First, note that copyright laws for the last several decades have literally been written by lawyers employed by copyright industry. Actual legislators rarely "author" anything more than small modifications.
is that no law can make things go back to the way they were, unless that law breaks all the computers
We are happy to have reached a reasonable compromise with you. We find your terms acceptable.
Well, in California, they did pass a State Constitutional Amendment to say Marriage is between one man, and one woman
Up until 1998 South Carolina's state Constitution had an equivalent clause prohibiting interracial marriage. Hell, even in 1998 38% of the state's voters voted to keep it in place. Bigotry dies slowly, fighting tooth and nail all the way.
The point is, it doesn't matter what California's or South Carolina's Constitution said on the subject. They were both null and void under the US Constitution.
Under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, EVERY STATE is required to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And that includes marriages. It doesn't matter if your state has a two year waiting period to obtain a marriage license, you can fly to Nevada and get a quickie marriage in a cheezy Vegas chapel. Every state is required under the US constitution to give full faith and credit to that marriage. It doesn't matter if your state prohibits interracial marriages or gay marriages. You can fly to Iowa and have an interracial gay marriage, and it doesn't matter if one state constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being interracial and another state's constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being gay.
And regardless of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, any law or state constitutional ban on gay marriages or interracial marriages is null and void anyway under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The law cannot examine the RACE of marriage applicants as a basis for discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the RELIGION of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the GENDER of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications.
Any prohibition against gay marriages is null and void for the exact same reason any prohibition on interracial marriages is null and void, and the exact same reason any ban on mixed-religion marriages would be null and void.
The only way to stop gay marriages (or interracial marriages), would be with an amendment to the US Constitution.
Anywho, the battles will linger one but the war is already over. General public opinion on the issue is already split almost dead even, and it's increasing twice as fast as approval increased for interracial marriage. And most significantly, there is an overwhelming generational split. Exactly as happened with interracial marriage, opposition is concentrated among the older generation and particularly the senior citizens. Exactly as with interracial marriage, the younger half of the population is overwhelmingly accepting, viewing it as an issue of civil-rights vs bigotry.
The fact is, the war is over. The gay marriage opponents just don't know it yet. There is just plain no way to stand against a generational shift. Each and every day the younger generations just plain bury more and more of the senior generation, and their bigotry gets buried with them.
If you don't want to marry a black/white/asian/latino/homosexual/lesbian/christian/muslim/hindu/atheist/blond/brunette/redhead or whatever else, then fine. Don't marry anyone you don't want to marry. But it's no skin off your nose if some other consenting adult couple choose to get married. Live and let live.
Debating bills went the way of buggy whips. Modern political technology initiates the filibuster simultaneously with the bill's original proposal. Politicians are excited about the recent neutrino results, and the possibility of initiating the filibuster process prior to bill proposal.
The eu.techcrunch.com article makes no mention of 3D. It's the i-programmer.info dopes that mislabeled this as 3D. The slashdot submitter and editor also get blame for perpetuating the error.
The technology uses a base unit that blows a basically 2D "sheet" of fog upwards as a display surface. Behind that there is a 2D laser projector aimed at the fog display screen.
Some people mentioned the keyboard in the demo as 3D, but no, that was the same as any ordinary 2D windowing system. The 2D keyboard that came up merely replaced the 2D content that was supposedly 'behind' it.
So it seems to me your attempts to draw poor conclusions are probably malicious rather than ignorant.
There was absolutely nothing malicious in my post.
I asked a series of sincere questions of you, attempting to gain some information or understanding from you, and you answered exactly none of them.
For example, I still honestly have absolutely no idea whether you do or do not believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers who could (and did) magically turn sticks into snakes. I do not know if you take that section to be a reasonably accurate historical accounting of events, or whether you take it as figurative or allegorical or what.
If you do take it as an account of actual events, I still do not know whether you consider it unreasonable for me to firmly disbelieve in sorcerers.
If you do not take that as an account of a real event, I do not know how or why you distinguish it from all other "magical" events in the Bible (such as the resurrection of Jesus). And I still do not know if you consider it unreasonable for me to take that sorcerer scene as cause to affirmatively-doubt all magical scenes in the Bible.
The closest you came to providing any sort of answer at all for me, was to merely assert the Bible was different from my example, and ignore answering anything. Your previous "explanation" consisted of saying "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." So I responded by saying my Civil War book ALSO adopts different modes of communication in different parts. The entire point of my example is that any and all unspecified aspects of the Civil War book will exactly parallel the Bible.
So, your "answer" this time was to say "The bible is a collection of forty books with ages that vary by a few thousand years." Ok, fine. My Civil War Book is also a collection of forty books with ages that vary by a few thousand years. I merely pointed to one particular passage where Abraham Lincoln summoned his sorcerers, who then preformed magic turning sticks into snakes.
I know you don't like my example. I realize you feel my example is some malicious mockery. But it really was my best attempt to illustrate what it is I find puzzling. I needed it to be able to ask what I wanted to ask.
