the origins of the Universe, I believe they are all false. However, technically, that's not an "atheist". As Webster's suggests, an atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

As I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, I reject man-made tales of religious origins because there is no evidence for them (there is as much evidence for Christianity as there is for Scientology as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster). But disbelieving in the story of Scientology, for instance, doesn't make someone an atheist. Again, due to the scientific method, I cannot categorically state that there is NO "diety", because: (a) that's an INSANELY vague statement. (b) there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

Accordingly, in my opinion, those who are entrenched in the scientific method have only one scientifically reasonable position: Agnosticism. Of course, by taking this position, one is perfectly able to refute and disbelieve all man-made religious explanations for the origin of the universe. So that's the separation that I was making between "atheism" (relative atheism, actually agnostic) and "radical atheism" (absolute atheism)

cool beans. I've always heard of and referred to them as you did in the end there as agnostic and atheistic. Otherwise known as "I don't know" and "there is no god, harrumph"

RobSeace: It's not about stating categorically what the absolute reality of the situation is, but merely about stating your belief about what the situation is...

Personally, I agree with Dawkins the spectrum of theistic (opposed to religious) belief is tied to the certainty with which one states there is, or is not, a god, and that statement's truth-value is actually immaterial because individuals live their lives based upon the mere  assumption of god's (in)existence.

It's nice to know that this was most definitely not a Methodist or Catholic school.

mikefinch: Calipataa: Try Buddhism. Seriously. It can help make peace with that terror by embracing that terror - and letting it go.

I did and it really does. I'm still a bit depressed reagrding some things but its more a thing of pity and sadness than despair. That and i had a really weird dream one night and when i awoke i just wasn't upset anymore. Like i had some sort of epiphany while sleeping.

Uchiha_Cycliste: I hope I never implied you were a bible thumper. I was raised Catholic myself and would consider myself to bee agnostic these days (or Catholic when my family asks =/) You are giving me new and different ways to approach my view of God, that's good.

mmm no worries -- i have a cold and i am aswell up far past my bedtime. You never implied i was a bible thumper -- I just didnt want to have to explain to anyone up in arms about religion that i wont defend some crazy literal interpretation of the bible.

Personally i consider myself a theist... but i had an argument with a nice SDA girl one day about whether you could call yourself a theist without honestly thinking of atheism as a viable alternative -- That is -- How could you believe in god if it was impossible for you to not believe in god? For it to be a belief it has to be an honest choice. She got pretty pissed when i suggested she had to accept that god might not exist for her to actually have faith that he did... Otherwise its indoctrinated. Its the only thing you know. How can you know if pb&j sandwiches are the best if you have never even considered putting another sandwich in your mouth and giving it an honest chance? -- Idk, i would describe my faith as a bit mystic. Buddhism is great but i wouldnt call myself a Buddhist. I like their way of looking at things though.

Uchiha_Cycliste: One final question before I leave, it appears to me both from my posts and your replies that we have limited our discussion to OT God. At this point I think it would muddy the waters substantially to discuss NT God too. Is that your reading of things as well?

Idk -- The new testament is weird. Jesus shows up and explains that everyone was taking the Torah way too litterally and they were following the law of god without following the spirit. They were loopholing god as it were. Most of what jesus says is almost heretical to allot of evangelical churches. Like when jesus said 'let he without sin cast the first stone' or when he said 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword' or 'its not what goes into the mouth that makes the body unclean but what comes out of it' or when his diciples were pissed at the annoying kids running around and jesus said 'suffer not the little children'

Pretty much everything he said and did pointed towards an attitude of 'Hey man -- dont be such a freaking dick'.  -- Honestly -- evangelicals love to cast the first stone, they love to claim the things you put in your body like certain meats or penises make you a dirty bad person. They love getting geared up to whup infedel asses. And they like to act like being a stuffy pious bum makes you more important to god than other people.

The way i had it explained to me was that god only gave us rules we would get. The 10 commandments can be summed up in 'treat others as you would like to be treated' but in the time of moses people would have interpreted that to be something allong the lines of 'an eye for an eye'. So god dumbed down the rules in the old testament and when jesus shows up in the new testament it signals a new covenant with god.

One of the biggest most blatant errors in the bible is in the NT. (the disciples say some stuff in the books after the gospels and acts that get weird.) I think its somewhere in Corinthians but the phase is something like 'doesn't nature teach us that baldness is a shame unto women and long hair is a shame unto men?' But the thing is that that idea is very culturally inspired. Clearly evidence of the bible having stuff in it that isnt true.

Lots of dudes have long hair. In japan it was a dishonor NOT to have your hair long as a guy. I know some native dudes that only cut their hair when a family member dies. So nature does not teach us that. So we have to admit that some of the bible is culturally inspired. And if we accept that part of it is culturally inspired than we can't treat any rules in it as hard and fast. Indeed i think a huge portion of jesus's message amounted to 'the rules are there to make your life better -- not keep people down'. The bible is a history book alright and its history is that bad shiat happens and its always going to happen so stop bad shiat when you can and try not to be a source of new shiat.

Jesus always spoke in parables and metaphors -- woudnt it make sense that the book of faith god sent to the isrialites was also full of parables and metaphores?

I dunno -- just figured i would expound and tap at my keyboard for a bit and them BAM birds are singing and its light out.

