The problem is that every time science figures out some natural process and shows that it is in fact governed by hard, unfeeling laws or simple randomness it detracts from the idea that God cares. People start to realize that instead of just having faith that he will make things work out they have to try to understand the world and control it as best they can.
No, it doesn't detract from that idea at all. There is nothing incompatible with the ideas that God created a universe governed by natural laws and that God cares about human beings.
The real problem is that you throw around the phrase, "He will make things work out" without qualifying it. There are people who believe in predestination, that we are all puppets controlled by God, and there are people who believe that God doesn't exist. But there are many more people in between.
Yes, exactly. We need more reasonable Christians to advocate this view publicly. I'm tired of the false dichotomy between "rabid" literal Creationists and anti-religion, science-worshipping atheists.
That's only a slightly less extreme caricature than that of "Creationists" who insist that there is no form of evolution in existence and that God created in 144 earth hours. Yeah, there are some like that, but it's not most. And with your detailed stereotyping and labeling and generalizing, you obscure the middle ground. That doesn't help us find or understand the truth.
There is another set of neurotics: those who won't acknowledge the existence of reasonable Christians who believe both that God created and that science is a useful tool to learn about what God created. These are the majority of Christians.
Anyone who adheres to a false dichotomy is not seeking truth.
Of course if you claim you are Gods warrior, anything you do in His name is justified, and thus you can plunder and steal as much as you want.
Nope. You won't find many Christians who believe that, especially in Texas. Nice try though.
Long story short, if someone is vilifying science and praising religion, they are doing it solely for the sake of their own pocket book(and perhaps marital bed)
Allow me to rephrase that: "Long story short, if someone is vilifying religion and praising science, they are doing it solely for the sake of their own pocket book(and perhaps marital bed)"
Yes, false dichotomies are rarely advocated by those seeking truth.
But we think it's fine for people to think their brain is one sex and their body another, and we help them mutilate and chemically reprogram their bodies. We don't lock up those people and help them deal with reality, we help them hurt themselves. And that's just A-OK fine. Here have some pills.
God is not an "invisible guy." Who claimed that? He's the almighty creator of the universe. He exists outside of space and time. He gave you free will to do what you want and believe what you want.
You are right about one thing: untested faith isn't very strong. But not everyone's faith is strong--it takes time; it's not a switch.
Religion is not holding us back. Many, if not most, of the great minds of history were religious. They would think that you are the irrational one. What's holding us back is some people, some of which are religious and some of which are anti-religious.
From the article: '[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence.
1. It is not a fact that human beings evolved from primordial goo. That would be an unsubstantiated assertion based on an extreme extrapolation of limited evidence of small-scale phenomena.
2. Therefore, "evolution" only tests misguided faith. In fact, even the idea that humans evolved from goo is not ultimately incompatible with faith in God or in intelligent design. This is because the point of ID/Creationism is not how God created, but that God created.
The idea that the Creation stories in Genesis are meant to literally describe how God created is another matter entirely, and it is the blind insistence upon this presupposition that results in so much hot air being expelled on both sides of the issue.
Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. And this is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally damn oneself.
That's because that's what Christ said. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mk 16:16
So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.
Many people's faith is, sadly, based on fragile ideas like Creation stories being literal, or every word written in the Bible being intended literally. To those people, their faith would be quite jeopardized by atheists yelling loudly that there is no God, that the Bible is wrong, that we evolved from goo, etc.
Other people's faith may be based on rational thinking, such as the ideas that the universe or living beings are too complex to have happened randomly, or that the evidence of Christ's resurrection is strong. Such faith can handle Creation stories not necessarily being literal, and the idea of evolution, and the idea of the Bible being inspired by God yet composed by humans and therefore not literally perfect (or always literal).
It is a popular--and recent--misconception that faith and reasoning are incompatible. Many, if not most, of the great minds of the ages were believers in God or in other forms of religion. The idea that religious people are necessarily irrational fools is simply a lie; there are plenty of both religious and atheistic people who are irrational fools.
Why is that? I just don't understand the reasoning. Who is more qualified and trained to handle firearms than soldiers? Yet they are forbidden to do so while on their own base, a place from which to defend against enemies (internal or external)?
Nope. Shooters don't need to research whether concealed carry is permitted when they a) choose an obvious place like a school, or b) go to see a movie and see a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign on the door.
And no, the best place for these suicidal maniacs to accomplish their goals is to go to a place where people are defenseless so they can wreak havoc until the SWAT teams and news trucks arrive. If they only wanted to die, they could do that any number of different ways. They want to make a loud statement that will be plastered all over national media.