I would sincerely like to find out whether you believe Pharaoh's sorcerers turned sticks into snakes. The scene appears to be presented as a historical account, it strikes me as patently unbelievable, and it can't be explained away under the general heading of "God can do miracles". It's an example of humans doing magic in defiance of God. It's just plain human sorcerery.
Personally I consider it reasonable and proper for someone to dismiss all magical scenes in the Civil War book based upon the Lincoln's-sorcerer scene. I would also expect you to label the Civil War book fiction and to dismiss all magic scenes in the book as fiction, based upon that Lincoln's-sorcerer's scene. However from there, I don't understand how or why you'd think me unreasonable for dismissing the Bible as fiction, and dismissing all magical scenes in the bible as fiction, with no need for any more justification than pointing to Pharaoh's sorcerers. It appears you do indeed think me unreasonable, and even offensive, for doing so. So I don't get it. Where am I guessing wrong on your position? Or what reasoning am I missing?
I still do not see how the Bible (or the Civil War book) being written in many parts over many years solves anything. As I see it, the sorcerers alone is sufficient to flag both books as (at best) truth mixed with fiction. As I see it, the sorcerers alone is sufficient to flag all wildly implausible events in the both books as unreliable and presumptively non-credible.
At the very least, can you tell me whether you think Pharaoh had sorcerers would could (and did) to actual magic turning sticks into snakes? And whether you think me unreasonable for
I am not exactly sure what creationism is! I mean, when people refer to "creationism", they are referring to the Christian model, as usually presented in the US, but due to the differences in belief, I guess our "Creationism" might be a lot more different. I am just not sure.
There have been a small number of times I've run into people using "creationism" to mean "God created the universe". But that is rare, the people doing it are always raging about something, and using the word that way always results in nasty confusion.
99% of the time "creationism" refers to the idea that God created the earth AND specifically all the various "kinds" of plants and animals, and that God dropped those various fully-formed "kinds" onto the earth. Creationists are very vague and contradictory on defining "kinds". Some creationists accept that lions and tigers and panthers and housecats all came from one original "cat kind", but they are all adamant that God separately created cats and dogs and lizards.
Perhaps the best definition is to define it in reverse. A core aspect of evolution is common descent - that cats and dogs and lizards all descended from a common ancestor. Creationists view that concept as a direct assault against God.
For many of them the idea of evolution becomes bizarrely equal to atheism. They seem to feel they have infallible knowledge of how God did things, and if God didn't do things exactly as they imagine, then God can't exist. They either reject, or can't comprehend, the idea of God using evolution to create the diversity of life on earth.
3. (The trump card) "but all that well structured and logical scientific stuff was put there by god to mess with the minds of disbelievers!!!!"
Well, if that's true, this means that God actually wants us to believe it (because that's usually the point of placing evidence). In that case, by not believing the evidence, even if rightly so, you are acting against the will of God. So you better believe the scientific evidence, or you'll end in hell.:-)
Ha! I see your name, Mr. maxwell demon! I'm not falling any such trick argument coming out of your mouth!
as a Muslim, I will be the first to say that there is no problem with evolution... I do believe that there is no basis in Islamic tradition and culture for rejecting evolution
While I appreciate your argument supporting your position, I think it only fair to note that you aren't exactly presenting the typical mainstream majority Muslim view. The unfortunate fact is that a substantial majority of Muslims disagree with you.
I'm not saying this is any sort of "Muslim problem", it's just plain a problem. There is a large minority of Christians who believe there is an inherent conflict between God and evolution, and I think you'll have to admit the Muslim community has an even bigger problem with a majority believing a conflict exists.
The only Islamic nation where I'm familiar with evolution polling results is Turkey. In Turkey a quarter accept evolution, a majority of the population rejects evolution, and the rest responding 'unsure'. Turkey is perhaps (?) the most developed, educated, secularized majority Muslim nations in the world. I think it's safe to say Turkey represents a far-above-average acceptance for evolution, compared to other majority-Muslim nations.
I, too, will pitch my hat in the ring to provide a Muslim perspective.
Your Pakistani "Muslim perspective" is essentially identical to the "Christian perspective" in many American Schools.
when I was taught biology in school, guess what, I was taught Darwin!
Darwin died a hundred and thirty years ago, and he published On the Origin of Species over a hundred and fifty years ago.
It's certainly reasonable for a biology course to begin the subject mentioning Darwin. However when a class is "Teaching Darwin" it's a huge red flag that the class doesn't teach the last hundred and fifty years of science and evidence, and that the little it does teach of "Darwinism" is merely the superficial strawman version that denialists make of it.
It was simple, the text simply said, "Charles Darwin, a renowned Scientist hypothesized in his theory that..." and then followed by "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]"
Sadly, the same thing happens all too often in many American Schools. They tell the students they're teaching them evolution, and they present a cartoon picture of the subject. They present a description that makes evolution look hollow and speculative and even silly. Generally they present a picture that makes evolution look obviously impossible. Well, yeah, what they are teaching sounds impossible because it is impossible. What they are teaching is impossible because what they are teaching is wrong.