I've always thought of the OT and NT as two different methods of population control. Initially we started with evil, brutish, bloody and rude folks that needed the fear of God thrust upon them so they took the approach of you better do what I say or I'm gonna farking spank you, and I'm gonna do it forever, and it's gonna suck. So you better behave or else.
This got folks to play nice, well nicer at least, but it wasn't enough for long term survival and peace so the NT came along and tried to convince people to behave not out of fear but out of a sense of respect and love of their fellow man. Let's all get along and try to love one another right now. (Buahahhahahaha)
Ultimately God and Jesus (Ot and NT) have the same end goals, to get people to stop being dicks. But they took radically different approaches. Now, I love Jesus' style, and frankly if you internalize his basic message of treat others as you would treat yourself and love *all* others as you would your family and friends, you negate the need to set in stone a bunch of unbreakable rules. If every one looked out for and cared for one another none of the commandments would be broken anyways. However, and this is a big however, we humans have yet to demonstrate the capacity to get along in groups larger than about 3. So it seems that we really do need a bunch of unbreakable rules with a horrendous punishment reinforcing them. Which sucks, but to deny the past several thousand years of history is simply foolhardy or intentionally ignorant.
I feel that the idea of God and the reality of science are compatible only if God exercised his agency in defining the laws of physics, setting up things for the big bang and kicking it off then sitting back and relaxing. I can even imagine an afterlife and eternity and everything else existing if I abuse math to the point it runs home crying like a little biatch by saying that the afterlife simply exists in a higher dimension that encompasses the lower 4 (x,y,z,T) In the same way that calculus lets us strictly define and play with less dimensions using integrals and derivatives ans stuff I can imagine beings that exist in iono, the 6th dimension, being able to exist outside of time and space because time and space suddenly become subsets of their plane of existence and all of creation can be witnessed (or ignored) simultaneously.
Otherwise, I can't wrap my head around the idea of eternity or how bloody boring it would be after a while.
Now, while I can imagine these things, I just have a hard time believing this is the way things actually are, and it's tons more likely that all of life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities and that we made up God to explain things that science couldn't handle yet. Btu I can't go so far (yet) as to say No! There IS no god, Harumph!

lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

kxs401: violentsalvation: I've known grown adults who believe that young earth / dinosaur shiat. They were otherwise educated, one I would go so far as to say he is brilliant, but he believes this shiat. I don't farking understand it.

I know a nuclear engineer (by training, not by profession any longer) who believes this crap. He's a religious nutball, of course. He was posting on Facebook about how it's likely that God put fossils on the Earth for his own purposes, or something. Oy.

I used to work with a guy like this and when I asked him about radio carbon dating he said that god just put it there to fool us.
I told him that god has MANY better things to do other than that. He did NOT have any answer.

Calipataa: Bumblefark:

Yep, in a heartbeat. Tell me you prefer your sad little patch of earth over interstellar travel, and you get the perfunctory "Well, have a good one," as I blast off to infinity, and beyond...

I might change my mind if there are any real M-class planets out there, with crazy space mangoes growing on the space mango trees and herds of 6-legged space giraffes running majestically across the space savannas, crazy sexy blue-stripey space people, etc. If I have to live in a spaceship, I think I'd get claustrophobic after a while. And if all you've got to offer is places like Mars, well, it's still a whole less hospitable than Antarctica. :)

Milwaukee? Is there life on Milwaukee?

I am agnostic but i think if interstellar travel happened I woudl still stay here. Stupid..insane but my home it is.
Unless of course we found a planet with oceans of beer it would have to be named Milwaukee and i would swim in her golden oceans.

dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

Selective response.

/Obvious troll is obvious... and ill-prepared.

dickfreckle: PunGent: Just started watching Treme.  Interesting series, but kinda rough...how accurate is it?

It's extremely accurate. They even get the accents right, where every other film/tv portrays us as having a thick Southern drawl. In fact, the series is so rife with little details that only a local would catch, the series can be slow-moving for everyone else.

I visited New Orleans a couple times before Katrina, haven't made it back since...not sure how much I want to.

lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

First one is false, second one is the conservative mindset, especially when it comes to anything sexual.

Put another way, for some reason conservatives need the fear of eternal damnation constantly reiterated in order for them to not act like dicks. What sad, sorry, scary people. That is what he's saying right?

dustygrimp: lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

Selective response.

/Obvious troll is obvious... and ill-prepared.

It isn't a selective response.  It is not allowing you to change the conversation.  That is a favorite tactic of the left when confronted with a truth that makes them uncomfortable.  You guys immediately re-define the language used and side-track the conversation.  You know exactly what I mean.

dustygrimp: Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Don't need no moral relatives here in the good old US of A. I'll take a hot cousin who can suck-start Bigfoot and gets all lubed up during a 4th of July fireworks show any day of the week.

'MERICA.

CeroX: Multiple members of my family get yearly membership passes to the creation "museum" in Kentucky... Thankfully, I've never been there, and wouldn't last long if i was forced to go...

Seriously, they have a room labeled "The world without God", which features various displays like a newspaper that headlines "Children attacked by packs of wolves" and a video clip of a mother telling her 12 year old to get an abortion, Another newspaper article that reads "Homosexuals recruiting children" and a bunch of other stupid nonsense...

When my parents showed me pictures of this i turned to them and said, "Wait, isn't the whole point of fundamentalism that you believe God created the earth? Should the "World without God" exhibit actually just be a pitch black room with sensory deprivation systems so you can't see or hear ANYTHING? You know since had there been no god there would BE no world?

Her response:  "Well it's just an exhibit"

I love my family, but they are buying into this garbage...

This made me cry, for a religion that emphasizes love and peace so many of it's believers do nothing but spew hate.

a_real_human_being ....
Accordingly, in my opinion, those who are entrenched in the scientific method have only one scientifically reasonable position: Agnosticism. Of course, by taking this position, one is perfectly able to refute and disbelieve all man-made religious explanations for the origin of the universe. So that's the separation that I was making between "atheism" (relative atheism, actually agnostic) and "radical atheism" (absolute atheism)

Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".

I've had many people be like "Really? You're agnostic?  I thought you were smarter than that." without a hint of irony.

lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

Lordaction, you're my favorite troll of the thread. You almost had be believing you where real.

Next time, try being a bit subtle, don't post an obvious profile pic.

Teh Winnar is you!

mephox: Better yet, ask them to point to the exact passage in the bible that says the earth was created on such and such date. They can't because its not there.

Actually, it's about a dozen or so passages all in all. The time spans given for separating various events can be added up to get to the time between creation and the return from Babylonian exile, which then dates to external chronologies.

Of course, measurement uncertainties leave about two decades of uncertainty (assuming conventional "significant figures" precision), and there's some internal inconsistencies -- but those are separate questions from there being at least one answer from the Bible.

I sound fat: Both theories are equally theories.

Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

kazikian: I can never understand why anyone would think evolution is incompatible with religion.

It's the same as with any kind of science-religion incompatibility: it depends whether you're dealing with them as bodies of knowledge or abstract methodologies. While potentially compatible, in particular instance they can collide.

Ranger Rover: So what's the right answer? How do we balance these objectives?

Social but not legal sanction. Have religious "education" be legal, but publicly mocked whenever the civilized world hear about it.

grxymkjbn: But logic is not a creation of humans, it's merely an astute observation OF realty.

