Interesting observation, but in order for you to recognize a "fact" it has to be exhaustively defined -- you have to know everything surrounding it, what makes it so, etc. -- otherwise it's not a 'fact', it's 'what works for the moment'.
"Facts" are objective, in that they are provable by defined methods of scientific or logical inquiry and "Truths" are subjective, in that they are relative to religion, creed, sex and every other "thing" that manages to separate us silly little human beings from each other.
It's in a letter he wrote to Jefferson, he talks about being on Sinai with Moses for the forty days. (Jefferson was, to quote the Kurgan, an effete snob; and a total contradiction of a man.)
Haha, I found the quote. He says:
Quote:
Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.
As I understand the context, he's kibbutzing with that other known "freethinker," Jefferson, about how silly the idea of miracles is, and how God is really Nature and available through reason rather than revelation. I think he's also denying the trinity with his reference to one and three. In any case, he most certainly is not professing a belief in the historicity of Moses getting the tablets as you suggested.
Quote:
I'm not certain that any of us can lay our hands on the official position Washington or Adams had on "religious fables". But if the existence of Moses, the gift of the Ten Commandments, Christ, etc., is any indication, along with the overpowering uber-Calvinistic predestination bent, I'd have to say they were under the 'delusion' of their day.
I think their religious beliefs are pretty clear: They believed in a distant, ineffable creator and in the pure moral teachings of Christianity, and they rejected the miraculous supernatural phenomena embraced by most Christians today.
As I understand the context, he's kibbutzing with that other known "freethinker," Jefferson, about how silly the idea of miracles is, and how God is really Nature and available through reason rather than revelation. I think he's also denying the trinity with his reference to one and three. In any case, he most certainly is not professing a belief in the historicity of Moses getting the tablets as you suggested.
I think their religious beliefs are pretty clear: They believed in a distant, ineffable creator and in the pure moral teachings of Christianity, and they rejected the miraculous supernatural phenomena embraced by most Christians today.
Brussell, you're trying to separate Adams from his historical context -- the fact of Moses -- and all his carrying on -- was a historical certainty for him. His hyperCalvinistic bent, and the fact that they lived Under the ten commandments -- with "no other gods" and sabbatarian rules -- it is more Christian by default than most people realize. And 'crazy' in any case.
Perhaps I'll answer this later (if you can't see that, in a way, I already have), but not now. You're doing everything you can to avoid mentioning the elephant standing in the room, and I see no reason to assist you in that game.
Imagine our favorite poster boy for insanity: the man in the tinfoil hat, trying to keep the alien thought waves or government spy beams out of his head.
Any argument here that the word "insane" aptly applies to such a person?
Let's take the element of paranoia out of the picture, and imagine a man who sleeps with his head in a wok every night, because he wants to talk to the aliens, and he figures that the wok will help focus alien transmissions into his head, and help him beam his own thoughts back. Without the paranoia, this guy is probably less of a threat to himself and others, and if he keeps his wok-wearing ways to himself, and only wears the wok when he's in bed at night, he can probably go about his day-to-day life much like anyone else, perhaps even making great positive contributions to society.
He is still, however, a bit crazy -- even if it is "possible" that their are aliens beings out there somewhere and "possible" that a wok on a pillow behind your head will assist in communication with said aliens.
Now, please explain to me how the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow whole every literal detail of the Biblical story of Noah's Ark as historical fact is in any way materially different than the kinds of thought processes needed to convince yourself that a wok is going to help you communicate with space aliens, or different than the thought processes that convince you that the government has spy beams that can read thoughts, that the government cares enough about your own thoughts to use these beams on you, and that, given such extraordinary circumstances, that an aluminum sombrero is going to protect you?
some lives are made miserable by the religeous beliefs of others. Earlier was mentioned women in muslim countries. That's a general point.
A more specific case, speaking as a Londoner, is me. My life has got distinctly worse since the Islamic nutters decided random bombs on the Underground is a valid expression of their belief system. Instead of me relaxing on the subway and reading the sport & news, I now eye up any muslim looking individual carrying a large bag. Not healthy for me, nor the guy I'm looking at.