If you're being taught is "hypothesized" and "theorized", then your teacher isn't teaching you any of the modern science and evidence. If the lesson is going back and forth with "however other people believe X" then you are in a denialist class and you're being taught a hollow and grossly distorted picture of evolution.
Seriously, imagine you were in a chemistry class and the teacher were saying "hypothesized" and "theorized" and "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]". That's obviously not a science class, and it's obviously not teaching you squat about the actual modern science of chemistry. You don't teach "theorized" in a chemistry class, except maybe for a brief bit of historical background. You don't each "other people believe X" in a chemistry class, you can't do that when you're presenting hard evidence and hard experimental results.
That's not a legitimate science class. That's a sham.
A real science class teaches understanding backed up by facts and evidence and experiments. When you complete a real science class, you have enough understanding to know for yourself that it obviously works, and you've learned enough evidence and experiments that it's obviously correct.
Just because your teacher told you he was teaching you "Darwin" doesn't mean that he showed you any of the modern science of evolution, it doesn't mean taught you any of the modern understanding of evolution, and most significantly it doesn't mean he presented you any of the modern evidence and experiments undeniably confirming evolution.
The "theory of evolution" is no more theoretical and no more uncertain than "atomic theory".
A good science class on the evolution will teach enough of an understanding of the process such that evolution is not only obviously possible, evolution is obviously inevitable. A good science class on the subject will present sufficient hard evidence such that evolution is obviously historically accurate.
And any decent theologian will tell you that there's no conflict between science and God. He'll tell you God created the universe, along with and all of the physical laws of the universe. He'll tell you that science is an accurate description of how God designed the universe to work. Does God hand-draw rainbow in the sky?
Newsflash: At least here on Slashdot most of the people bitching about it honestly don't give a shit whether it's Muslims Christians or some Native American dropping peyote to visit spirit animals. If some ignorant fundie religious twit walks out of a medical class because they refuse to hear anything about evolution, then flunk their ass on the test and let them get a degree in burger flipping or French literature.
I just wish the Mid-East would quit exporting so much opium.
P.S. For those who jumped to the association of the Mid-East as Muslim, might I remind everyone that Judaism and and Christianity came out of the Mid-East as well.
I honestly don't understand. Can you help me, pointing out where my assumptions are incorrect or where you think I'm being unreasonable? To explain my confusion I need start with a silly illustration... please bear with me through it, and just point out where my assumptions are wrong in the first part or where I'm being unreasonable in the second part.
Lets say I hand you a book about civil war era America. The book includes many real people, real places, real battles, and other real events. Turning to one arbitrary chapter of the book, we have a scene where Harriet Tubbman goes to Abraham Lincoln demanding that the slaves be freed. Lincoln calls several sorcerers into the room. The sorcerers toss several sticks on the ground and magically turn them into snakes.
I assume we can agree that sorcerers aren't real, and that people can't actually cast magical enchantments to turn turn sticks into snakes. Harriet Tubbman and Abraham Linclon were real people, but I assume we can agree that the book's dialog between them is fictional. I assume we can agree that the book is a work of fiction, regardless of the accurate description of civil war battles included in the story. I assume we can agree that it is reasonable to make a sweeping dismissal of all of the magical scenes in the book as being fictional, regardless of any true civil war events included in the story.
And then you hand me a book. I turn to a random chapter and I find a story about a guy named Moses going to a guy named Pharaoh, demanding the slaves bee freed. And the book then says Pharaoh calls upon his sorcerers, and they toss their rods onto the ground and enchant them into snakes.
Note that that is not some miracle being preformed by God. According the the book you handed me, the sorcerers are magically enchanting the sticks into snakes. They are not doing a miracle with the aid of god, they are preforming magic in defiance against God.
Ok. There were indeed real Pharaohs, and there were slaves in Egypt, and there probably was some real person names Moses.
Now... Honest question: Do you believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers? Do you believe they did real magic, in defiance against God, actually turning sticks into snakes? Is it unreasonable for me to say I think there is no such thing as sorcerers? Is it unreasonable for me to say I think that people can't do magic turning sticks into snakes? Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's dialog between Moses and Pharaoh is at least partially fictional?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's description of sticks turning into snakes is fictional?
Is it unreasonable for me to call the civil war book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers? Is it unreasonable for me to call the Bible book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers?
Is it unreasonable for me to dismiss all of the magical scenes from the book as fictional components?
In your last post, the closest thing I could find to addressing the issue was "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." Well, what if someone said the exact same thing in defense of the civil war book? The civil war book "adopts different modes of communication" in different parts, so somehow other magical parts of the civil war story should be taken as non-fiction?
