No, I wouldn't say that it's security by obscurity. If it was security through obscurity, the list of people to watch would be diluted with names of people who have done nothing to tick off the higher-ups; it'd be more ambiguous. But if you have a list of only people that you declare as your enemies for the exact same reasons, then you suddenly have to keep track of a whole lot of people individually which would be a futile effort.
Also, I've seen "Person of Interest", and I deeply regret it!
I really wish they had some samples of recordings from this microphone. I also kind of wonder what sort of transformation the sound undergoes in being amplified after being received from such a strange and tiny input. Would there be a lot of bass? Would it all be high-end? Whatever comes out of the speaker obviously isn't the same as the sound going in because there's such a difference in size and reception. I also can't imagine a golden particle in a laser beam being terribly accurate for certain frequencies or being able to capture all of the detail of a sound, but the article doesn't specify.
I sort of agree with the article. Basically, people try to design the use of something to the point where they forget that it's for simplicity, not simple minds.
Some of the examples seem pretty nitpicky (menus fade in and out when they used to just blink into existence, windows have shadows, etc). Some of these things were implemented decades ago (I remember Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 having shadows under their windows despite the interface being in 80x25 text mode), but if they could have been, I'm sure they would have been. For the most part, they don't make computing feel subtly condescending. Rather, they're making it easier for people to visually comprehend what is happening on their computer; objects in the real world cast shadows, so interface windows cast shadows, too. Books gradually open when you separate the pages to read the contents and don't just pop open in a blink, so an interface will display something gradually to communicate what's happening to reduce confusion.
And at least computer interfaces aren't overly condescending like a lot of early command line applications felt like when I used them; I can't think of any specifics right now, but I have memories of not being able to run various programs because I was missing some invisible, required parameter and there wasn't any help command or useful document that came with. The program would just close, sometimes without any message, as if it was an upset guest, offended because I wasn't already completely familiar with it so it just huffs and walks out the door.
But this condescending tone that the article refers to is something that I've seen translate into a lot of games lately, mostly made in Flash by independent developers. You start a game and the first few sections or even levels are big rooms that tell you things like "Use the arrow keys to move!" "Did you know that you can actually jump in this platforming game?" "Kill enemies that try to kill you!" I get that sometimes developers will use this to pad out a game and make it look like there's more playable content than what's provided, but it doesn't help the gameplay experience at all.
The respective scientific communities of their day thought the above were true scientific settings. One has to recognize that scientists are humans and are affected by various belief systems and social norms - thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, decades ago, today and most likely tomorrow as well.
Science is a process and a way of thinking. It is built based on observation, testing, and drawing conclusions based on a thorough examination of evidence. It's not based on belief systems. That would make it a religion.
Actually the bible using the phraseology of a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago is a point I've often made. I've also already commented on scientists suggesting the earth was a sphere in classical era greece, 2nd century india, 17th century China, etc. That said, your citation does not demonstrate the Bible saying the earth is flat. That is an interpretation some men have made, often stretching the interpretation quite a bit. Starting from heaven above earth below, someone at a zenith, someone seeing all kingdoms from a height, the heavens spreading (sounds like cosmic inflation/expansion), the earth flattening (sounds like erosion), the earth is fixed (given the pace of continental drift an easily forgiven error), etc. Add to this that we are using a somewhat poetic english translation with know translation errors.
Again, you're not looking at my sources and are ignoring human history, making up claims instead. Do you have a credible citation for any of these claims?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by me "moving the goal posts". You seem to be throwing this term around to dismiss yourself from having to refute my claims:(
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion;
Seriously? The nazis justified atrocities in a darwinian and scientific setting, the soviets justified atrocities with scientific and political rationalization, the khmer rouge also did so with political rationalization. Each of these groups killed millions without religious justification, they all view religion as an enemy.
Or were you just hoping to invoke Godwin's law with that comment?;-)
It's commonly known that the Nazis followed Christ. I'm almost surprised that you're claiming otherwise (though, according to Godwin's Law, one of us was going to anyway, so I'm not really that taken aback:P). I'm kind of disappointed that you believe that evolution and social darwinism are the same; one is a natural process and the other is amoral and deliberate. It's also worth pointing out that your god has employed social darwinism in committing genocide on various groups; from killing entire cities such as Sodom to flooding the entire earth because he hated his human creation, god has been a proponent of social darwinism, killing the sinful so that the obedient would survive.