Contrast that with a pro-gun control person. With the exception of a few people that know someone personally (and well) that was gunned down, it's not a very emotional issue.
As evidence counter to your assertion, I cite:
- the GP post - every Representative who has pushed for gun control - every group that lobbies for gun control
Nice try at making the gun-rights advocates sound like irrational, emotional wrecks and the gun-control advocates sound like rational, thinking people.
Never mind that gun-control advocates act out of fear that someone, somewhere might do something bad again, someday, and so we must disarm everyone...except the evil people who don't care about laws.
Let's take all the guns away from all the good citizens, the average, everyday people who wouldn't hurt anyone, so that only the bad guys can get guns. Let's leave all the good people defenseless. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, wait, no, it doesn't, so...oh I know, hey, all those average people are incompetent, bumbling idiots who shoot themselves by accident all the time, so they can't be trusted with guns. Yeah, that justifies it.
Oh, and if you disagree with me and exercise your Constitutional right to assemble and speak and vote, you are "single issue voters" who "show up at the polls in droves" and your "entire identity is tied up in your guns."
Oh, he's "being a jerk and hurtful" by disagreeing with you. This is what the alarmists fall back on. "You big meanie! You just hate trees!"
Hey AC, if we bankrupt the world economies, a lot more children will suffer--and adults too. (Why is it more acceptable for adults to suffer than children? The majority of human life is lived as an adult. And one could argue that children are more adaptable, and therefore in some circumstances suffer less psychologically than adults.)
Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.
You do realize that Chrome spawns a multitude of processes, right? One for every extension, one for every tab, plus a bunch of others. Did you add up the RSS of all the processes, or did you just pick one at random? Are you using an empty profile, or do you have months of browsing history?
If I start Chrome, it uses 700-800 MB immediately after having been started up. It always uses more than Firefox.
1. This "first" fallacy. As we discussed, online backups sometimes take a while to complete the initial backup. You can do this while continuing to make local backups to external media, and you should. So this whole point is silly and moot.
One has to setup the backup systems. Sign up for dropbox. Choose plans. Directories to backup. Schedule, if not automatic, depending on bandwidth costs at particular times.
Or setup the local backup - get local hard drives. Choose and configure backup program.
This setup is what causes postponing for people. And the majority of costs. And this is not what can be done in parallel - unless you can delegate it to minions. In which case it ceases to be "home" use for most people.
So you can misinterpret the post and call it a fallacy. Or you can put effort in understanding what I posted. Your wish.
Yeah, it's so much more complicated to sign up for Dropbox and put your files in ~/Dropbox than it is to shop for a disk, order it, wait for it, unpack it, set it up, and then install it, choose backup software, set it up... And you complain about me not putting effort into understanding what you posted.
It is a BACKUP. To be used when original data is lost. By using 3 disks for backup, you are again preparing for a situation when 4 disks crash SIMULTANEOUSLY. Again once a century , if not a millenium, event.
You're missing the point, again. Blah blah...reading comprehension...blah blah...hypocrisy...blah blah... It's actually fairly common for disks of the same make and model to fail near the same time, anyway.
But the point is that online backups and local backups are like comparing apples and oranges, because in order to give the same benefits as online backup, you'd have to spend 4-5 times as much for local backup. Otherwise, one burglary, house fire, or kid who trips over the cable, and your backups are useless.
And I already said local backup while cheaper saves from less vectors but being much much more cost effective should be done first, and will not encourage postponement. So rest of your post is based on a flawed reading of my posts.
Again, this "first" fallacy. Besides, by the time an average user has shopped for, bought, installed, and setup a local backup system, he could have already backed up many if not most of his files to an online backup.
I showed that online backup is more cost-effective. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or showing how I'm wrong, you're simply asserting that you're right. Again, instead of arguing rationally with the "concrete data" I provided when you demanded it, you fall back on ridicule--as you've done in every reply you've made. Is it even possible for you to have a rational argument without resorting to childishness? I rest my case.
Slashdot Mirror
Matthew 15:18: But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart :)
The problem is that every time science figures out some natural process and shows that it is in fact governed by hard, unfeeling laws or simple randomness it detracts from the idea that God cares. People start to realize that instead of just having faith that he will make things work out they have to try to understand the world and control it as best they can.
No, it doesn't detract from that idea at all. There is nothing incompatible with the ideas that God created a universe governed by natural laws and that God cares about human beings.
The real problem is that you throw around the phrase, "He will make things work out" without qualifying it. There are people who believe in predestination, that we are all puppets controlled by God, and there are people who believe that God doesn't exist. But there are many more people in between.
Yes, exactly. We need more reasonable Christians to advocate this view publicly. I'm tired of the false dichotomy between "rabid" literal Creationists and anti-religion, science-worshipping atheists.
That's some very faulty reasoning there. Not all Christians subscribe to that logic.
What about the vast majority of Christians who are not what you call "fundamentalists"? Oh, those don't exist, do they?
Oops, you used the F word. That's just as unfortunate.
That's only a slightly less extreme caricature than that of "Creationists" who insist that there is no form of evolution in existence and that God created in 144 earth hours. Yeah, there are some like that, but it's not most. And with your detailed stereotyping and labeling and generalizing, you obscure the middle ground. That doesn't help us find or understand the truth.
Be specific, please: are you implying that all religion is false and placebo?
Mod up for truth.
It seems like you might have some interesting things to say, but...friend, please fix your Return key.
There is another set of neurotics: those who won't acknowledge the existence of reasonable Christians who believe both that God created and that science is a useful tool to learn about what God created. These are the majority of Christians.
Anyone who adheres to a false dichotomy is not seeking truth.
Of course if you claim you are Gods warrior, anything you do in His name is justified, and thus you can plunder and steal as much as you want.
Nope. You won't find many Christians who believe that, especially in Texas. Nice try though.
Long story short, if someone is vilifying science and praising religion, they are doing it solely for the sake of their own pocket book(and perhaps marital bed)
Allow me to rephrase that: "Long story short, if someone is vilifying religion and praising science, they are doing it solely for the sake of their own pocket book(and perhaps marital bed)"
Yes, false dichotomies are rarely advocated by those seeking truth.
But we think it's fine for people to think their brain is one sex and their body another, and we help them mutilate and chemically reprogram their bodies. We don't lock up those people and help them deal with reality, we help them hurt themselves. And that's just A-OK fine. Here have some pills.
God is not an "invisible guy." Who claimed that? He's the almighty creator of the universe. He exists outside of space and time. He gave you free will to do what you want and believe what you want.
You are right about one thing: untested faith isn't very strong. But not everyone's faith is strong--it takes time; it's not a switch.
Religion is not holding us back. Many, if not most, of the great minds of history were religious. They would think that you are the irrational one. What's holding us back is some people, some of which are religious and some of which are anti-religious.
Mod this up. Thank you for contributing reason to the discussion.
From the article: '[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence.
1. It is not a fact that human beings evolved from primordial goo. That would be an unsubstantiated assertion based on an extreme extrapolation of limited evidence of small-scale phenomena.
2. Therefore, "evolution" only tests misguided faith. In fact, even the idea that humans evolved from goo is not ultimately incompatible with faith in God or in intelligent design. This is because the point of ID/Creationism is not how God created, but that God created.
The idea that the Creation stories in Genesis are meant to literally describe how God created is another matter entirely, and it is the blind insistence upon this presupposition that results in so much hot air being expelled on both sides of the issue.
Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. And this is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally damn oneself.
That's because that's what Christ said. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mk 16:16
So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.
Many people's faith is, sadly, based on fragile ideas like Creation stories being literal, or every word written in the Bible being intended literally. To those people, their faith would be quite jeopardized by atheists yelling loudly that there is no God, that the Bible is wrong, that we evolved from goo, etc.
Other people's faith may be based on rational thinking, such as the ideas that the universe or living beings are too complex to have happened randomly, or that the evidence of Christ's resurrection is strong. Such faith can handle Creation stories not necessarily being literal, and the idea of evolution, and the idea of the Bible being inspired by God yet composed by humans and therefore not literally perfect (or always literal).
It is a popular--and recent--misconception that faith and reasoning are incompatible. Many, if not most, of the great minds of the ages were believers in God or in other forms of religion. The idea that religious people are necessarily irrational fools is simply a lie; there are plenty of both religious and atheistic people who are irrational fools.
Why is that? I just don't understand the reasoning. Who is more qualified and trained to handle firearms than soldiers? Yet they are forbidden to do so while on their own base, a place from which to defend against enemies (internal or external)?
Nope. Shooters don't need to research whether concealed carry is permitted when they a) choose an obvious place like a school, or b) go to see a movie and see a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign on the door.
And no, the best place for these suicidal maniacs to accomplish their goals is to go to a place where people are defenseless so they can wreak havoc until the SWAT teams and news trucks arrive. If they only wanted to die, they could do that any number of different ways. They want to make a loud statement that will be plastered all over national media.
Contrast that with a pro-gun control person. With the exception of a few people that know someone personally (and well) that was gunned down, it's not a very emotional issue.
As evidence counter to your assertion, I cite:
- the GP post
- every Representative who has pushed for gun control
- every group that lobbies for gun control
Nice try at making the gun-rights advocates sound like irrational, emotional wrecks and the gun-control advocates sound like rational, thinking people.
Never mind that gun-control advocates act out of fear that someone, somewhere might do something bad again, someday, and so we must disarm everyone...except the evil people who don't care about laws.
Let's take all the guns away from all the good citizens, the average, everyday people who wouldn't hurt anyone, so that only the bad guys can get guns. Let's leave all the good people defenseless. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, wait, no, it doesn't, so...oh I know, hey, all those average people are incompetent, bumbling idiots who shoot themselves by accident all the time, so they can't be trusted with guns. Yeah, that justifies it.
Oh, and if you disagree with me and exercise your Constitutional right to assemble and speak and vote, you are "single issue voters" who "show up at the polls in droves" and your "entire identity is tied up in your guns."
Pathetic.
1. Nice strawman. He talked specifically about climate models, not something simple like Newtonian physics.
2. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Mod the parent up!
Oh, he's "being a jerk and hurtful" by disagreeing with you. This is what the alarmists fall back on. "You big meanie! You just hate trees!"
Hey AC, if we bankrupt the world economies, a lot more children will suffer--and adults too. (Why is it more acceptable for adults to suffer than children? The majority of human life is lived as an adult. And one could argue that children are more adaptable, and therefore in some circumstances suffer less psychologically than adults.)
What about the DOOM predictions from "climate scientists"?
Chill out (ha...ha...). The alarmists are just as active in downmodding their opponents as flamebait, too.
250 MB with 50 extensions. Sorry, I just don't believe you.
Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.
You do realize that Chrome spawns a multitude of processes, right? One for every extension, one for every tab, plus a bunch of others. Did you add up the RSS of all the processes, or did you just pick one at random? Are you using an empty profile, or do you have months of browsing history?
If I start Chrome, it uses 700-800 MB immediately after having been started up. It always uses more than Firefox.
1. This "first" fallacy. As we discussed, online backups sometimes take a while to complete the initial backup. You can do this while continuing to make local backups to external media, and you should. So this whole point is silly and moot.
One has to setup the backup systems. Sign up for dropbox. Choose plans. Directories to backup. Schedule, if not automatic, depending on bandwidth costs at particular times.
Or setup the local backup - get local hard drives. Choose and configure backup program.
This setup is what causes postponing for people. And the majority of costs. And this is not what can be done in parallel - unless you can delegate it to minions. In which case it ceases to be "home" use for most people.
So you can misinterpret the post and call it a fallacy. Or you can put effort in understanding what I posted. Your wish.
Yeah, it's so much more complicated to sign up for Dropbox and put your files in ~/Dropbox than it is to shop for a disk, order it, wait for it, unpack it, set it up, and then install it, choose backup software, set it up... And you complain about me not putting effort into understanding what you posted.
It is a BACKUP. To be used when original data is lost. By using 3 disks for backup, you are again preparing for a situation when 4 disks crash SIMULTANEOUSLY. Again once a century , if not a millenium, event.
You're missing the point, again. Blah blah...reading comprehension...blah blah...hypocrisy...blah blah... It's actually fairly common for disks of the same make and model to fail near the same time, anyway.
But the point is that online backups and local backups are like comparing apples and oranges, because in order to give the same benefits as online backup, you'd have to spend 4-5 times as much for local backup. Otherwise, one burglary, house fire, or kid who trips over the cable, and your backups are useless.
And I already said local backup while cheaper saves from less vectors but being much much more cost effective should be done first, and will not encourage postponement. So rest of your post is based on a flawed reading of my posts.
Again, this "first" fallacy. Besides, by the time an average user has shopped for, bought, installed, and setup a local backup system, he could have already backed up many if not most of his files to an online backup.
This might help.
I showed that online backup is more cost-effective. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or showing how I'm wrong, you're simply asserting that you're right. Again, instead of arguing rationally with the "concrete data" I provided when you demanded it, you fall back on ridicule--as you've done in every reply you've made. Is it even possible for you to have a rational argument without resorting to childishness? I rest my case.