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at a book with walking talking snakes (Genesis) and sorcerers turning sticks into snakes (Exodus), and take any of the magical scenes any more seriously than the Wizard of Oz. Sure The Wizard of Oz can teach many lessons about courage, morality, kindness, good&evil, and whatnot. But the moment flying monkeys and witches show up (or talking snakes and sorcerers) it is, in my opinion, pretty obvious that a book is overall a magic-filled fairytale.
I honestly don't understand. Do you think Pharaoh had real sorcerers who did real magic? Or do you accept that particular magic-scene is fiction and somehow ignore/deny that as a an indication that other magic-scenes in the book are also fiction? Or... or... I honestly have no idea what.
even if we were to accept every last claim of the evolutionary theory, it would impact perhaps the first 3 chapters of a 40 chapter book. Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example.
You're right. I was careless. My intention was "The entire Genesis Account", meaning the creation story. I was sloppy saying it in a way that apparently referred to "The entire Book of Genesis".
Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example
Evolution and the Genisis account was merely an example. My point was that most Christians know, and if pressed will awkwardly admit, that stuff all across the Bible is fictional. You want to know what it does for the history regarding Moses? Sure. Moses goes to Pharaoh, Pharaoh summons his sorcerers, and the sorcerers' cast enchantments turning their rods into snakes. That's not a miracle preformed by God - that is humans preforming magic turning sticks into snakes. And not only human magic, but humans preforming magic in direct defiance against God. Do you believe humans can actually be sorcerers and do real magic turning sticks into snakes? Do you believe that story is true? And even if you do believe it, do you deny that most Christians would say that was 'probably' or 'certainly' untrue?
Like many works of fiction, it was based on reality. There was a Pharaoh and there were slaves, but the specific dialog and the specific events and the magic is fictional.
then they are manifestly not christian-- not by current definitions, not by historical ones.
Shias can claim Sunis are manifestly not Muslim, Sunis can claim Shias are manifestly not Muslim.
There's only two valid ways to respond to such claims. Either they are both Muslims, or it's the mainstream majority who get to define what it means to be a Muslim and it's the minority sect who gets excluded as non-Muslim.
Protestants can claim Mormons are not Christian, and Mormons can claim Protestants are not Christian. But again, either they are both Christian or it's the mainstream majority who get to define who is a Christian and who is a non-Christian sect with non-conforming beliefs.
In this case the majority of Christians, the mainstream majority Christians, accept evolution as true and that the Genesis Account is not a true/accurate story. If you believe differently then it is you who is the minority sect with divergent beliefs. Either you and they are both Christians, or it is you who isn't a Christian. If you disagree with mainstream majority Christians, and you don't want to share a name with them, then it's you who needs to come up with a different name for your minority religious sect.
If some Westboro Baptist nutjob tried to tell me you're not a Cristian I'd laugh and reject his assertion out of hand. And if you try to tell me the mainstream majority Christians are not Christian I'll laugh and reject your assertion out of hand. A minority sect cannot "expel" the mainstream majority of a religion for not conforming to their minority belief.
I do like that apparently, on slashdot, if you spout factually incorrect (and trivially provable, too) anti-religion rhetoric, you can get modded to +5 for it.
You're right I was careless with the "entirety of Genesis" comment, however that did not undermine the point I was making. It is normal and proper for a post on any subject, with an insignificant mistake, to get modded up when when the main point still stands as interesting or insightful.
Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one? - flood... many Christians don't see the flood as global.
Right. And many Christians don't believe there was a walking talking snake and magical fruit in a garden of eden either. In fact the majority of Christians accept evolution, effectively acknowledging the entirety of Genesis is fiction.
However I find it odd that you are complaining about him calling the bible fiction, and somehow your argument against him is to point out that many Christians accept that it's fictional.
You're just fussing over how much of it is fictional. No one I know of disputes that many of the people, places, and events events in the bible are historical, just like no one disputes that many of the people, places, and events events of greek mythology are historical. There probably was a real battle-hero person named Hercules, just like Jesus was almost certainly a real person. However when you know that Medusa and Harpies are fiction, I'm baffled why would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Hercules to be the son of a God with the strength of a hundred men? And when you know a global flood and walking talking snakes are fictional, I'm baffled why anyone would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Jesus to be the son of a God and rose from the dead?
Slashdot Mirror
What the authors of SOPA don't get
First, note that copyright laws for the last several decades have literally been written by lawyers employed by copyright industry. Actual legislators rarely "author" anything more than small modifications.
is that no law can make things go back to the way they were, unless that law breaks all the computers
We are happy to have reached a reasonable compromise with you. We find your terms acceptable.
-
Well, in California, they did pass a State Constitutional Amendment to say Marriage is between one man, and one woman
Up until 1998 South Carolina's state Constitution had an equivalent clause prohibiting interracial marriage. Hell, even in 1998 38% of the state's voters voted to keep it in place. Bigotry dies slowly, fighting tooth and nail all the way.
The point is, it doesn't matter what California's or South Carolina's Constitution said on the subject. They were both null and void under the US Constitution.