Though they're not Christian, other totalitarian governments have built up their leaders as being superhuman through propaganda and terror. The leaders turned their images into icons that symbolized a sort of salvation for their countries. People were promised prosperity so long as the leader stayed in power and those who opposed were destroyed.
I've also never heard of anyone committing great and nefarious acts in the name of atheism. There always is some sort of conclusion that is supposed to come about from these acts that is invented and based on faith.
Again, the point is that even though Christians have the same holy text in common, they have beliefs that contradict with one another...
Perhaps you missed the following in my first post of this thread: "Christianity has a wide range of opinions and only a very small minority are of the earth is 6,000
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
Then I suppose that those were not true scientific settings then, were they? Also, science doesn't have holy books; I think you're mistaken.
No. That illustration is not what the bible describes, it is what interpretations that are making quite a stretch describe. Stretches of the nature that something being above the earth implies the earth is flat.
The interpretations are what people use to claim that the Bible says that the earth is a globe. But it actually says that the earth is flat. When you understand that the Bible is composed of stories written between 2000 to 3500 years ago, you see that it does have a place in history and that the things it describes are based on the knowledge and culture of those who wrote it. The notion of a spherical earth wasn't accepted until the 3rd Century in Greece, over 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities.
No it shows that human minds are able to use anything to justify atrocities. There are ample examples in modern history of human minds using some political writing to justify atrocities. There are ample examples of men of science using scientific theory and concepts to justify atrocities.
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion; I haven't seen the rational or scientific equivalent of a meeting or message board where people openly claim their desire for a return to slavery or anything as equally horrible, especially today. Because your Bible is able to justify despicable actions, it is also in a sense advocating them. It's written (or divinely inspired) by god, who is infallible, so there's no reason for its followers to disagree with its teachings.
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
Catholics and various other denominations have nothing against evolution. The stats are US centric, basically you are cherry picking a subpopulation to artificially inflate the stats. Altering the conversation from christianity in general.
And many prominent scientists rejected the big bang theory, and string theory, etc. Eventually they came around. So did those within the church regarding Copernicus as more data became available and tools (telescopes, mathematics) improved.
It's not quite the same. In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence. In a religious setting, if an idea contradicts what the religion teaches, there will either be someone who says that it can't be possible since it's against scripture or there will be a new interpretation made for when the fact contradicts a section of the holy text.
Imagine that we're looking back on scientific history and we find some writings of Aristotle who believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. We know that that isn't true, so instead of saying that he was wrong, we interpret his writing. When he said "heavier" he really meant that an object resisted more wind. See? He was never wrong! Would you be convinced by this assertion? I doubt it.
The specifically cited biblical passages linked to in previous posts did not seem to state that the earth was flat, and seemed to show that the proponent's interpretation of scripture was quite a stretch.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities. And it's also important given that the Bible has a number of passages condoning slavery. I haven't seen any interpretations for what those are actually supposed to mean.
I was unable to find any genuine scientific claims for slavery, but I was able to find plenty of recent things like this 17-page message Baptist board thread from 2009 [NSFW] that use the Bible to justify their desire for it. These people are using the same Bible that you do. The only difference is that you have your own way of abstracting and interpreting the text so that you can feel free to safely ignore these passages. You do this because, despite god saying that it's okay, you know that slavery is wrong. (And yes, I'm comfortable making this assertion of your views on slavery because, given your dismissal of my argument, it seems that you wouldn't be in favor of treating people as property.)
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.... Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process.... A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution
Maybe I have been ignoring Copernicus and his Heliocentric model. I'm not ignoring or denying that Copernicus was a monk. It makes sense that he was because monks and religious followers were the intellectuals of their time (heck, you had to at least be literate to read the Bible, after all). However, one of the arguments against his model of the solar system was that it contradicted scripture. For example, a theologian-astronomer from that time named Giovanni Maria Tolosani said the following:
It appears that [Copernicus] is unskilled with regard to [the interpretation of] holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book.
You can read more about the church, Copernicus, and Gallileo here if you'd like.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that the church teaches evolution in its science classes.