It's not limited to talking about reality; it's more a means for connecting ideas.

grxymkjbn: The first law of logic is called the law of identity and states that a thing IS what it IS: A=A.

I prefer starting with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction. (The reflexive property usually can get derived from other more necessary axioms.)
Try putting down the Ayn Rand and looking up the proof of the Robbins Conjecture.

where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?

shortymac: lordaction: dustygrimp: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: This is great news.  Ever since the cultural marxists took God out of the classroom the education system has crumbled.  Coincidence?

You really need some new material.

No I don't.  Liberals believe in moral relativity and that is one of the things I am fighting against.

Are you talking about descriptive, meta-ethical or normative moral relativism?  I would also like a citation indicating where the set of all liberals is wholly included in the set of moral relativists.

Citation?  Read a newspaper. The only absolutes the left has is that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist and the government should be involved in every aspect of every citizen's life.

Lordaction, you're my favorite troll of the thread. You almost had be believing you where real.

Next time, try being a bit subtle, don't post an obvious profile pic.

Teh Winnar is you!

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 300x441]

Thanks.  I really destroyed those liberal bastards, didn't I?

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: As Webster's suggests, an atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

Yeah, but I prefer the OED definition instead: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods...

Again, due to the scientific method, I cannot categorically state that there is NO "diety", because: (a) that's an INSANELY vague statement. (b) there's no convincing evidence one way or the other.

It's not about stating categorically what the absolute reality of the situation is, but merely about stating your belief about what the situation is... I think most of us atheists are indeed agnostic as well... We don't claim absolute knowledge that there's no god... We just don't believe in one... Many of us may even actively disbelieve that there are any at all... But, you show us some evidence of one, and we might change our minds... Until then, we'll choose to believe there's probably not one... Just like we go on believing there's probably no bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster, even though there could possibly be...

Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

In my experience, when people tell me they're an atheist, they are responding to definition (b). Indeed, with that definition, I am a firm atheist.

However, under the first definition, I am a firm agnostic, as I have no empirical evidence that points in one direction or the other. I have my own speculative opinion (as do you), of course, but in order to keep some sort of meaningful distinction between the terms agnostic and atheist, I believe that I should fall in the agnostic category.

Finally, I think the Loch Ness monster is perhaps not the best analogy. Yep, there definitely COULD be a Loch Ness monster, but I have significant empirical evidence that points to their not being one. This is in contrast to the issue of whether or not there is a "God or gods" (whatever that means), where I find such evidence lacking in either direction.

IRQ12: a_real_human_being ....
Accordingly, in my opinion, those who are entrenched in the scientific method have only one scientifically reasonable position: Agnosticism. Of course, by taking this position, one is perfectly able to refute and disbelieve all man-made religious explanations for the origin of the universe. So that's the separation that I was making between "atheism" (relative atheism, actually agnostic) and "radical atheism" (absolute atheism)
Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".
I've had many people be like "Really? You're agnostic?  I thought you were smarter than that." without a hint of irony.

Yeah, I'd guess that they were understanding atheism as definition (b) from my last post.

a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...

Perhaps you mean "as envisioned by any of the religions throughout human history"? In which case, I'm not seeing how it's significantly different from (a)... If no human has ever conceived of the specific god before, surely that means you haven't either and therefore don't actually believe in this hypothetical god? However, you don't disbelieve in it, in that case, either! Because, of course, you've never thought about it or envisioned it in any way...

However, under the first definition, I am a firm agnostic, as I have no empirical evidence that points in one direction or the other.

When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist? Then, you try to disprove that by finding evidence that it in fact does exist... By accepting the null hypothesis, you're not claiming you have the final word on the subject, just that that's the most logical default belief in the face of total lack of evidence...

I have my own speculative opinion (as do you), of course, but in order to keep some sort of meaningful distinction between the terms agnostic and atheist, I believe that I should fall in the agnostic category.

Well, that speculative opinion is precisely "belief"! It may not be a very strong belief, but it's belief, nonetheless...

And, I don't see any need or desire to maintain a distinction between agnostic and atheist; the two are perfectly compatible and referring to completely separate ideas: knowledge vs. belief... You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist...

I think you're more arguing for weak/negative atheist vs. strong/postive atheist...

Finally, I think the Loch Ness monster is perhaps not the best analogy.

Probably not... How about ghosts or angels? Those are ephemeral enough and hard to get an evidentiary grip on to be similar in nature to gods...

i was watching a pure science show recently... drilling ice cores in antarctica ...
then this young lady points at the core sample and says "this piece is about 2,000 years old. that's when jesus was on the earth."   just as serious as she could be, as if she was speaking to a child.

i thought... omg they are clever bastards aren't they!

/ science science science jesus! science

mikefinch: Ahh -- Likely real.

I remember i went to a 7th day adventist private school for junior high... (wanted out of the public system -- bullying sucks -- when i came back to it 3 years later the problems were gone...) And the SDA schools do push this stuff.

We had a pretty good science text book -- it delved into genetics and evolution and all the usual crap quite well so that wasnt a problem for me. The textbook had a title page for each chapter with a little blurb relating the subject matter to god but other than that it left god out of science. I think part of that is they picked nonbiased books because the kids had to do well on provincial exams for them to keep getting a subsidy.

They would give tests like this to kids in the 3-6 grades. Yup. I have seen it.

More rambling:

The teacher and the school staff and board were not so cool. Let me stress -- i am NOT SDA. My two best friends growing up however were and i spent tons of time in their church. I however was a waaaay to geeky kid (as i said -- bullies) and anything involving natural science made my pants tingle... I remember the SDA pastor being at the school one day and he was talking to the students about evolution and i asked him some pointed questions regarding their 6000 year earth theory. He came back with some crap about how the flood would have changed the air pressure so even the dinosaurs on the ark would have died because their lung capacity was too small or something. Like he pulled it straight out of his ass. I knew damn well he was full of shiat. I remember at the age of 14 being completely disgusted with a grown mans capacity for rational thought.

They really honest to god believe the sharp dinosaur teeth on things like T-Rex or Albertosaurus were made to cut through plant matter. I challenged them on that when i heard it and they insisted the serrated blade like teeth were for munching tough plant matter.

They told me not to drink milk because Adam and Eve would have just had water and juice. Like milking a cow is somehow against gods plan. You know -- the same god that promised a land of milk and honey?