Under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, EVERY STATE is required to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And that includes marriages. It doesn't matter if your state has a two year waiting period to obtain a marriage license, you can fly to Nevada and get a quickie marriage in a cheezy Vegas chapel. Every state is required under the US constitution to give full faith and credit to that marriage. It doesn't matter if your state prohibits interracial marriages or gay marriages. You can fly to Iowa and have an interracial gay marriage, and it doesn't matter if one state constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being interracial and another state's constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being gay.
And regardless of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, any law or state constitutional ban on gay marriages or interracial marriages is null and void anyway under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The law cannot examine the RACE of marriage applicants as a basis for discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the RELIGION of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the GENDER of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications.
Any prohibition against gay marriages is null and void for the exact same reason any prohibition on interracial marriages is null and void, and the exact same reason any ban on mixed-religion marriages would be null and void.
The only way to stop gay marriages (or interracial marriages), would be with an amendment to the US Constitution.
Anywho, the battles will linger one but the war is already over. General public opinion on the issue is already split almost dead even, and it's increasing twice as fast as approval increased for interracial marriage. And most significantly, there is an overwhelming generational split. Exactly as happened with interracial marriage, opposition is concentrated among the older generation and particularly the senior citizens. Exactly as with interracial marriage, the younger half of the population is overwhelmingly accepting, viewing it as an issue of civil-rights vs bigotry.
The fact is, the war is over. The gay marriage opponents just don't know it yet. There is just plain no way to stand against a generational shift. Each and every day the younger generations just plain bury more and more of the senior generation, and their bigotry gets buried with them.
If you don't want to marry a black/white/asian/latino/homosexual/lesbian/christian/muslim/hindu/atheist/blond/brunette/redhead or whatever else, then fine. Don't marry anyone you don't want to marry. But it's no skin off your nose if some other consenting adult couple choose to get married. Live and let live.
-
Science (and most work in general) tends to grind to a halt when mounds are in view.
-
What do an operating room and a bomb range have in common?
Places you never want to hear someone say "Oops".
-
I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the [BOMB] range.
Interesting. I guess the vast majority of the people who live in the area also happen to be deaf.
-
Even freakier, they're all at night.
Clearly a satanic influence at work.
-
Speed of Congress debating a bill: NaN
Debating bills went the way of buggy whips. Modern political technology initiates the filibuster simultaneously with the bill's original proposal. Politicians are excited about the recent neutrino results, and the possibility of initiating the filibuster process prior to bill proposal.
-
You'd only be able to map their brain after killing them and putting them under a scope.
Obviously that's phase two. We couldn't exactly gather the two data sets the other way around, now could we?
-
I hear the assistant director's name was Clippy.
-
All of those names are better than Hulu.
Ugh. Even just typing it makes me wanna puke.
Hu.... Huuuuuu...... Huuuuuugaaaa
-
This is entirely 2D, not 3D.
The eu.techcrunch.com article makes no mention of 3D. It's the i-programmer.info dopes that mislabeled this as 3D. The slashdot submitter and editor also get blame for perpetuating the error.
The technology uses a base unit that blows a basically 2D "sheet" of fog upwards as a display surface. Behind that there is a 2D laser projector aimed at the fog display screen.
Some people mentioned the keyboard in the demo as 3D, but no, that was the same as any ordinary 2D windowing system. The 2D keyboard that came up merely replaced the 2D content that was supposedly 'behind' it.
-
So it seems to me your attempts to draw poor conclusions are probably malicious rather than ignorant.
There was absolutely nothing malicious in my post.
I asked a series of sincere questions of you, attempting to gain some information or understanding from you, and you answered exactly none of them.
For example, I still honestly have absolutely no idea whether you do or do not believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers who could (and did) magically turn sticks into snakes. I do not know if you take that section to be a reasonably accurate historical accounting of events, or whether you take it as figurative or allegorical or what.
If you do take it as an account of actual events, I still do not know whether you consider it unreasonable for me to firmly disbelieve in sorcerers.
If you do not take that as an account of a real event, I do not know how or why you distinguish it from all other "magical" events in the Bible (such as the resurrection of Jesus). And I still do not know if you consider it unreasonable for me to take that sorcerer scene as cause to affirmatively-doubt all magical scenes in the Bible.
The closest you came to providing any sort of answer at all for me, was to merely assert the Bible was different from my example, and ignore answering anything. Your previous "explanation" consisted of saying "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." So I responded by saying my Civil War book ALSO adopts different modes of communication in different parts. The entire point of my example is that any and all unspecified aspects of the Civil War book will exactly parallel the Bible.
So, your "answer" this time was to say "The bible is a collection of forty books with ages that vary by a few thousand years." Ok, fine. My Civil War Book is also a collection of forty books with ages that vary by a few thousand years. I merely pointed to one particular passage where Abraham Lincoln summoned his sorcerers, who then preformed magic turning sticks into snakes.
I know you don't like my example. I realize you feel my example is some malicious mockery. But it really was my best attempt to illustrate what it is I find puzzling. I needed it to be able to ask what I wanted to ask.