Anybody who is seriously religeous is dangerous. I'll accept that you may not have physically harmed anybody. But if you were involved (and I have zero evidence to supoort this, but am using it as an example) in pushing forward legislation that forces school to teach creationism as a valid possibility, then you are involved in mentally damaging young impressionable minds, which is unforgiveable.
To finish, you've avoided answering the question as to whether you believe the Ark to be a truthful accurate description of a genuine event.
Is that because
a) you do believe it is true, and can't face the ridicule?
b) you do believe it is true, but realise logically it can't be, and so your whole belief system is under threat, so you'd rather not think about the question?
c) you don't think it is true, but don't wish to say so as you don't want to give more ammunition to your detractors.
some lives are made miserable by the religeous beliefs of others. Earlier was mentioned women in muslim countries. That's a general point.
A more specific case, speaking as a Londoner, is me. My life has got distinctly worse since the Islamic nutters decided random bombs on the Underground is a valid expression of their belief system.
Those are actions. Not all who believe X, take the same actions. I believe that abortion wrong, immoral, the termination of a human life. I don't bomb abrtion clinics or shoot abortion doctors or obstruct anyone's access to a clinic. For example.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Anybody who is seriously religeous is dangerous.
Is that a fact? Truth? Opionion?
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
pushing forward legislation that forces school to teach creationism as a valid possibility, then you are involved in mentally damaging young impressionable minds, which is unforgiveable.
Oh geez...the hyperbole machine is in high gear today!
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
To finish, you've avoided answering the question as to whether you believe the Ark to be a truthful accurate description of a genuine event.
Sorry, your multiple-chice answers were loaded.
I believe that the event is possible, though I do not pretend to comprehend all of the details (of course the Bible does not provide ALL of the details either). I certainly cannot prove that it did not happen.
I recognize the "far-fetchedness" that many people see. But...
far-fetched != impossible
improbable != impossible
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.
For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning. An earlier poster listed a number of logical reasons why it didn't happen, and I won't bother to repeat them.
I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist. Please stay that way.
David
PS I didn't understand your "hyperbole machine is in high gear today" comment. Am I wrong about the legislation? Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?
I finish replying to Chris, and then pick up my paper to finish reading. And what do I read:
Last week in Texas George W Bush called for "intelligent design" to be taught in state schools so that "people can understand what the debate is about"!!!!
According to the article the majority of Americans believe in this view, which includes the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.
You just can't make this stuff up..............the leader of the free world pushing this nonsense..........
Chris, I don't suppose you'd answer this - do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?
I believe that the event [the story of Noah's Ark] is possible, though I do not pretend to comprehend all of the details (of course the Bible does not provide ALL of the details either). I certainly cannot prove that it did not happen.
I recognize the "far-fetchedness" that many people see. But...
far-fetched != impossible
improbable != impossible
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
Steven Wright once said in one of his routines something like this: "I came home today, and everything in my house had been stolen and replaced by an exact replica."
Is what Wright joked about possible? Well, sure, it's possible. And if "exact" only has to mean "good enough so you won't ever know the difference", there's at least no violation of the laws of physics here, no need for the miraculous.
Yet would you submit that, on any given day, coming home, looking around your house, and seeing that everything appears as it usually does, that it's equally "based on faith" to decide that nothing has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica as it is to decide that everything has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica? Since both scenarios are "possible", in Chris Cuilla Land this would put both scenarios on some sort equal footing?
Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight. Such a notion of "faith" clearly has no bearing on the general concept of sanity vs. insanity.
To suppose the nothing-stolen scenario, if one even bothers to have such a thought go through one's head, is what most of us would call "sane". On the other hand, to not only imagine, to not merely joke about, but in all seriousness and with great, unyielding conviction to insist upon the everything-stolen scenario -- that constitutes a state of mind well described as "insane".
Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark gives more credence to the Ark than to Steven Wright's story. In all other ways, the story of Noah's Ark is much less believable than Wright's.
the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.
It is good for you to begin on a positive and respect note.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning.
Prove it didn't. That list was merely a set of things that would have to happen for it to not be true, certainly no where in the vicinity of a proof that it could not.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist.
Whatever you wish.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?
do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?
I dont have a definitive opinion on the age of the earth.
Is this really what everyone thinks that all people that believe in creation think. That if you believe in creation you MUST believe that the earth is only 6000 years old?
Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight.
I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark
That was funny. No, really. Very good.
Actually, you are close. At my church...we have a big sign requesting people to turn their brains off before entering. That is only for visitors of course. Once they get trained (Pavlov's dog style) in the cookie/pat on the back routine it isn't a problem. For the real stubborn ones, frontal lobotomies of course.
That is not what I or most of the Christians that I know think.
and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.
Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.
Or did you mean that you are happy to accept scietific principles where they don't conflict with the bible - to take an example, gravity. In the Garden of Eden an apple fell. So there was gravity back there, so...........ok, gravity os Ok as a scientific concept.
Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark. Have you any idea of how many species there are in the world?
Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.
First the age thing...as I said, I do not have a definitive opinion on it. I am willing to accept a gazillion year old thing. No problemo. Even a big bang. No problemo. At the core though, is question of whether everything has happened naturalistically or whether there is something/someone behind it all that has created to begin with. I believe the latter.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark.
Prove it didn't happen. Read the account. Read it carefully. Very carefully. Tell me how it is not only impossible, but also, please share the scientific evidence that directly contradicts it.
I'm sorry that my beliefs don't jibe with yours. And I also realize that you consider it irrational. But think carefully about what is being said. What science "suggests".
I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.
What's with the ridiculous binary standards? "Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.
"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief. What would be your standards of proof for someone claiming the the Flood and the Ark, in all of the associated particular and specific Biblical details, didn't happen?
Would a proof only suffice once you run out of suggested miracles, when you run out of your supply of "well, I don't knows, but I still believe it", when your imagination finally fails you and you can no longer freely concoct any excuse against any evidence you don't like, including things like the old John Birch society bit about fossils being planted by Satan?
The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit or concoct miracles and excuses with unbounded restraint is not only an incredibly poor way to judge the quality of a "proof", but it's the very kind of dysfunctional thinking I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.
You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved" -- and that's quite another meaning.
Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced. People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time, with bitter results. Some kinds of faith are unwarranted and unwise, and, yes, crazy. A simple faith in a God of some sort, which, while I don't find such faith very rational, isn't what I'd call crazy. A self-imposed need to combine that faith with belief in ridiculous cartoonish fables and to imagine such things as historical fact, with no cover other than "you can't prove it didn't happen!" -- that's where the insanity lies.
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.
Never a truer word said.... get this man a beverage!
However fruitless this thread is.... it's bloody entertaining!
Well...I took it from the dictionary. Didn't make that up on my own. So...I guess that is where your problem is.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
"Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.
Well, good...then you should have no trouble presenting it. Until you do, stop making making statements like "there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true".
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief.
But no one has presented any "counter evidence"...All I 've seen is stuff like "you must be a loony". Hardly evidence.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit
Well, when something that doesn't fit is actually persented...and the "you must be a loony" argumentation technique is set aside...then you might have a point.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.
Of course you are.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved"
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced.
I'm not.
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net
Comments
"Facts" are objective, in that they are provable by defined methods of scientific or logical inquiry and "Truths" are subjective, in that they are relative to religion, creed, sex and every other "thing" that manages to separate us silly little human beings from each other.
Originally posted by dmz
It's in a letter he wrote to Jefferson, he talks about being on Sinai with Moses for the forty days. (Jefferson was, to quote the Kurgan, an effete snob; and a total contradiction of a man.)
Haha, I found the quote. He says:
Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.
As I understand the context, he's kibbutzing with that other known "freethinker," Jefferson, about how silly the idea of miracles is, and how God is really Nature and available through reason rather than revelation. I think he's also denying the trinity with his reference to one and three. In any case, he most certainly is not professing a belief in the historicity of Moses getting the tablets as you suggested.
I'm not certain that any of us can lay our hands on the official position Washington or Adams had on "religious fables". But if the existence of Moses, the gift of the Ten Commandments, Christ, etc., is any indication, along with the overpowering uber-Calvinistic predestination bent, I'd have to say they were under the 'delusion' of their day.
I think their religious beliefs are pretty clear: They believed in a distant, ineffable creator and in the pure moral teachings of Christianity, and they rejected the miraculous supernatural phenomena embraced by most Christians today.