But anyway, I'm still curious why god would talk to ancient shepherds and have them author books of divine events decades after they happened, then not bother to make sure that the translations of the books were maintained or come back to tell us more information. We're left with broken translations and interpretations that no two churches can agree on. Everyone has a different interpretation with no good reasons for why theirs is the correct one. For instance, some Christians believe that the universe was created in six literal days while others interpret it to mean thousands, millions, or billions of years. Some believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place that Adam and Eve were banished from while others believe that the entire Genesis story were metaphorical. Christians can't even agree on whether or not Jesus and God were the same being thanks to arbitrary interpretation.
By the way, "scientific" observation (pre-classical greek scientists, indian scientists (200s?), somewhat recent chinese scientists {1600s?}, etc) has been used to explain that the earth is flat too. Poor instruments (human eyes), poor observations (ground level), poor model (earth far larger than assumed),...
Yes, and our knowledge was updated when it was proven wrong. It's a contrast to the unchanging word of god which requires 'interpretation' for it to make sense.
The fact that god has not returned to clarify things now that we have a greater level of sophistication says nothing. My understanding is that he is more of a scorekeeper right now, not an active player.
What is your understanding of god acting as a scorekeeper based on? Scorekeeper of what, anyway?
Besides, what is the necessity, we are learning to figure it out. Perhaps that is part of the plan, our evolution?:-)
What was the necessity of god to speak in metaphor to the sheep herder about universal mechanics? It would have been much more useful for him to tell the sheep herder how to better care for his sheep!:P
When you start interpreting parts of the Bible to mean different things, you start abstracting the base of your faith. This allows you to extend the ideas of that god beyond what the holy book actually says and start making interpretations about god's personality, behavior, actions, and supposed plans for humanity. A lot of these things that you've mentioned, from him acting as a scorekeeper for some divine plan for us to him whispering truths about the universe in metaphor to a shepherd, are vague because they're based on that abstraction. You can't justify these particular beliefs of yours with passages in context, so they have to be invented through the 'interpretation'. This is something that god himself warns about; this passage is used by many different Christians to show that those who change the meaning of the Bible will be punished personally by their god.
Christianity isn't based on Christians being perfect...
It's based on worshiping something that is supposed to be perfect while believing that you're born into sin, so you're automatically a flawed and damaged disgrace. This is supposed to be true no matter what you have done and no matter what that god has done.
If god really was clearly speaking in metaphor so that even sheep herders could understand, then there shouldn't have been such a blatant miscommunication; the Bible has been used to explain that the earth is flat and to justify slavery, among other things that most people would find disagreeable today.
Do you really think that it's believable for an all-knowing god to tell a sheep herder two millenia ago about the evolution of the universe using non-descriptive and misleading metaphors? Do you honestly believe that this same god would communicate something like this to a simple sheep herder as a means of explaining something about the universe because humanity was still in an intellectual infancy, but disappear into the clouds to never explain anything to us further despite our greater knowledge today?
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
So basically, when science disagrees with the Bible, its words have to be "interpreted" since the alleged word of god can't possibly be wrong.
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide?
I don't think they are dismissing, I think they are interpreting. For example the 7 days of genesis may not have been 24 hour periods.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
That still begs the question: how can one tell whether or not the "word of god" is speaking metaphorically?
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide?
I don't think they are dismissing, I think they are interpreting. For example the 7 days of genesis may not have been 24 hour periods.
(Actually, this one is based on ALICE. If you ask it if its name is pretty much anything, it will say that its name is God, but if you ask if its name is Alice, it will say 'yes'.)
Go with Google, it's our thing
If you can't search the web then you probably use Bing.
So take a seat in the chair
Bust a few queries with "I'm feeling lucky" if you dare
This is it, for a winner
Google this and you won't look like a beginner
Move, slide your cursor arrow
Type some more keywords to help your search narrow, narrow, narrow
That just means that the line circled around the molten sea, not that the length of the line was approximated. Several of the other translations on that Bible.cc page also show this:
Webster's Bible Translation
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the hight of it; and a line of thirty cubits encompassed it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wouldn't say that it's security by obscurity. If it was security through obscurity, the list of people to watch would be diluted with names of people who have done nothing to tick off the higher-ups; it'd be more ambiguous. But if you have a list of only people that you declare as your enemies for the exact same reasons, then you suddenly have to keep track of a whole lot of people individually which would be a futile effort.