I would sincerely like to find out whether you believe Pharaoh's sorcerers turned sticks into snakes. The scene appears to be presented as a historical account, it strikes me as patently unbelievable, and it can't be explained away under the general heading of "God can do miracles". It's an example of humans doing magic in defiance of God. It's just plain human sorcerery.
Personally I consider it reasonable and proper for someone to dismiss all magical scenes in the Civil War book based upon the Lincoln's-sorcerer scene. I would also expect you to label the Civil War book fiction and to dismiss all magic scenes in the book as fiction, based upon that Lincoln's-sorcerer's scene. However from there, I don't understand how or why you'd think me unreasonable for dismissing the Bible as fiction, and dismissing all magical scenes in the bible as fiction, with no need for any more justification than pointing to Pharaoh's sorcerers. It appears you do indeed think me unreasonable, and even offensive, for doing so. So I don't get it. Where am I guessing wrong on your position? Or what reasoning am I missing?
I still do not see how the Bible (or the Civil War book) being written in many parts over many years solves anything. As I see it, the sorcerers alone is sufficient to flag both books as (at best) truth mixed with fiction. As I see it, the sorcerers alone is sufficient to flag all wildly implausible events in the both books as unreliable and presumptively non-credible.
At the very least, can you tell me whether you think Pharaoh had sorcerers would could (and did) to actual magic turning sticks into snakes? And whether you think me unreasonable for
I am not exactly sure what creationism is! I mean, when people refer to "creationism", they are referring to the Christian model, as usually presented in the US, but due to the differences in belief, I guess our "Creationism" might be a lot more different. I am just not sure.
There have been a small number of times I've run into people using "creationism" to mean "God created the universe". But that is rare, the people doing it are always raging about something, and using the word that way always results in nasty confusion.
99% of the time "creationism" refers to the idea that God created the earth AND specifically all the various "kinds" of plants and animals, and that God dropped those various fully-formed "kinds" onto the earth. Creationists are very vague and contradictory on defining "kinds". Some creationists accept that lions and tigers and panthers and housecats all came from one original "cat kind", but they are all adamant that God separately created cats and dogs and lizards.
Perhaps the best definition is to define it in reverse. A core aspect of evolution is common descent - that cats and dogs and lizards all descended from a common ancestor. Creationists view that concept as a direct assault against God.
For many of them the idea of evolution becomes bizarrely equal to atheism. They seem to feel they have infallible knowledge of how God did things, and if God didn't do things exactly as they imagine, then God can't exist. They either reject, or can't comprehend, the idea of God using evolution to create the diversity of life on earth.
-
3. (The trump card) "but all that well structured and logical scientific stuff was put there by god to mess with the minds of disbelievers!!!!"
Well, if that's true, this means that God actually wants us to believe it (because that's usually the point of placing evidence). In that case, by not believing the evidence, even if rightly so, you are acting against the will of God. So you better believe the scientific evidence, or you'll end in hell. :-)
Ha! I see your name, Mr. maxwell demon! I'm not falling any such trick argument coming out of your mouth!
-
as a Muslim, I will be the first to say that there is no problem with evolution...
I do believe that there is no basis in Islamic tradition and culture for rejecting evolution
While I appreciate your argument supporting your position, I think it only fair to note that you aren't exactly presenting the typical mainstream majority Muslim view. The unfortunate fact is that a substantial majority of Muslims disagree with you.
I'm not saying this is any sort of "Muslim problem", it's just plain a problem. There is a large minority of Christians who believe there is an inherent conflict between God and evolution, and I think you'll have to admit the Muslim community has an even bigger problem with a majority believing a conflict exists.
The only Islamic nation where I'm familiar with evolution polling results is Turkey. In Turkey a quarter accept evolution, a majority of the population rejects evolution, and the rest responding 'unsure'. Turkey is perhaps (?) the most developed, educated, secularized majority Muslim nations in the world. I think it's safe to say Turkey represents a far-above-average acceptance for evolution, compared to other majority-Muslim nations.
-
I, too, will pitch my hat in the ring to provide a Muslim perspective.
Your Pakistani "Muslim perspective" is essentially identical to the "Christian perspective" in many American Schools.
when I was taught biology in school, guess what, I was taught Darwin!
Darwin died a hundred and thirty years ago, and he published On the Origin of Species over a hundred and fifty years ago.
It's certainly reasonable for a biology course to begin the subject mentioning Darwin. However when a class is "Teaching Darwin" it's a huge red flag that the class doesn't teach the last hundred and fifty years of science and evidence, and that the little it does teach of "Darwinism" is merely the superficial strawman version that denialists make of it.
It was simple, the text simply said, "Charles Darwin, a renowned Scientist hypothesized in his theory that..." and then followed by "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]"
Sadly, the same thing happens all too often in many American Schools. They tell the students they're teaching them evolution, and they present a cartoon picture of the subject. They present a description that makes evolution look hollow and speculative and even silly. Generally they present a picture that makes evolution look obviously impossible. Well, yeah, what they are teaching sounds impossible because it is impossible. What they are teaching is impossible because what they are teaching is wrong.