They believe that Jesus turned water into juice rather than wine (they are all teetotalers) -- despite tons of evidence in the surrounding text pointing to the fact that everyone was wasted.

They were convinced the catholic pope would one day rule the world and make observance of the Jewish holy day illegal and force everyone on earth to go to church on Sunday. Then Jesus would return and save those who went to church on Saturday instead of Sunday and kept up with Jewish food laws even though Jesus tell his disciples its not important...

They don't dance. At all. Even at weddings. When i asked why i was informed dance was nothing but 'thinly veiled sex acts'. Weddings with no booze or dancing (just someones cousin playing pachbels canon in D over and over on the cello they ostensibly play other things on however i have never heard anything but canon in D come out of that guys cello) Well those get terrible fast. My sister almost walked out of my best friends wedding because the vows were nothing but misogyny and there was no booze or dance reward for it.

They wouldn't allow drums in their church because thats how indigenous (read coloured) people talk to satan. Im not kidding about that. My friend wanted to play some music for a skit he was doing for vacation bible school and an elder forbid it because it had drums and he cited that as a reason. I was there. I heard it. My buddy tried to object but was told he was trying to 'rationalize sinning' and when he complained to his parents that the church was f'ing crazy they told him to sit on it because the elder was a crazy old man and he was a church elder and the church followed and sometimes they might not agree with the rules but they had to follow them. Yeah -- Basically admitted he was wrong but they said they would obey his crazy because he was in charge.

I love this line -- they use it soooo often: Don't rationalize sin.

Think about that -- dont rationalize sin... Its like an automatic screw you to any reasoned though that opposes their dogma.  And yet their lord rationalized 'sinning' to pull a lamb from a well on the sabbath...

I dont have any real beef with christians, I do have a beef with the SDA church. It seems more like a cult than a church.

farked up cult? Yes

I live a stone's throw from Greer (from whence somewhat northward this quiz came).  The amount of religious fundie derpitude is staggering and represents the bane of my daily life.  Between the power of Bob Jones University and a Baptist church on every corner, it often seems inescapable.  Hell, even my father (a relatively intelligent ex- chemical engineer) has been brainwashed into believing this ridiculousness.

I can't put into words how surreal it is to have such a concentrated mass of deluded individuals.

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...

Yes, that's correct. This is a particularly important point considering the evidence (i.e., faith) is the same for them all.

Perhaps you mean "as envisioned by any of the religions throughout human history"? In which case, I'm not seeing how it's significantly different from (a)... If no human has ever conceived of the specific god before, surely that means you haven't either and therefore don't actually believe in this hypothetical god? However, you don't disbelieve in it, in that case, either! Because, of course, you've never thought about it or envisioned it in any way...

Nope, that's not what I meant (as highlighted above). However, there is a big difference between "predominant religion" (what I said) and "[any] human ever" (what you said). Regardless, I don't think there's much benefit to further debating opinion vs. belief, knowledge vs. belief, or the subtle differentiations you draw between combinations of agnostic/atheist. I'll leave those endless semantic conversations and debates for the philosophers, I have science to do! :)

RobSeace: a_real_human_being: Fair enough. I suppose my main point is to highlight the difference between:

(a) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods..."
(b) "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods [as envisioned by one (or more) of the predominant religions throughout human history]"

Under (b), everyone is an "atheist"! Unless somehow you believe in all the deities of all religions ever...

Reminds me of a quote I saw long ago: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Sir Stephen Henry Roberts

/seemed appropriate
//enjoy the weekend!

Uchiha_Cycliste: Put another way, for some reason conservatives need the fear of eternal damnation constantly reiterated in order for them to not act like dicks. What sad, sorry, scary people. That is what he's saying right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and -c onservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

There is an abnormally high corelation within the population of self-identified conservatives with a hypertrophied amygdala, which hypersensitizes them to stimulus of images of sex, fear and repugnance.  There have been quite a few peer-reviewed studies which appear to support the observations.

abb3w: Try putting down the Ayn Rand and looking up the proof of the Robbins Conjecture.

I've read much more about Ayn Rand than I've actually read her. I started Atlas Shrugged and before long felt confident enough that it was garbage to stop wasting time on it.  (shrug)

I'm sorry if it seems that I'm pretending to be a serious student of logic or philosophy or... well, anything, really.  I don't intend to; I just sometimes recall a few rudimentary phrases that stuck in my head from my brief studies many years ago, and try to apply them sometimes if I think it might be helpful.  :)

abb3w: proof of the Robbins Conjecture

I did look it up, and I'm pretty certain that I did not understand much of what I read.  That nomenclature is unfamiliar (and a little frightening) to me, to be honest.

Could you please share your understanding of it?  If possible, in layman's terms?

Calipataa: Have you ready any Bart Ehrman? He's really interesting on the evolution of biblical manuscripts - how errors and interpolations come about, etc.

I don't think I have. Wiki thinks he knows his stuff, so I'll check him out,

grxymkjbn: mikefinch: The whole idea behind a god is a creature that lives above and beyond reality.

1) You seem to have missed that I am limiting my discussion to the biblical god.  The biblical god is not a 'creature' because a 'creature' is something that was created.

2) Unless you can provide objective evidence that anything exists 'outside of reality', then the only rational course is to disregard that phrase as meaningless word salad.

3)  If the biblical god is not subject to the law A=A, then every statement made about that god is equally and simultaneously true AND false.

4)  I also noticed that you seem to have no interest in attempting to provide us with an operational definition of "existence" which could include the biblical god but exclude any other fictional entity.  (shrug)  Not surprising.

1: You pick a small minded and petty definition of something and expect me to back defend it? No. Thats why i stopped going to church in the first place you dick. Don't tell me i have to argue the validity of the god of the bible. I never accepted it in the first place.

2:  No. I'm just saying its possible that there is more to the universe than what we have the ability to comprehend, observe, or experience. Think about trying to explain to an ant in an ant farm what the internet was. Its not part of its reality. Its part of ours. To the ant its word salad. We get it because our frame of reference is different.

3: God is not bound to logic. Things are logical because god decided they were logical. If god is actually god then all concepts and ideas we have are inventions of said god.