Also, I've seen "Person of Interest", and I deeply regret it!
The bigger the list, the more meaningless it becomes.
I really wish they had some samples of recordings from this microphone. I also kind of wonder what sort of transformation the sound undergoes in being amplified after being received from such a strange and tiny input. Would there be a lot of bass? Would it all be high-end? Whatever comes out of the speaker obviously isn't the same as the sound going in because there's such a difference in size and reception. I also can't imagine a golden particle in a laser beam being terribly accurate for certain frequencies or being able to capture all of the detail of a sound, but the article doesn't specify.
Only that "representation" in Jurassic Park was an actual application called File System Navigator.
Wait, we're not supposed to eat them? Why wasn't there a large and blatant warning on the package?
What's disappearing even faster is their user base.
I sort of agree with the article. Basically, people try to design the use of something to the point where they forget that it's for simplicity, not simple minds.
Some of the examples seem pretty nitpicky (menus fade in and out when they used to just blink into existence, windows have shadows, etc). Some of these things were implemented decades ago (I remember Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 having shadows under their windows despite the interface being in 80x25 text mode), but if they could have been, I'm sure they would have been. For the most part, they don't make computing feel subtly condescending. Rather, they're making it easier for people to visually comprehend what is happening on their computer; objects in the real world cast shadows, so interface windows cast shadows, too. Books gradually open when you separate the pages to read the contents and don't just pop open in a blink, so an interface will display something gradually to communicate what's happening to reduce confusion.
And at least computer interfaces aren't overly condescending like a lot of early command line applications felt like when I used them; I can't think of any specifics right now, but I have memories of not being able to run various programs because I was missing some invisible, required parameter and there wasn't any help command or useful document that came with. The program would just close, sometimes without any message, as if it was an upset guest, offended because I wasn't already completely familiar with it so it just huffs and walks out the door.
But this condescending tone that the article refers to is something that I've seen translate into a lot of games lately, mostly made in Flash by independent developers. You start a game and the first few sections or even levels are big rooms that tell you things like "Use the arrow keys to move!" "Did you know that you can actually jump in this platforming game?" "Kill enemies that try to kill you!" I get that sometimes developers will use this to pad out a game and make it look like there's more playable content than what's provided, but it doesn't help the gameplay experience at all.
A language that's flexible. Time to move to German.
The respective scientific communities of their day thought the above were true scientific settings. One has to recognize that scientists are humans and are affected by various belief systems and social norms - thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, decades ago, today and most likely tomorrow as well.
Science is a process and a way of thinking. It is built based on observation, testing, and drawing conclusions based on a thorough examination of evidence. It's not based on belief systems. That would make it a religion.
Actually the bible using the phraseology of a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago is a point I've often made. I've also already commented on scientists suggesting the earth was a sphere in classical era greece, 2nd century india, 17th century China, etc. That said, your citation does not demonstrate the Bible saying the earth is flat. That is an interpretation some men have made, often stretching the interpretation quite a bit. Starting from heaven above earth below, someone at a zenith, someone seeing all kingdoms from a height, the heavens spreading (sounds like cosmic inflation/expansion), the earth flattening (sounds like erosion), the earth is fixed (given the pace of continental drift an easily forgiven error), etc. Add to this that we are using a somewhat poetic english translation with know translation errors.
Again, you're not looking at my sources and are ignoring human history, making up claims instead. Do you have a credible citation for any of these claims?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by me "moving the goal posts". You seem to be throwing this term around to dismiss yourself from having to refute my claims :(
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion;
Seriously? The nazis justified atrocities in a darwinian and scientific setting, the soviets justified atrocities with scientific and political rationalization, the khmer rouge also did so with political rationalization. Each of these groups killed millions without religious justification, they all view religion as an enemy.
Or were you just hoping to invoke Godwin's law with that comment? ;-)
It's commonly known that the Nazis followed Christ. I'm almost surprised that you're claiming otherwise (though, according to Godwin's Law, one of us was going to anyway, so I'm not really that taken aback :P). I'm kind of disappointed that you believe that evolution and social darwinism are the same; one is a natural process and the other is amoral and deliberate. It's also worth pointing out that your god has employed social darwinism in committing genocide on various groups; from killing entire cities such as Sodom to flooding the entire earth because he hated his human creation, god has been a proponent of social darwinism, killing the sinful so that the obedient would survive.