If you're being taught is "hypothesized" and "theorized", then your teacher isn't teaching you any of the modern science and evidence. If the lesson is going back and forth with "however other people believe X" then you are in a denialist class and you're being taught a hollow and grossly distorted picture of evolution.
Seriously, imagine you were in a chemistry class and the teacher were saying "hypothesized" and "theorized" and "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]". That's obviously not a science class, and it's obviously not teaching you squat about the actual modern science of chemistry. You don't teach "theorized" in a chemistry class, except maybe for a brief bit of historical background. You don't each "other people believe X" in a chemistry class, you can't do that when you're presenting hard evidence and hard experimental results.
That's not a legitimate science class. That's a sham.
A real science class teaches understanding backed up by facts and evidence and experiments. When you complete a real science class, you have enough understanding to know for yourself that it obviously works, and you've learned enough evidence and experiments that it's obviously correct.
Just because your teacher told you he was teaching you "Darwin" doesn't mean that he showed you any of the modern science of evolution, it doesn't mean taught you any of the modern understanding of evolution, and most significantly it doesn't mean he presented you any of the modern evidence and experiments undeniably confirming evolution.
The "theory of evolution" is no more theoretical and no more uncertain than "atomic theory".
A good science class on the evolution will teach enough of an understanding of the process such that evolution is not only obviously possible, evolution is obviously inevitable. A good science class on the subject will present sufficient hard evidence such that evolution is obviously historically accurate.
And any decent theologian will tell you that there's no conflict between science and God. He'll tell you God created the universe, along with and all of the physical laws of the universe. He'll tell you that science is an accurate description of how God designed the universe to work. Does God hand-draw rainbow in the sky?
Newsflash: At least here on Slashdot most of the people bitching about it honestly don't give a shit whether it's Muslims Christians or some Native American dropping peyote to visit spirit animals. If some ignorant fundie religious twit walks out of a medical class because they refuse to hear anything about evolution, then flunk their ass on the test and let them get a degree in burger flipping or French literature.
-
I just wish the Mid-East would quit exporting so much opium.
P.S.
For those who jumped to the association of the Mid-East as Muslim, might I remind everyone that Judaism and and Christianity came out of the Mid-East as well.
-
"hey baby, want to come down to the marina and see my personal submersible?"
Ptttf! Loser.
Heeeay baaaybee. Wanna come back to my secret government facility? I'll let you drive a car on Mars.
-
I honestly don't understand. Can you help me, pointing out where my assumptions are incorrect or where you think I'm being unreasonable? To explain my confusion I need start with a silly illustration... please bear with me through it, and just point out where my assumptions are wrong in the first part or where I'm being unreasonable in the second part.
Lets say I hand you a book about civil war era America. The book includes many real people, real places, real battles, and other real events. Turning to one arbitrary chapter of the book, we have a scene where Harriet Tubbman goes to Abraham Lincoln demanding that the slaves be freed. Lincoln calls several sorcerers into the room. The sorcerers toss several sticks on the ground and magically turn them into snakes.
I assume we can agree that sorcerers aren't real, and that people can't actually cast magical enchantments to turn turn sticks into snakes. Harriet Tubbman and Abraham Linclon were real people, but I assume we can agree that the book's dialog between them is fictional. I assume we can agree that the book is a work of fiction, regardless of the accurate description of civil war battles included in the story. I assume we can agree that it is reasonable to make a sweeping dismissal of all of the magical scenes in the book as being fictional, regardless of any true civil war events included in the story.
And then you hand me a book. I turn to a random chapter and I find a story about a guy named Moses going to a guy named Pharaoh, demanding the slaves bee freed. And the book then says Pharaoh calls upon his sorcerers, and they toss their rods onto the ground and enchant them into snakes.
Note that that is not some miracle being preformed by God. According the the book you handed me, the sorcerers are magically enchanting the sticks into snakes. They are not doing a miracle with the aid of god, they are preforming magic in defiance against God.
Ok. There were indeed real Pharaohs, and there were slaves in Egypt, and there probably was some real person names Moses.
Now...
Honest question: Do you believe Pharaoh had actual sorcerers? Do you believe they did real magic, in defiance against God, actually turning sticks into snakes?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think there is no such thing as sorcerers?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think that people can't do magic turning sticks into snakes?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's dialog between Moses and Pharaoh is at least partially fictional?
Is it unreasonable for me to say I think the book's description of sticks turning into snakes is fictional?
Is it unreasonable for me to call the civil war book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers? Is it unreasonable for me to call the Bible book was a "work of fiction" the moment it included even one mention of sorcerers?
Is it unreasonable for me to dismiss all of the magical scenes from the book as fictional components?