4: Wtf are you talking about? Why would i try to define existence like that? Why would i want to? Are you trying to get me to declare the only things that really exist are physical manifestations? Its possible that all those things exist. Why would i be so proud to insist that it was possible for god to exist but impossible for magic and that crap to exist? Seems like a dick move to declare that something doesnt exist because i have no experience of it...

As i said -- your trying to tell god that he is cheating at a game without rules. I'mean -- it has rules for you -- if it had rules for god too though then he would cease to be god.

Its always a bit baffling when someone declares they don't believe in god because he wont fit into their tiny box of definitions and rules. Make your box larger rather than trying to shrink god into it. You will have a better time.

PunGent: dickfreckle: PunGent: Just started watching Treme.  Interesting series, but kinda rough...how accurate is it?

It's extremely accurate. They even get the accents right, where every other film/tv portrays us as having a thick Southern drawl. In fact, the series is so rife with little details that only a local would catch, the series can be slow-moving for everyone else.

I visited New Orleans a couple times before Katrina, haven't made it back since...not sure how much I want to.

You were likely just in the wrong places. As the diatribe in my profile states, Bourbon St. is a farking joke. Even Treme routinely makes fun of it though hardly any scenes are filmed there. This goes back to the accuracy of the show - the only locals on Bourbon are the bartenders, strippers, and shot girls being forced by owners to rip you off while some lame "blues-rock" cover band plays the same tunes you can hear in your own town.

She's a wonderful city. If you don't believe me, wonder aloud why so many people came back to endure the lovely 2006-2008 years when nothing was going right, not even the stores being open. There's a reason why we love NOLA, and it can't be properly articulated to anyone who doesn't "get it." Granted, this probably what die-hard Cleveland Browns fans say about their team, but still.

If you do come back, try hitting uptown, Garden District, Magazine St., and all that. You'll find that not only is the city nice and piss-free up there (about a ten minute streetcar ride), but you'll also see how the locals live. Maybe catch some of that real music we're deservedly famous for. If you don't make it uptown, at leat hit Frenchmen St., which is where many (if not most) of the live scenes in Treme are filmed. The "strip" is only a few blocks long and somewhat humble, but it's the most realistic NOLA music you'll ever hear. About 70/30% local vs. tourist. Tourists don't like real jazz and funk, or the combination thereof (which we specialize in), and that's precisely the reason Bourbon St. is loaded with overgrown frat boys vomiting to the backing sounds of "Back in Black" being played for the 987,325th time.

impaler: Since it's a private school, I feel more pity than outrage.

This, actually. I have absolutely no problem with private schools teaching kids whatever the hell they feel like - a private school can be as stupid as they like, as long as not one thin dime of my taxpayer money's going to them.

This should never, ever happen at a public school, or at any school funded by taxpayers. But, if morons want to teach their kids that the Earth is flat, that it's 6,000 years old, that Jesus hugged dinosaurs, and want to do it on their own dime, that's fine by me. Heck, give those morons a tax break for the money they're spending on private schooling (it's only fair - they probably don't want to pay taxes to fund a useful secular education.)

As for the debates on the existence of God, well, I'm ignostic. It's a pointless discussion.

AGremlin:

Came for Dinosaur Jesus...had to bring him myself.

here you go:

IRQ12: Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".

The Altemeyer/Hunsberger data suggests that is somewhat unlikely, unless you're explicitly defining a subset of atheists as "fanatic" by the criterion of "disliking agnostics more than theists".

alfuso: where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?

There's about half a dozen passages giving dates between events, which together give at least one time span from between the creation of the world and the Babylonian exile... which has external dating references.

grxymkjbn: I'm sorry if it seems that I'm pretending to be a serious student of logic or philosophy or... well, anything, really.

Quite all right. I'm hardly one either.

grxymkjbn: Could you please share your understanding of it? If possible, in layman's terms?

It's a starting point for getting to Boolean propositional logic. You can take the 10 Boolean axioms directly and work from there, or you can take the Commutativity and Associativity for OR, plus the Robbins Axiom which more or less states ((P NOR Q) NOR (P NOR (NOT Q))) is P, and derive the ten main Boolean axioms before going on.

There's other ways to get there as well. "Wolfram's Axiom" is sufficient in itself... but that approach and starting point are pretty incomprehensible.

mikefinch: I'm just saying its possible that there is more to the universe than what we have the ability to comprehend, observe, or experience.

...while trying to insinuate some options are probably the case, when the evidence suggests that they probably aren't.

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. - Richard Feynman

mikefinch: God is not bound to logic.

Depends what you mean by "logic". Are you saying God is not subject to the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction -- that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either disjunctive combination implies the other?

These fundamentalist quacks are such hypocrites.  They want to teach bible based "science" in the classroom but still want modern medical science when they go to the emergency room.

abb3w: IRQ12: Fanatical atheists (yes, there are) probably dislike agnostics more than theists because they think they are "on the fence".

The Altemeyer/Hunsberger data suggests that is somewhat unlikely, unless you're explicitly defining a subset of atheists as "fanatic" by the criterion of "disliking agnostics more than theists".

Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/  They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists;  belief without logic.

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Put another way, for some reason conservatives need the fear of eternal damnation constantly reiterated in order for them to not act like dicks. What sad, sorry, scary people. That is what he's saying right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/are-liberals-and -c onservatives-hard-wired-to-disagree/237075/

There is an abnormally high corelation within the population of self-identified conservatives with a hypertrophied amygdala, which hypersensitizes them to stimulus of images of sex, fear and repugnance.  There have been quite a few peer-reviewed studies which appear to support the observations.

I think it actually makes a lot of sense if you use the literal meaning of conservative, one who strives to  to ensure that everything remains constantduring a potential process of change. They are conservatives because they are resistant to any change, and they are resistant to change because they fear it. They may not be super happy, or hell! they may not be happy at all; but they prefer the shiat they know to a future of unknowns. I'm not sure I explained my ideas super well, I'm tired from riding home... does that make sense?

grxymkjbn: (shrug)

lulz

IRQ12: Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/ They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists; belief without logic.

You miss my point: if you're merely using one criterion to define the group you refer to, then claiming the group you refer to meets the one criterion is at best inane.

Now, if you're claiming the two criteria are associated, that's different -- but then you need to decide which one is definitive, and then further show the degree of association.

mikefinch: Can we pick up where we left off?
I'm curious what you think about my interpretation of OT vs NT and the possibility of reconciling God ad science.

