Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

One book, “The New Answers Book,” has a chapter called: “Does Carbon-14 disprove the Bible?” The answer: “When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what he meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible.” Ham hopes that the museum visitors will agree.

That scares me.

[KK]

Scares me too.

Especially since even me with my very limited religious knowledge, does know that God did not write the bible.
It was written by people and there is no argueing that point.

So if people are fallible, then obviously that also applies to what is written in the bible.

[t'Sade]

Well, the article also talks about how the bible is non-contradictory. I once had a discussion with one of my teachers about that. She says that while it may appear to be contradictory, it just means we have an imperfect understanding of everything. Only being God will make it perfectly non-contradictory.

[der Wandersmann]

Well, the article also talks about how the bible is non-contradictory. I once had a discussion with one of my teachers about that. She says that while it may appear to be contradictory, it just means we have an imperfect understanding of everything. Only being God will make it perfectly non-contradictory.

That's one of the funniest (and most pitiable) things I ever read.

It's on a par with: "The bible is the absolute truth. If you don't believe me, just look in the bible."

[t'Sade]

Actually, the article says that too.

Ham often asks of evolutionists: “How do you gain knowledge about the past when you weren’t there?” But what of the argument that the same question could be asked of creationists who believe—also without having been there—that the Bible was written by men who reflected the word of God?  “Man by himself could not have written such a consistent, non-contradictory book,” says Ham. But how does he know man wrote it with divine inspiration? “Because of what the Bible itself claims of itself,” he says.

Remember, the bible says it is true, therefore it is. Though, I'd rather have proof. I'm strange that way.

[der Wandersmann]

Or, as it is said in the newspaper city rooms (the good ones, anyway) ...

If your grandmother says she loves you ... check it out.

[KainX]

And it's kinda scary. I think I'm more scared of scared people than anything else.

The irony, of course, being that you, as a scared person, must then be scared of yourself.

...and a host of other simple, but wrong, ideas.

There was a time when the greatest minds on Earth thought the world was flat.  They were wrong.

There was a time when the greatest minds on Earth thought raw meat spontaneously generated fly larvae.  They were wrong.

There was a time when the greatest minds on Earth thought the atom could not be broken down any further.  They were wrong.

Anyone who is so unbelievably arrogant as to believe that there isn't even the teeny-tiniest possibility that things we accept as Truth today may eventually turn out to be wrong is just as closed-minded and gullible as those they look down on.

You are so convinced that you are right, you are a far greater threat to yourself than any of them will ever be.

[der Wandersmann]

The irony, of course, being that you, as a scared person, must then be scared of yourself.

Hmmmm ... I seem to have missed this.

Scared of myself? Not really, but extremely wary of myself; always examining my thought processes and motivations. After all, I'm just as human (I think) as anyone else.

BUT ... the reall reason I wanted to say something in this thread is that PBS is putting on what appears to be a two-hour NOVA episode about a trial of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.
Here in the Milwaukee area, it's on at 7:00 tonight ... check your local listings.

[der Wandersmann]

And, by all means, check this one out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21837499/

[t'Sade]

Heh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I saw that some time ago and it was a stitch. And I think it is a valid point on my view of religion. It doesn't matter the face on the front, it is the core ideals inside that are basically common with all religions. I'd rather be a student of those core without the dogma wrapped around it.

[LT]

BUT ... the reall reason I wanted to say something in this thread is that PBS is putting on what appears to be a two-hour NOVA episode about a trial of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.
Here in the Milwaukee area, it's on at 7:00 tonight ... check your local listings.

I only saw the second half of this, but what I saw was pretty good.  It was a pretty cut and dry violation of the first ammendment regarding the separation of church and state.  I honestly don't understand this need to inject religion into every aspect of life, but apparently a lot of people seem to think they should.  It was really sad to see that some people have the kind of attitudes towards science that they do, but what's truely pathetic is that there are apparently plenty of very un-Christian-like Christians.  That nastiness involved with the school board elections was just plain wrong, not to mention the death threats against that judge, who actually gave ID more of a fair shake than I would have in his place.  Apparently a lot of people have a complete lack of understanding as to exactly what a theory is, or how that word applies to science.

2, The Ranting Gryphon has some interesting thoughts on the matter: http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-Intelligent_Design.mp3
One of my favorite points he has is about how if religion is scientific enough to be taught in school, then science is spiritual enough to be preached in church.  I don't agree with his assesment of religion's entire point being to reject science though.  It's an unfair oversimplification.

I was raised Lutehran, but I've never had a problem with anything scientific.  It could be because Lutheranism promotes free interpretation of the Bible, or it could just be that I've never felt my faith threatened by gaining a better understanding of the universe through science.  Lately I've become a lot more agnostic, but mostly this has to do with what I see as that complete pointlessness of organized religion than anything else.

[t'Sade]

"That's cheese!"

That is a pretty good little bit. And the tooth fairy bit. Actually, I just like the entire thing.

I do agree, religion has a place in the philosophy classes, not in science classes. I have an entire family of scientists that pretty much enforced that from my early life. Even my own beliefs of how I choose to view the universe is something that is a philosophical belief than a scientific one. Of course, my religion is pretty much defined as "everything that science hasn't worked on."

[Ludovico]

I haven't read everything here, so forgive me if I'm offbase.

    CannToon points out the minute you admit any part of the bible is wrong, everything falls apart. However, when you are dealing with folks who believe blindly, arguing is useless, as they will concoct any possible rationalization to support their dogmatic thesis.

   If God him (or her  ) self came down and tried to dissuade them, he would fail. No matter what God did to convince them the bible was wrong, they would probably think he was just testing them, or it was really the devil trying to trick them. Their minds are set and closed, so why take their arguments seriously.

   I completely separate Intelligent Design from the absurdity of the bible. The Universe may be intelligent in ways that do not conflict with Science in any way whatsoever. Lose the bible and God entirely, and then look at Intelligent Design within the scope of science.

   Sorry if this rehashes anything - I will try to read back. 

Lud

[KK]

That's the problem with a dogma.
It can only be right.

So anyone who disagrees must by definition be wrong.

His wrongness can only have 2 reasons: ignorance or evilness.
If he's ignorant, he must - for his own sake - be convinced of his wrongness.
Because it's a dogma, of course after it is explained to him, he will realize his wrongness.
If he doesn't, he must be evil.

Evilness must, of course, be fought, and because the dogma is right, there is no question that the end justifies the means in fighting evil.

Essentially, this is the concept of religion at its core - any religion. I think religions by definition cannot coexist, at least as far as Christians, Muslims and Hindus are concerned (not exactly sure about Buddhists). Pretending different is either smoke and mirrors or the idea of people who don't really feel strongly about their religion in the first place (which is, of course, a good thing).

Personally, I think religions are one of the biggest dangers to the survival of our species. 

[t'Sade]

Lud: It sounds like you and I are close to the same page.

KK: I sort of agree. I think dogma is the sign of a system that exists for the sake of existing. Religion itself I think is a very powerful tool for enlightenment, but I also don't think religion is for the masses. I think it is a personal thing, just like abstaining from sex, drugs, and those other things that society seems to view as "evil". You can't make a society truly understand religion (sans dogma) as a whole. It needs to be individuals who embrace it and find what they need from it.