In your last post, the closest thing I could find to addressing the issue was "And the misconception that the Bible is a single book that must adopt the same mode of communication throughout." Well, what if someone said the exact same thing in defense of the civil war book? The civil war book "adopts different modes of communication" in different parts, so somehow other magical parts of the civil war story should be taken as non-fiction?
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at a book with walking talking snakes (Genesis) and sorcerers turning sticks into snakes (Exodus), and take any of the magical scenes any more seriously than the Wizard of Oz. Sure The Wizard of Oz can teach many lessons about courage, morality, kindness, good&evil, and whatnot. But the moment flying monkeys and witches show up (or talking snakes and sorcerers) it is, in my opinion, pretty obvious that a book is overall a magic-filled fairytale.
I honestly don't understand. Do you think Pharaoh had real sorcerers who did real magic? Or do you accept that particular magic-scene is fiction and somehow ignore/deny that as a an indication that other magic-scenes in the book are also fiction? Or... or... I honestly have no idea what.
-
even if we were to accept every last claim of the evolutionary theory, it would impact perhaps the first 3 chapters of a 40 chapter book. Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example.
You're right. I was careless. My intention was "The entire Genesis Account", meaning the creation story. I was sloppy saying it in a way that apparently referred to "The entire Book of Genesis".
Im not seeing what it does for the history regarding Moses, and the egyptian captivity, for example
Evolution and the Genisis account was merely an example. My point was that most Christians know, and if pressed will awkwardly admit, that stuff all across the Bible is fictional. You want to know what it does for the history regarding Moses? Sure. Moses goes to Pharaoh, Pharaoh summons his sorcerers, and the sorcerers' cast enchantments turning their rods into snakes. That's not a miracle preformed by God - that is humans preforming magic turning sticks into snakes. And not only human magic, but humans preforming magic in direct defiance against God. Do you believe humans can actually be sorcerers and do real magic turning sticks into snakes? Do you believe that story is true? And even if you do believe it, do you deny that most Christians would say that was 'probably' or 'certainly' untrue?
Like many works of fiction, it was based on reality. There was a Pharaoh and there were slaves, but the specific dialog and the specific events and the magic is fictional.
then they are manifestly not christian-- not by current definitions, not by historical ones.
Shias can claim Sunis are manifestly not Muslim, Sunis can claim Shias are manifestly not Muslim.
There's only two valid ways to respond to such claims. Either they are both Muslims, or it's the mainstream majority who get to define what it means to be a Muslim and it's the minority sect who gets excluded as non-Muslim.
Protestants can claim Mormons are not Christian, and Mormons can claim Protestants are not Christian. But again, either they are both Christian or it's the mainstream majority who get to define who is a Christian and who is a non-Christian sect with non-conforming beliefs.
In this case the majority of Christians, the mainstream majority Christians, accept evolution as true and that the Genesis Account is not a true/accurate story. If you believe differently then it is you who is the minority sect with divergent beliefs. Either you and they are both Christians, or it is you who isn't a Christian. If you disagree with mainstream majority Christians, and you don't want to share a name with them, then it's you who needs to come up with a different name for your minority religious sect.
If some Westboro Baptist nutjob tried to tell me you're not a Cristian I'd laugh and reject his assertion out of hand. And if you try to tell me the mainstream majority Christians are not Christian I'll laugh and reject your assertion out of hand. A minority sect cannot "expel" the mainstream majority of a religion for not conforming to their minority belief.
I do like that apparently, on slashdot, if you spout factually incorrect (and trivially provable, too) anti-religion rhetoric, you can get modded to +5 for it.
You're right I was careless with the "entirety of Genesis" comment, however that did not undermine the point I was making. It is normal and proper for a post on any subject, with an insignificant mistake, to get modded up when when the main point still stands as interesting or insightful.
-
Re: events that didn't happen... how do you know that? Can you name one?
- flood... many Christians don't see the flood as global.
Right. And many Christians don't believe there was a walking talking snake and magical fruit in a garden of eden either. In fact the majority of Christians accept evolution, effectively acknowledging the entirety of Genesis is fiction.
However I find it odd that you are complaining about him calling the bible fiction, and somehow your argument against him is to point out that many Christians accept that it's fictional.
You're just fussing over how much of it is fictional. No one I know of disputes that many of the people, places, and events events in the bible are historical, just like no one disputes that many of the people, places, and events events of greek mythology are historical. There probably was a real battle-hero person named Hercules, just like Jesus was almost certainly a real person. However when you know that Medusa and Harpies are fiction, I'm baffled why would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Hercules to be the son of a God with the strength of a hundred men? And when you know a global flood and walking talking snakes are fictional, I'm baffled why anyone would anyone believe it wasn't fictional for Jesus to be the son of a God and rose from the dead?
-
1.
2.
2.
3.
The entire argument is moot when your log file is corrupt.
-
which encourages creationists to evolve new arguments to overcome all evidence.
-
Whoa, cool. My grandparents are from the Apennine peninsula. I wonder if I'm related to Mario?
-