RobSeace: When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist?

Actually, no, it isn't (as I was surprised to learn when studying philosophy). Firstly, the null hypothesis is for statistical evaluation (i.e., population A vs. population B -> NH says they are the same population). Secondly, according to formal logic, the formula of if p then q (logical implication) for:

If "I DIE" then "I GO TO HEAVEN"

Is evaluated as True until you can satisfy P as True, then you can evaluate whether or not Q is True, then you can fully evaluate the whole expression.

Accordingly, the statement:

If "YOU GO INTO MY GARAGE" then "YOU WILL SEE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER" defaults to True, until you go into my garage.

/god I hated philosophy
//could have been amazing
///wasn't
////PTSD flashback

abb3w: IRQ12: Yes the subset who think agnosticism is "on the fence"/ They are basically guilty of what they decry in theists; belief without logic.

You miss my point: if you're merely using one criterion to define the group you refer to, then claiming the group you refer to meets the one criterion is at best inane.

Now, if you're claiming the two criteria are associated, that's different -- but then you need to decide which one is definitive, and then further show the degree of association.

Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.

or....

You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes because I'm not writing my thesis on fark.

alfuso: where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?

There isn't any one specific verse that states how old the Earth is.  But some people believe that you can calculate the time that "must have" passed between the creation of the world and the birth of Jesus.  The most famous example, and the one who most people are referring back to when they say "6000 years," was James Ussher.

It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:

And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

IRQ12:
You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes because I'm not writing my thesis on fark.

Someday, somehow, someone will... and it will be glorious.

mikefinch: As i said -- your trying to tell god that he is cheating at a game without rules. I'mean -- it has rules for you -- if it had rules for god too though then he would cease to be god.

Do you think you have honestly considered this issue objectively?

You honestly think it's virtuous to worship a god whose only criteria for morals is His own whim?

You propose that if God wanted to torture and kill billions of people purely for his own amusement - that would be the morally correct thing to do - is that what you intended to say?

You reject that God must be subject to the first law of logic?

Are you aware that the preponderance of recognized theologians stipulate that God is indeed subject to A=A?

:)

i wonder why new planets and stars are still being formed, then.

If a mouthy fourth grader tells you the Creation of the World happened only a few thousand years ago answer them like this.

You are a child. I am an adult. What do you know about the Creation of the World? I WAS THERE, DAMMIT!

If they are gullible enough to believe Creationist clap trap, they might believe you. Problem solved, if and until they reach the age of reason.

When the royal astronomers explained the Ptolemaic system to King Alphonso X of Spain he remarked that if he had been present at the Creation, he would have advised God to try something simpler.

Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.

Calipataa: PC LOAD LETTER: When we are able to move to the stars, "true" Christians will stay behind because they are tied to the Earth. Problem solved eventually.

I'm not a Christian, but I kind of like the earth - are you going to leave me alone here with these crazies?

Every one of those alien worlds will be inhabited -- by a Mormon and his wives and children (assuming he "seals" his wives rather than letting them go to Hell in favour of some new trophy wives. They will happily inbreed incestuously for all eternity. (Sounds like the way humanity got this world: Man, Woman, Apple, Incest for the next 6,000 years. And they wondered why their life expectancy dropped off from hundreds of years to a few decades.)

So it's really po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh.

The Roman Catholic Church has a contingency plan for just such an occurence. Since they burned Giovanno Bruno at the stake for (among other heresies) suggesting that there is life and intelligent beings on other worlds, they've been thinking his proposal over, and have come up with plans to convert the heathen aliens should they be discovered or discover us. Should they prove to be Roman Catholics already, there will be no need. Jesus will have ensured that they got the memo.

Many fundamentalists believe in UFOS but believe they are piloted by Satan's armies of demons. They will simply attempt to wage war on the aliens. Who will kill us all.

And this, Mr. Fermi, is why the neighbors do not call us. They don't want to disturb the Loonies any further, to borrow a happy turn of phrase from paraplegic cartoonist John Callahan. (Creator of Quads. Yaaaaay! A Canada-Australia Coproduction of one of America's greatest Gimp geniuses.)

God creates existence out of love. God creates humans in his image out of love. God then puts the one thing he doesn't want humans touching right in the middle of the garden, then does a piss-poor job of keeping bad things from happening. When the serpent convinces the humans to eat the fruit of knowledge (which wasn't difficult at all since they knew nothing of right and wrong), God responds by cursing all of creation to punish all of humanity that would ever exist. He then spends the next few thousand years being a vicious, tyrannical, trolling hypocrite. Then he enacts a long, convoluted, and ultimately pointless way of "forgiving" humanity of the sins that God created and allowed to happen by sending a piece of himself down to "die" and then resurrects it to bring it up and make it part of himself again. Somehow this was supposed to allow us into heaven. But if we don't use the free will he gave us to kowtow to him 24/7/365 and swear our fealty to him, then we'll be condemned to eternal and unspeakable torture, and it doesn't matter how good we are in life, if we don't say the magic words then the kindest saint burns alongside the mass murderers and child rapists. Out of love.

Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?

Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.

Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.

brantgoose

that' what I get for not previewing...
let's try it once more with feeling:
brantgoose

Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.

I was studying philosophy of cognitive science (combination of psychology and neuroscience) and "bizarre" is a very good word for it. It connected to some VERY interesting subjects, but dealt with them in the most infuriating and esoteric ways possible. I'm now studying integrative neuroscience, as I am interested in the mind/brain sciences, and I love it.

The best way I can explain the difference between "philosophy of psychology" and empirical psychology (for instance) is to make an analogy comparing the two disciplines on a more tangible subject, say: the problem of organized crime... bear with me:

- If science is trying to solve the problems related to organized crime (e.g., drugs, racketeering, corruption, legal maneuvering, prostitution, jail sentences, witness protection, etc.)
- Philosophy is a group of people arguing about which Hollywood movie best represents the "gangster film genre"

To discuss the "gangster film genre" you have to know SOMETHING about organized crime in real life. Just like to do "philosophy of psychology" you have to know SOMETHING about the mind/brain sciences. But, to be honest, that's where its connection to reality ends. They grab a few nuggets of reality and then go off on decade-long debates about abstract issues that just get more and more abstract with every published paper... and end up so far away from reality that you can hardly believe people get paid for it. Even if they all agreed on something, it wouldn't matter, because what they're debating has no connection to anything substantial. Here's an excellent introduction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.

Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.

I am plenty occupied with my work, the techniacl depths of which are frequently overwhelming. (comp Architecture is fascinating). And when it does come time to argue something I enjoy having to draw upon my knowledge and experiences and try to create an argument. Thanks though srsly.

grxymkjbn: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes.

Neither have I taken any  philosophy classes...  but I have read extensive synopsis of all the major  schools of philosophy... and when considered objectively, I can only conclude that they're all shiat.  (shrug)

Study epistemology, if you're truly interested.  The mind is a fascinating topic.

Oh my god, no no no. Epistemology is the study of knowledge (i.e., what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for belief). Traditional epistemology has practically nothing to do with "the mind" at all. Here's an example, from a leading author in the field: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415552982

It's the kind of material that can be interesting to chat with your friends about for an hour or so, but trying to read academic papers in the subject makes me want to do what Uchiha_Cycliste's green cartoon guy was doing above.

If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy, then the only thing I can suggest is: http://www.amazon.com/dp/026253200X. And even then, I'd always recommend that people avoid philosophy... there's a gazillion awesome books in the disciplines of psychology and neuroscience.

a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: a_real_human_being: Uchiha_Cycliste: It sounds like philosophy begins to step on the toes of: discrete mathematics  probability theory, algorithms and intractable problems; but probably jut exposes only what is necessary to continue with the philosophy. Nasty, nasty math. Ony class i've ever taken where 2 weeks in I said:
[media.tumblr.com image 500x281]
And dropped the class. Multi-var calc was a cake walk in comparison.

I couldn't agree more! I studied it for a whole year... and after that, practically every other subject seemed like kindergarten.

Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT. Philosophy is the art of saying nothing in as many esoteric words as possible.

/shudder

Just to be sure I'm clear here, I have never taken any philosophy classes. I dropped cs170 (the class whose subject is all the big mathy words above) at Cal after 2 weeks.  So philosophy is a class with no content, huh? sounds hellish and awesome. Bizarre.

I was studying philosophy of cognitive science (combination of psychology and neuroscience) and "bizarre" is a very good word for it. It connected to some VERY interesting subjects, but dealt with them in the most infuriating and esoteric ways possible. I'm now studying integrative neuroscience, as I am interested in the mind/brain sciences, and I love it.

The best way I can explain the difference between "philosophy of psychology" and empirical psychology (for instance) is to make an analogy comparing the two disciplines on a more tangible subject, say: the problem of organized crime... bear with me:

- If science is trying to solve the problems related to organized crime (e.g., drugs, racketeering, corruption, legal maneuvering, prostitution, jail sentences, witness protection, etc.)
- Philosophy is a group of people arguing about which Hollywood movie best represents the "gangster film genre"

To discuss the "gangster film genre" you have to know SOMETHING about organized crime in real life. Just like to do "philosophy of psychology" you have to know SOMETHING about the mind/brain sciences. But, to be honest, that's where its connection to reality ends. They grab a few nuggets of reality and then go off on decade-long debates about abstract issues that just get more and more abstract with every published paper... and end up so far away from reality that you can hardly believe people get paid for it. Even if they all agreed on something, it wouldn't matter, because what they're debating has no connection to anything substantial. Here's an excellent introduction:  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/
It sounds a lot like speech and debate without the rigor. And intentionally so, as if they are fearful of binding themselves to rules because then they can't bullshiat as completely. To draw an analogy (poorly) in HS I discovered and college reinforced that essays, whether English or Sociology (which I very nearly minored in) were all about bullshiatting. You have an idea and you are trying to convince someone that your idea has merit using whatever you have in your bag of tricks. Essentially you don't need knowledge as long as you can bullshiat around your lack there of. However, math and science and engineering there is a right answer and lots and lots of wrong answers and no amount of bullshiatting will turn the wrong answers into the right ones. There was no way to take question three of a physics final and argue why I think what I wrote should be accepted, it was right or wrong (some points) and I either got to that answer the right way or the wrong way (lots more points).
What I'm trying to say is that philosophy sounds like writing an essay and the real stuff sounds like the hard sciences where you can't bullshiat your way out of not knowing your shiat.

Heh, philosophy is being sneaky and debate is being smart.

grxymkjbn: You propose that if God wanted to torture and kill billions of people purely for his own amusement - that would be the morally correct thing to do - is that what you intended to say?

yes.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?

Because its god. And he demands it. Horrifying right? lol -- you dont have to follow him if you dont want -- i'm just saying if god was a monster he would still be god. You dont have to worship it if you don't feel thats appropriate.

grxymkjbn: You reject that God must be subject to the first law of logic?

yup. God is subject to nothing. To be subject to something would make it not god.

a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)

Well, *I* don't, per say, but I know LOTS of people who do! :) Now, this isn't me just listing books for the sake of it, these are all AWESOME. I've listed them in order according to how I would have preferred to read them (before I knew anything about the subjects):

http://www.amazon.com/dp/014005703X/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113100/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113100/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451607946/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684853949/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1590510178/
www.amazon.com/dp/0060988479/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0823609626/

The last three are a bit more technical (i.e., more detailed neurology) than the earlier ones, but nothing too extravagant. Oh, and I misspoke before, there is ONE book that could be argued to fall within the discipline of philosophy (but I'd say it's more cognitive science) that's pretty darn good:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198529910/

Enjoy!

/a couple of the books are out of print, but they are WELL WORTH tracking down (imho, of course)
//kinda wish I could read all eight for the first time again :D

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)

One more thing... if you're interested in both physics and consciousness, you might get a kick out of: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199753814/

/been meaning to re-read it again for a while now
//remember that I dug it the first time

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)

Okay, okay, last one... if you're more interested in the low-level stuff (i.e., written by a neuroscientist for non-neuroscientists about the low-level neuroscience of the mind), then I strongly recommend: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0878939040/

Aaaaaand I'm done.

As long as we are going down this path, let me randomly throw out this book. It's one of several I'm reading right now on my Nook.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
It's "

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty "

they asked this question to a whole bunch of scientists... maybe 100-150 and it's like a page or two on each scientist's answers. It's a great book to digest a little at a time, like on a train or the shiatter. I enjoy hearing what all today's leading scientists think about stuff. I believe the query is called "The Edge Question" Anyways, check it out. You probably won't learn too much, and it's not entertaining in the way fiction is, but it's somehow satisfying.