Though they're not Christian, other totalitarian governments have built up their leaders as being superhuman through propaganda and terror. The leaders turned their images into icons that symbolized a sort of salvation for their countries. People were promised prosperity so long as the leader stayed in power and those who opposed were destroyed.
I've also never heard of anyone committing great and nefarious acts in the name of atheism. There always is some sort of conclusion that is supposed to come about from these acts that is invented and based on faith.
Again, the point is that even though Christians have the same holy text in common, they have beliefs that contradict with one another ...
Perhaps you missed the following in my first post of this thread: "Christianity has a wide range of opinions and only a very small minority are of the earth is 6,000
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
Then I suppose that those were not true scientific settings then, were they? Also, science doesn't have holy books; I think you're mistaken.
Are you talking about this source? If you scroll down, there's an illustration of the cosmos as described by the Bible, which the rest of that source covers.
No. That illustration is not what the bible describes, it is what interpretations that are making quite a stretch describe. Stretches of the nature that something being above the earth implies the earth is flat.
The interpretations are what people use to claim that the Bible says that the earth is a globe. But it actually says that the earth is flat. When you understand that the Bible is composed of stories written between 2000 to 3500 years ago, you see that it does have a place in history and that the things it describes are based on the knowledge and culture of those who wrote it. The notion of a spherical earth wasn't accepted until the 3rd Century in Greece, over 100 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities.
No it shows that human minds are able to use anything to justify atrocities. There are ample examples in modern history of human minds using some political writing to justify atrocities. There are ample examples of men of science using scientific theory and concepts to justify atrocities.
You'd be really hard-pressed to find someone who would try justifying an atrocity without religion; I haven't seen the rational or scientific equivalent of a meeting or message board where people openly claim their desire for a return to slavery or anything as equally horrible, especially today. Because your Bible is able to justify despicable actions, it is also in a sense advocating them. It's written (or divinely inspired) by god, who is infallible, so there's no reason for its followers to disagree with its teachings.
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
Catholics and various other denominations have nothing against evolution. The stats are US centric, basically you are cherry picking a subpopulation to artificially inflate the stats. Altering the conversation from christianity in general.
(Trimming the rest of the quote s
And many prominent scientists rejected the big bang theory, and string theory, etc. Eventually they came around. So did those within the church regarding Copernicus as more data became available and tools (telescopes, mathematics) improved.
It's not quite the same. In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence. In a religious setting, if an idea contradicts what the religion teaches, there will either be someone who says that it can't be possible since it's against scripture or there will be a new interpretation made for when the fact contradicts a section of the holy text.
Imagine that we're looking back on scientific history and we find some writings of Aristotle who believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. We know that that isn't true, so instead of saying that he was wrong, we interpret his writing. When he said "heavier" he really meant that an object resisted more wind. See? He was never wrong! Would you be convinced by this assertion? I doubt it.
The specifically cited biblical passages linked to in previous posts did not seem to state that the earth was flat, and seemed to show that the proponent's interpretation of scripture was quite a stretch.
Are you talking about this source? If you scroll down, there's an illustration of the cosmos as described by the Bible, which the rest of that source covers.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities. And it's also important given that the Bible has a number of passages condoning slavery. I haven't seen any interpretations for what those are actually supposed to mean.
I was unable to find any genuine scientific claims for slavery, but I was able to find plenty of recent things like this 17-page message Baptist board thread from 2009 [NSFW] that use the Bible to justify their desire for it. These people are using the same Bible that you do. The only difference is that you have your own way of abstracting and interpreting the text so that you can feel free to safely ignore these passages. You do this because, despite god saying that it's okay, you know that slavery is wrong. (And yes, I'm comfortable making this assertion of your views on slavery because, given your dismissal of my argument, it seems that you wouldn't be in favor of treating people as property.)
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
Maybe I have been ignoring Copernicus and his Heliocentric model. I'm not ignoring or denying that Copernicus was a monk. It makes sense that he was because monks and religious followers were the intellectuals of their time (heck, you had to at least be literate to read the Bible, after all). However, one of the arguments against his model of the solar system was that it contradicted scripture. For example, a theologian-astronomer from that time named Giovanni Maria Tolosani said the following:
It appears that [Copernicus] is unskilled with regard to [the interpretation of] holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book.
You can read more about the church, Copernicus, and Gallileo here if you'd like.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Yes, that would be very surprising, especially considering that there's a still large division between creationists and people who believe in evolution (at least in the USA).
But anyway, I'm still curious why god would talk to ancient shepherds and have them author books of divine events decades after they happened, then not bother to make sure that the translations of the books were maintained or come back to tell us more information. We're left with broken translations and interpretations that no two churches can agree on. Everyone has a different interpretation with no good reasons for why theirs is the correct one. For instance, some Christians believe that the universe was created in six literal days while others interpret it to mean thousands, millions, or billions of years. Some believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place that Adam and Eve were banished from while others believe that the entire Genesis story were metaphorical. Christians can't even agree on whether or not Jesus and God were the same being thanks to arbitrary interpretation.
Galileo's publications on the heliocentric model were censored by the church. Even around this time, people used passages from the Bible to argue that the earth was flat and immovable. These are the same passages that are used by the Flat Earth believers, which I'm sure you've seen already.
Yes, and our knowledge was updated when it was proven wrong. It's a contrast to the unchanging word of god which requires 'interpretation' for it to make sense.
What is your understanding of god acting as a scorekeeper based on? Scorekeeper of what, anyway?
What was the necessity of god to speak in metaphor to the sheep herder about universal mechanics? It would have been much more useful for him to tell the sheep herder how to better care for his sheep! :P
When you start interpreting parts of the Bible to mean different things, you start abstracting the base of your faith. This allows you to extend the ideas of that god beyond what the holy book actually says and start making interpretations about god's personality, behavior, actions, and supposed plans for humanity. A lot of these things that you've mentioned, from him acting as a scorekeeper for some divine plan for us to him whispering truths about the universe in metaphor to a shepherd, are vague because they're based on that abstraction. You can't justify these particular beliefs of yours with passages in context, so they have to be invented through the 'interpretation'. This is something that god himself warns about; this passage is used by many different Christians to show that those who change the meaning of the Bible will be punished personally by their god.
Christianity isn't based on Christians being perfect...
It's based on worshiping something that is supposed to be perfect while believing that you're born into sin, so you're automatically a flawed and damaged disgrace. This is supposed to be true no matter what you have done and no matter what that god has done.
If god really was clearly speaking in metaphor so that even sheep herders could understand, then there shouldn't have been such a blatant miscommunication; the Bible has been used to explain that the earth is flat and to justify slavery, among other things that most people would find disagreeable today.
Do you really think that it's believable for an all-knowing god to tell a sheep herder two millenia ago about the evolution of the universe using non-descriptive and misleading metaphors? Do you honestly believe that this same god would communicate something like this to a simple sheep herder as a means of explaining something about the universe because humanity was still in an intellectual infancy, but disappear into the clouds to never explain anything to us further despite our greater knowledge today?
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
So basically, when science disagrees with the Bible, its words have to be "interpreted" since the alleged word of god can't possibly be wrong.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
That still begs the question: how can one tell whether or not the "word of god" is speaking metaphorically?
You just further proved his point.
God does exist in Chatterbot form already.
(Actually, this one is based on ALICE. If you ask it if its name is pretty much anything, it will say that its name is God, but if you ask if its name is Alice, it will say 'yes'.)
Go with Google, it's our thing
If you can't search the web then you probably use Bing.
So take a seat in the chair
Bust a few queries with "I'm feeling lucky" if you dare
This is it, for a winner
Google this and you won't look like a beginner
Move, slide your cursor arrow
Type some more keywords to help your search narrow, narrow, narrow
If you want a highly-stimulative track, turn up some Flashbulb
Also, you can't go wrong with Squarepusher
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in shape, and five cubits its height; and a line of thirty cubits did measure its circumference.
Webster's Bible Translation
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the hight of it; and a line of thirty cubits encompassed it.
New International Version (©1984)
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
I believe that the correct term is "mathsturbation"
It's too late. Bill Gates died in 1999 and all he got was a website devoted to the fact.
And now his body will return; to the earth.