Your response has nothing to do with the parent's comment. Before entering a discussion, it might be good idea for you to de-ass your head. The air is great out here, and people won't have to yell so loud to reach your ears.
The problem with the morality of the bible is that the book is an incohesive piece written and edited by many authors over many centuries, thus resulting in the good common sense bits like "love thy neighbor" mixed with "hate on the fags". You don't need a story of Jesus and his Flaming Bush to realize that "love thy neighbor" is a sound decision. It's a copout to say "oh, I'll follow that one, but ignore the hateful shit" if you're going to claim that this book is the word of a perfect god.
Your morality and ethics are no less arbitrary and you essentially just have a different moral compass.
Essentially your argument is that every moral compass is as valid as the next. If we can't rely on science to prove anything, but only to disprove, then it's just as possible that everyday, invisible Martians freeze time, play with our hair, unfreeze time, and leave. Given that that is a valid scenario in your "it's just a different moral compass" argument, and science has yet to disprove it, we can't possibly hope to have a discussion here.
Could my existence merely be the dream of a brain sitting in a jar? Sure. But I don't buy your argument that my "faith" that I am not a brain in a jar is the same as putting "faith" in a deity that people made up.
Much policy is based on moral and ethical positions which are subjective by their very nature.
I've gotta hand it to you, you're really good at missing the point. Obviously, morality and ethics are subjective.
The question being posed is this:
How can it make sense to base morality and ethics on fictional stories? Theists don't believe that morality and ethics are subjective; they believe they are absolutes defined by a deity.
2. You are conflating bible literalists with all theists.
Theists that don't follow their scripture is a whole other argument...
So, your basic complaint is that you live in a democratic republic with people who share different beliefs.
Nice oversimplification. Maybe reading the rest of the thread would be helpful to you. When "beliefs" come from fairy tales, they have no business dictating policy. Policy effects people's lives, and I'd rather have that policy based on something logical.
Scientists don't exactly say "Oh, a different effect... cause and effect must have failed!"
When we make a claim in science, we have actual causes we can point to. In religion, there are none but what is imagined. In science, when we have an effect without an unknown cause, we say "oh...what caused that?" and we go in search of that cause and only proclaim discovery of it when we have proof. In religion, "god did it", but not only did "god do it", we know all of god's back story, philosophies and coda, without proof, without evidence.
Science and religion are about as different as linux and Bob Saget. Stop confusing the two; it's embarrassing.
Wow, thanks for stating the obvious. Welcome to an adult discussion where for purposes of the discussion, the poll is valid given that those living in the bible belt have made it clear that their President better be best buds with a corpse on a cross.
That's a pretty flawed strawman. Science isn't about dismissing a "meaning of life"; it's about figuring out how everything works. We have a long way to go, and maybe when we get there (if our puny brains are even capable), we'll find this elusive meaning. Since we're not there yet, the theists can come up with is just to make up a story and pretend its true without anything to back it up.
It isn't valid to construct an organized religion that doesn't have any basis on any observed fact. How is it less "ridiculous" to just make up explanations of snakes in gardens and follow those rules? If anything, theists are inhibiting our ability to figure out a "meaning of life" by their need to make up stories that must be strictly believed in. Pretending that there are little angels flying around, and little demons just waiting to poke us with a stick gets us nowhere. Do you not see something "ridiculous" and wrong with believing that such things are believed as absolute fact without any evidence other than a poorly-translated, often-edited written word?
In sum: Believing that something exists outside of our perception is not the same as believing in a very rigidly defined deity. I wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with it if was possible for people not to allow their religious beliefs affect the world around them, unfortunately, this is (by the definition of these religions) impossible.
If a man drops to his knees and begins to pray to the invisible man in the sky he is religuous. However if he turns to his left and talks to the invisible man in the wall he is crazy.
I was taken aback just the other week at the sudden realization that they actually believe in an invisible man. Not as metaphor, not as a mere possibility, but an actual, bonafide invisible man. Not that I didn't understand the concept before, but the implication of that realization, that I am surrounded (and outnumbered!) by functionally insane people, was staggering.
That is to say that if the scientists claim that a unicellular life form came out of the primordial goo by pure chance, then it should be possible for these same scientists to actually formulate/create the same unicellular life form by calculated steps guided from beginning to end in a reasonable time frame.
I agree. But given that we've only recently* achieved something as simple* modern flight, I think science is a bit away from figuring out the bits and pieces of creating life. That is, I don't see reason to doubt that it can be done; our knowledgebase just isn't there yet.
Belief in "God" as an "invisible man" (plus any beards/robes/swords etc) is a religious concept which adorns the core element, which I could call "God". The strict rules, again, are religion at work, not "God"
That's nice and all, but we're talking about the beliefs held by the adherents to major religions, and not your personal philosophy. Since the discussion is about major religions and their adherents, its a strawman to change the topic to belief systems not followed by those adherents.
Why? Because those adherents use those strict rules to dictate their actions. As I stated in my original post, those strict rules additionally specify that "false gods" (or in your words "core elements") cannot be considered.
As for my personal philosophy? I'm still able to "feel good" and enjoy life, even if I am just a piece of meatware. While exercises in "am I god?" can be fun, I don't foresee the human mind definitively arriving at an answer anytime soon. And if it turns out that I am god? Well fuck yeah! I'm off to go do some smiting.
I understand your point, but it seemed like GP was implying that creationism was just a notion held by a scant few that we don't need to worry about.
My response was American-centric admittedly because that's where my current knowledge-base is. Considering that religion has invaded and perverted American politics (which ultimately have a substantial effect on the world (economies, environmental concerns, wars, etc), I believe that my point is still valid.
The last Roman Catholic president was Kennedy, that is, Roman Catholicism in the US (and thus politics) is a semi-minority Christian faith.
It's not like the scientific method proves anything but "well, this looks like it covers what we've seen happen so far" either.
Are you implying that the scientific method is just a thinly-veiled form of faith? As experiments are repeated and results are confirmed over time, the probability of a result that hasn't "happened so far" approaches zero. Is it mere faith that the Sun will rise again tomorrow? That just because that that's what has happened "so far", it's still possible that when I wake up tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant penguin? If that's not what you're implying, then you need to reword your argument. If it is what you're implying, then you need to de-ass your head.
If people want to believe in God, fine.
It would be fine if their belief didn't affect non-believers, but it does. Extensively. It directly influences their attitudes toward science, education, and law.
Its not "fine" to me that belief in god is a criteria for who can become President (and presumably other political offices).
I'd rather not have my members of congress legislating with the guidance of some moral compass pulled out of their favorite fairy tale. So no, it's not fucking "fine".
It may help you get a better grip on how the role of religion on this planet has shaped our scientific world....and yet now the scientific world is shaping the religous one. Study the times when religion overpowered science, and look at the conditions of the planets and how it impacted the religous beliefs and convictions of the people at the time.
Do you have any recommendations for books on the subject? I've been wanting to read some well-written text on the subject, but the local brick and mortars' selections are rather lacking.
Swinburne's Is There a God? (Oxford University Press, 1996) is probably the easiest to find,
Pffft. Swinburne is for community college drop-outs and pedophiles. You want a real treatise on the subject? Check out Blume's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." That book will knock your fucking socks off. Not wearing socks? Get some fucking socks, man; you want to catch a cold?
And if you think those polls are unreliable, then why is there been such a recent increase in school boards trying to push creationism into the public school curriculum?
You know these jokes are getting really tiring.
You know what's tiring? That in the year 2007, grown adults are still arguing whether an all-knowing (yet inconsistent) invisible man exists. They literally believe in an invisible man. And it's not a simple argument of "well, we had to have come from somewhere!". They believe in a very specific invisible man, with very specific rules of conduct, with one of those rules being that other (i.e.: "false") invisible men are forbidden to be considered by the human mind.
A jealous god - seriously, who comes up with this shit?
Okay, I read it, and sweet christ - are you serious? You're pitting an alleged incident against one we know to have occurred? How much does one make Trolling for Dollars these days?
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government? Find the fuckers in contempt of congress, and stop dragging this shit out already. We'll see how quick they start talking as they're frog-marched out by the Sergeant at Arms.
Stop and delay, stop and delay, eh, fellas?
I always thought "I am the Lord, your God. You shall have no other gods beside me." was #1?
well, yeah, until he got a wii and he changeed it to "You shall have no other gods beside me, and/or a wii" Only a few thousand years later did we realize it wasn't a drunken monk's typo.
Actually, I'm not the one making the claims, hence why the original post doesn't read 'by apparently'. My point was that claiming that anything in the bible as "how it happened" isn't an accurate statement. That is, unless there's secondary evidence, any of those stories are fiction at best, and at worst, it's fiction posing as truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response has nothing to do with the parent's comment. Before entering a discussion, it might be good idea for you to de-ass your head. The air is great out here, and people won't have to yell so loud to reach your ears.
and why exactly shouldn't people fear losing their privacy?
Your morality and ethics are no less arbitrary and you essentially just have a different moral compass.
Essentially your argument is that every moral compass is as valid as the next. If we can't rely on science to prove anything, but only to disprove, then it's just as possible that everyday, invisible Martians freeze time, play with our hair, unfreeze time, and leave. Given that that is a valid scenario in your "it's just a different moral compass" argument, and science has yet to disprove it, we can't possibly hope to have a discussion here.
Could my existence merely be the dream of a brain sitting in a jar? Sure. But I don't buy your argument that my "faith" that I am not a brain in a jar is the same as putting "faith" in a deity that people made up.
I've gotta hand it to you, you're really good at missing the point. Obviously, morality and ethics are subjective.
The question being posed is this:
How can it make sense to base morality and ethics on fictional stories? Theists don't believe that morality and ethics are subjective; they believe they are absolutes defined by a deity.
2. You are conflating bible literalists with all theists.
Theists that don't follow their scripture is a whole other argument...
Nice oversimplification. Maybe reading the rest of the thread would be helpful to you.
When "beliefs" come from fairy tales, they have no business dictating policy. Policy effects people's lives, and I'd rather have that policy based on something logical.
Scientists don't exactly say "Oh, a different effect... cause and effect must have failed!"
When we make a claim in science, we have actual causes we can point to. In religion, there are none but what is imagined. In science, when we have an effect without an unknown cause, we say "oh...what caused that?" and we go in search of that cause and only proclaim discovery of it when we have proof. In religion, "god did it", but not only did "god do it", we know all of god's back story, philosophies and coda, without proof, without evidence.
Science and religion are about as different as linux and Bob Saget. Stop confusing the two; it's embarrassing.
Wow, thanks for stating the obvious. Welcome to an adult discussion where for purposes of the discussion, the poll is valid given that those living in the bible belt have made it clear that their President better be best buds with a corpse on a cross.
It isn't valid to construct an organized religion that doesn't have any basis on any observed fact. How is it less "ridiculous" to just make up explanations of snakes in gardens and follow those rules? If anything, theists are inhibiting our ability to figure out a "meaning of life" by their need to make up stories that must be strictly believed in. Pretending that there are little angels flying around, and little demons just waiting to poke us with a stick gets us nowhere. Do you not see something "ridiculous" and wrong with believing that such things are believed as absolute fact without any evidence other than a poorly-translated, often-edited written word?
In sum: Believing that something exists outside of our perception is not the same as believing in a very rigidly defined deity. I wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with it if was possible for people not to allow their religious beliefs affect the world around them, unfortunately, this is (by the definition of these religions) impossible.
And since these people comprise the majority, the only thing left to do is sit back and laugh at the madness.
I was taken aback just the other week at the sudden realization that they actually believe in an invisible man. Not as metaphor, not as a mere possibility, but an actual, bonafide invisible man. Not that I didn't understand the concept before, but the implication of that realization, that I am surrounded (and outnumbered!) by functionally insane people, was staggering.
I agree. But given that we've only recently* achieved something as simple* modern flight, I think science is a bit away from figuring out the bits and pieces of creating life. That is, I don't see reason to doubt that it can be done; our knowledgebase just isn't there yet.
* relatively speaking, of course.
That's nice and all, but we're talking about the beliefs held by the adherents to major religions, and not your personal philosophy. Since the discussion is about major religions and their adherents, its a strawman to change the topic to belief systems not followed by those adherents.
Why? Because those adherents use those strict rules to dictate their actions. As I stated in my original post, those strict rules additionally specify that "false gods" (or in your words "core elements") cannot be considered.
As for my personal philosophy? I'm still able to "feel good" and enjoy life, even if I am just a piece of meatware. While exercises in "am I god?" can be fun, I don't foresee the human mind definitively arriving at an answer anytime soon. And if it turns out that I am god? Well fuck yeah! I'm off to go do some smiting.
My response was American-centric admittedly because that's where my current knowledge-base is. Considering that religion has invaded and perverted American politics (which ultimately have a substantial effect on the world (economies, environmental concerns, wars, etc), I believe that my point is still valid.
The last Roman Catholic president was Kennedy, that is, Roman Catholicism in the US (and thus politics) is a semi-minority Christian faith.
Are you implying that the scientific method is just a thinly-veiled form of faith? As experiments are repeated and results are confirmed over time, the probability of a result that hasn't "happened so far" approaches zero. Is it mere faith that the Sun will rise again tomorrow? That just because that that's what has happened "so far", it's still possible that when I wake up tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant penguin? If that's not what you're implying, then you need to reword your argument. If it is what you're implying, then you need to de-ass your head.
If people want to believe in God, fine. It would be fine if their belief didn't affect non-believers, but it does. Extensively. It directly influences their attitudes toward science, education, and law.
Its not "fine" to me that belief in god is a criteria for who can become President (and presumably other political offices).
I'd rather not have my members of congress legislating with the guidance of some moral compass pulled out of their favorite fairy tale. So no, it's not fucking "fine".
Do you have any recommendations for books on the subject? I've been wanting to read some well-written text on the subject, but the local brick and mortars' selections are rather lacking.
Pffft. Swinburne is for community college drop-outs and pedophiles. You want a real treatise on the subject? Check out Blume's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." That book will knock your fucking socks off. Not wearing socks? Get some fucking socks, man; you want to catch a cold?
I disagree with your premise:
"According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.[64] Only 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
And if you think those polls are unreliable, then why is there been such a recent increase in school boards trying to push creationism into the public school curriculum?
You know these jokes are getting really tiring.
You know what's tiring? That in the year 2007, grown adults are still arguing whether an all-knowing (yet inconsistent) invisible man exists. They literally believe in an invisible man. And it's not a simple argument of "well, we had to have come from somewhere!". They believe in a very specific invisible man, with very specific rules of conduct, with one of those rules being that other (i.e.: "false") invisible men are forbidden to be considered by the human mind.
A jealous god - seriously, who comes up with this shit?
Wouldn't it just be easier to call the cops and rat out the competition?
That one's been on my To Do list; I'm curious to see what the performance hit is.
The only thing to understand is that they're either:
scared to force the issue
corrupt blackmailed or, incompetent
I honestly can't come up with any other logical reason. This issue has been going on for how long now?
Okay, I read it, and sweet christ - are you serious? You're pitting an alleged incident against one we know to have occurred? How much does one make Trolling for Dollars these days?
'nother link, por favor?
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government? Find the fuckers in contempt of congress, and stop dragging this shit out already. We'll see how quick they start talking as they're frog-marched out by the Sergeant at Arms.
Stop and delay, stop and delay, eh, fellas?
well, yeah, until he got a wii and he changeed it to "You shall have no other gods beside me, and/or a wii" Only a few thousand years later did we realize it wasn't a drunken monk's typo.
Actually, I'm not the one making the claims, hence why the original post doesn't read 'by apparently'. My point was that claiming that anything in the bible as "how it happened" isn't an accurate statement. That is, unless there's secondary evidence, any of those stories are fiction at best, and at worst, it's fiction posing as truth.
To quote Wikipedia: Citation needed.
teh bible is like, so Web 1.0. So much for omniscience.