Uchiha_Cycliste: As long as we are going down this path, let me randomly throw out this book. It's one of several I'm reading right now on my Nook.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
It's "

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty "

they asked this question to a whole bunch of scientists... maybe 100-150 and it's like a page or two on each scientist's answers. It's a great book to digest a little at a time, like on a train or the shiatter. I enjoy hearing what all today's leading scientists think about stuff. I believe the query is called "The Edge Question" Anyways, check it out. You probably won't learn too much, and it's not entertaining in the way fiction is, but it's somehow satisfying.

Will definitely pick that one up, thanks.

cool beans

mikefinch: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?

Because its god. And he demands it. Horrifying right? lol -- you dont have to follow him if you dont want -- i'm just saying if god was a monster he would still be god. You dont have to worship it if you don't feel thats appropriate.

So all Christians have been lying since Christianity was invented, hm? There is no love, no compassion, no reason.

IRQ12: Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.

Well, if you want to support your original claim, given that Altemeyer and Hunsberger have already done a sample-of-convenience study that suggests activist atheists tend think moderately well of the wishy-washy uncertain (see page 85 of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers)... yes, that's pretty much what you have to do.

Or you can admit that your claim is utterly unsupported by evidence, and that what evidence is there suggests you're completely wrong about that original point.
Or, y'know, ignore that, and snark off in a huff.

IRQ12: You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes

You appear to have confused a selection-bias subset of your circle of personal acquaintance with a representative sample of the population, and your ignorant prejudices for "reality".

Uchiha_Cycliste: Someday, somehow, someone will... and it will be glorious.

There's (at least) one on YouTube comments; it's good reading, and likely should be one of the works cited in the event.

a_real_human_being: Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT.

Eh. Some of it has content; usually, however, that sort is just really esoteric mathematics.
Most of the worst of it is just the sort of handwaving that makes mathematicians go, "yes, yes, now you said you were about to go on from step 16 to show those conclusions?"

a_real_human_being: RobSeace: When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist?

Actually, no, it isn't (as I was surprised to learn when studying philosophy). Firstly, the null hypothesis is for statistical evaluation (i.e., population A vs. population B -> NH says they are the same population). Secondly, according to formal logic, the formula of if p then q (logical implication) for:

If "I DIE" then "I GO TO HEAVEN"

Is evaluated as True until you can satisfy P as True, then you can evaluate whether or not Q is True, then you can fully evaluate the whole expression.

Odd... I actually minored in philosophy once upon a time, long, long ago (never submitted the minor declaration paperwork on time to officially earn the minor though, but I took all the required classes to do so), and I don't recall any such strangeness... (But, then, it's been a very long time, and that info could've been lost to the ravages of age and/or alcohol...)

But, the conditional statement itself makes another implicit claim beyond the obvious one: that something called "heaven" exists... In order to accept the statement as true, you must accept both that such a place exists and that you go there when you die... If the statement were "when you die, you go to Detroit", then at least it seems somewhat more believable, since at least we know Detroit exists... Though, I still wouldn't accept it as true by default... But, I can definitely see no logic behind defaulting to accepting the existence of a heaven without the slightest shred of truth... First prove it exists, then I might consider accepting that we go there when we die...

If "YOU GO INTO MY GARAGE" then "YOU WILL SEE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER" defaults to True, until you go into my garage.

That one is at least trivially proven or disproven by just entering the garage... It's effectively impossible to prove or disprove the death/heaven one; or, rather, it's impossible to notify anyone else left alive after you've done so... As such, an unfalsifiable claim should be rejected... It's as meaningless as if I said "If you were to travel to the Andromeda galaxy, you would find an ancient advanced alien civilization of hot green lesbians who enjoy an audience!"... It's effectively impossible to prove or disprove, so it's unworthy of even considering... (At least until we have the tech to travel to Andromeda, in which case I'll be the first aboard!)

abb3w: a_real_human_being: Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT.

Eh. Some of it has content; usually, however, that sort is just really esoteric mathematics.
Most of the worst of it is just the sort of handwaving that makes mathematicians go, "yes, yes, now you said you were about to go on from step 16 to show those conclusions?

It looks like we studied two very different forms of philosophy then, because your description does not apply at all to the material that I was reading.

abb3w: IRQ12: Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.

Well, if you want to support your original claim, given that Altemeyer and Hunsberger have already done a sample-of-convenience study that suggests activist atheists tend think moderately well of the wishy-washy uncertain (see page 85 of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers)... yes, that's pretty much what you have to do.

Or you can admit that your claim is utterly unsupported by evidence, and that what evidence is there suggests you're completely wrong about that original point.
Or, y'know, ignore that, and snark off in a huff.

IRQ12: You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes

You appear to have confused a selection-bias subset of your circle of personal acquaintance with a representative sample of the population, and your ignorant prejudices for "reality".

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]

a_real_human_being: Enjoy!

Thank you - I will!  :D

RobSeace: As such, an unfalsifiable claim should be rejected...

Using common sense, I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that according to formal logic (as used in branches of philosophy), it cannot be rejected until you can satisfy the first condition.

Accordingly, the statement:

If "YOU DIE" then "YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE MORMONS HAD IT RIGHT ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" is, by default, True... until you die at have a chance to prove it False. But, as you said, you can't tell anyone else about it at that point.

/silly, silly philosophy

a_real_human_being: I'm just saying that according to formal logic (as used in branches of philosophy), it cannot be rejected until you can satisfy the first condition.

I think it's merely that it can't be rejected as definitely false... I don't think formal logic says anything about what makes the most sense to believe... After all, you could construct pretty much an infinite number of mutually conflicting such conditional statements; they can't all be true... As such, why believe any of them are true?

Again, I think this is where a lot of people get bogged down with regard to atheist vs. agnostic vs. whatever... By saying I'm an atheist, I'm not totally rejecting the possible existence of a god; I'm merely stating that I don't personally believe in one... I'm not making a declaration about the absolute reality of things, merely my belief about them based on what evidence I've seen... Some people like to call that agnostic; and, it is! But, the thing is that's not mutually exclusive with being an atheist... I'm both... I'm agnostic because I don't know, and I'm atheist because I don't believe...

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest