Print

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

[LT]

CannToon points out the minute you admit any part of the bible is wrong, everything falls apart.

I don't really get that.  I've noticed a lot of atheists try to invalidate religion by "disproving" the Bible, but that just isn't the case.  Yeah, some of the nuttier people actually take the Bible as some kind of literal truth, but in the end, it's just a book.  Penn and Teller can tell me that the Bible is bullshit all they want, and I'll just shrug my shoulders, because they really don't have a point.  It's a book.  It was written by some people who believe in these things, but they were just as human as you or I, and they also had opinions like everyone else, and those made their way into their writings, which were products of their time.  So really the Bible is one big collection of morality tales, and proving that the events in the Bible didn't really take place they way they are depicted is pretty meaningless because most people already know that.  Religion is about faith in a higher power and how we live our lives accordingly, not whether some guy named Noah actually built some huge boat or not.

I highly suggest that you read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_god-fuse-10-things-christians-atheists-can-agree-on.html

[Ludovico]

CannToon points out the minute you admit any part of the bible is wrong, everything falls apart.

I don't really get that.  I've noticed a lot of atheists try to invalidate religion by "disproving" the Bible, but that just isn't the case.  Yeah, some of the nuttier people actually take the Bible as some kind of literal truth, but in the end, it's just a book.  Penn and Teller can tell me that the Bible is bullshit all they want, and I'll just shrug my shoulders, because they really don't have a point.  It's a book.  It was written by some people who believe in these things, but they were just as human as you or I, and they also had opinions like everyone else, and those made their way into their writings, which were products of their time.  So really the Bible is one big collection of morality tales, and proving that the events in the Bible didn't really take place they way they are depicted is pretty meaningless because most people already know that.  Religion is about faith in a higher power and how we live our lives accordingly, not whether some guy named Noah actually built some huge boat or not.

I highly suggest that you read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_god-fuse-10-things-christians-atheists-can-agree-on.html

Not the case!
The whole reason we are having this discussion is because there is a massive Fundamentalist movement in the U.S. claiming the Bible is literally true, the exact word of God, and they are trying to get Creationism taught in science classes.

Disproving the Bible only disproves one particular view of God - a Divine Authoritarian Asshole - and opens the way for a discussion about the true God - and an Intelligent theory of Intelligent Design.

However you are right that the Bible taken literally is so absurd it isn't worth discussing - but the Fundamentalists are a politically powerful group who will greatly influence the election of our next president!

So we must!

[LT]

We must do what? 

I think you're overreacting a bit.  I'd hardly call this fundamentalist movement "massive", or say that it's anything new.  This has been going on for a long time, and the closest they came to their little dream of theocracy was that school board in Kansas, and that didn't last much longer than it took one judge to decide against allowing ID in schools.  Fundamentalist Chistians make a up a fairly small percentage of the Christians in this country, so it's an even smaller percentage of the US population as a whole.

My state is very red.  I think something like 80% or more of the people who voted in this state voted for Bush both times.  60% voted to approve an ammendment in our state constitution banning gay marriage.  Even with all that crap that proves how red they are, these same people have always voted against including ID in our schools.

[Ludovico]

There is overlap between the Libertarians and the Fundamentalists. However, the problem of them pushing Creationism is a lot bigger than you are saying.

The main point is Intelligent Design could be discussed within the boundries of science, but the fundamentalists make it impossible.

Start talking about an inherent intelligence within the forces of nature, and you wind  up with the Spaghetti Monster. 

[LT]

Which is what people like me came up with to make fun of ID.

And I'm libertarian too, btw.

[t'Sade]

Spaghetti Monster (SM) is love. Actually, I like the playful nature that SM is presented, both in the news and how it is used as a proxy for showing ID without dogma.

[KK]

Ok, I out myself:

what is the spaghetti monster?

[LT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spagetti_monster

[Ludovico]

Spaghetti Monster (SM) is love. Actually, I like the playful nature that SM is presented, both in the news and how it is used as a proxy for showing ID without dogma.

This is what aggravates me! The Spaghetti Monster makes fun of Creationism and the Bible, because taking them literally is absurd.

However, Intelligent Design has no dogma !  It is a wide open question asking if this all could have just happened by a ball of gas blowing up? It doesn't contradict science at all, simply asks, like the Peggy Lee song, is that all there is ?

Now the Macaroni Monster is another story! 

[LT]

The way it was explained in court was as an alternative to evolutionary "theory," not as a way to explain the Big Bang.  ID holds that the organisms on this planet are simply too complex to have developed into what they presently are through natural selection.  They even came up with a specific example to use in court that they thought was unique and complex, and thus the perfect thing to make their argument with.  The problem was that it wasn't, and real scientists knew that and blew their example clean out of the water.  ID isn't science, it's a matter of faith and personal philosophy.  Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but it becomes one when it's being pushed forward as science in the classroom.  Not only does it violate the very essence of what science is, but it violates the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  Requiring public schools to include ID in their curriculums would be violating that part, the first part, of the First Amendment that this nation's founding fathers set down for us.  This is the Bill of Rights we're talking about here, and that is the first tenant in it.  That med it incredibly easy for the judge to rule against that Kansas school board that caused all this uproar.

[Ludovico]

That's because religion is so pervasive we cannot separate it from ID. Spinoza was accused of being an atheist because his theory of God was more like intelligent design than a personal creator who dictates commandments.

Why isn't the question of human intelligence considered religion and philosophy?
 In psychology, this was actually argued for 50 years. Behaviorists refused to allow our minds to be a consideration in explaining our actions, and argued it must be explained on purely physical grounds to be scientific.
The brainmeisters still want to reduce us to bio-chemical reactions.

So is arguing there is truly Human Intelligence non-scientific? If HI can be considered scientific, why not a greater intelligence in the universe that is not God !

[LT]

Human intelligence can be measured through tests, and it can be directly observed.  There is no such emperical evidence that can do the same for God or whatever other deity you happen to believe in.  I'm not saying that there's no such thing, but this is why there's a very clear line between science and theology.

[Ludovico]

Human intelligence can be measured through tests, and it can be directly observed.  There is no such emperical evidence that can do the same for God or whatever other deity you happen to believe in.  I'm not saying that there's no such thing, but this is why there's a very clear line between science and theology.

Many scientists argue that measuring human intelligence is not empirical, you are only measuring performance - and I'm not talking about God.

[LT]

It's directly observable.  And if you aren't talking about God, then what are you talking about?  The best I can tell, you're trying to validate ID by trying to invalidate true sciences.  I'm arguing that science and religion need to be kept separate.

[Ludovico]

It's directly observable.  And if you aren't talking about God, then what are you talking about?  The best I can tell, you're trying to validate ID by trying to invalidate true sciences.  I'm arguing that science and religion need to be kept separate.

I entirely agree. I'm arguing discussing an Intelligent Universe doesn't have to involve God or religion. If we can directly observe the intelligence of humans, why not directly observe the intelligence of the universe? No God involved!