Originally posted by BRussell
Haha, I found the quote. He says:
As I understand the context, he's kibbutzing with that other known "freethinker," Jefferson, about how silly the idea of miracles is, and how God is really Nature and available through reason rather than revelation. I think he's also denying the trinity with his reference to one and three. In any case, he most certainly is not professing a belief in the historicity of Moses getting the tablets as you suggested.
I think their religious beliefs are pretty clear: They believed in a distant, ineffable creator and in the pure moral teachings of Christianity, and they rejected the miraculous supernatural phenomena embraced by most Christians today.
Brussell, you're trying to separate Adams from his historical context -- the fact of Moses -- and all his carrying on -- was a historical certainty for him. His hyperCalvinistic bent, and the fact that they lived Under the ten commandments -- with "no other gods" and sabbatarian rules -- it is more Christian by default than most people realize. And 'crazy' in any case.
I'm out until the weekend -- Busy busy busy.
Originally posted by dmz
So it is possible?
Perhaps I'll answer this later (if you can't see that, in a way, I already have), but not now. You're doing everything you can to avoid mentioning the elephant standing in the room, and I see no reason to assist you in that game.
Imagine our favorite poster boy for insanity: the man in the tinfoil hat, trying to keep the alien thought waves or government spy beams out of his head.
Any argument here that the word "insane" aptly applies to such a person?
Let's take the element of paranoia out of the picture, and imagine a man who sleeps with his head in a wok every night, because he wants to talk to the aliens, and he figures that the wok will help focus alien transmissions into his head, and help him beam his own thoughts back. Without the paranoia, this guy is probably less of a threat to himself and others, and if he keeps his wok-wearing ways to himself, and only wears the wok when he's in bed at night, he can probably go about his day-to-day life much like anyone else, perhaps even making great positive contributions to society.
He is still, however, a bit crazy -- even if it is "possible" that their are aliens beings out there somewhere and "possible" that a wok on a pillow behind your head will assist in communication with said aliens.
Now, please explain to me how the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow whole every literal detail of the Biblical story of Noah's Ark as historical fact is in any way materially different than the kinds of thought processes needed to convince yourself that a wok is going to help you communicate with space aliens, or different than the thought processes that convince you that the government has spy beams that can read thoughts, that the government cares enough about your own thoughts to use these beams on you, and that, given such extraordinary circumstances, that an aluminum sombrero is going to protect you?
some lives are made miserable by the religeous beliefs of others. Earlier was mentioned women in muslim countries. That's a general point.
A more specific case, speaking as a Londoner, is me. My life has got distinctly worse since the Islamic nutters decided random bombs on the Underground is a valid expression of their belief system. Instead of me relaxing on the subway and reading the sport & news, I now eye up any muslim looking individual carrying a large bag. Not healthy for me, nor the guy I'm looking at.
Anybody who is seriously religeous is dangerous. I'll accept that you may not have physically harmed anybody. But if you were involved (and I have zero evidence to supoort this, but am using it as an example) in pushing forward legislation that forces school to teach creationism as a valid possibility, then you are involved in mentally damaging young impressionable minds, which is unforgiveable.
To finish, you've avoided answering the question as to whether you believe the Ark to be a truthful accurate description of a genuine event.
Is that because
a) you do believe it is true, and can't face the ridicule?
b) you do believe it is true, but realise logically it can't be, and so your whole belief system is under threat, so you'd rather not think about the question?
c) you don't think it is true, but don't wish to say so as you don't want to give more ammunition to your detractors.
David
Originally posted by iMac David
some lives are made miserable by the religeous beliefs of others. Earlier was mentioned women in muslim countries. That's a general point.
A more specific case, speaking as a Londoner, is me. My life has got distinctly worse since the Islamic nutters decided random bombs on the Underground is a valid expression of their belief system.
Those are actions. Not all who believe X, take the same actions. I believe that abortion wrong, immoral, the termination of a human life. I don't bomb abrtion clinics or shoot abortion doctors or obstruct anyone's access to a clinic. For example.
Originally posted by iMac David
Anybody who is seriously religeous is dangerous.
Is that a fact? Truth? Opionion?
Originally posted by iMac David
pushing forward legislation that forces school to teach creationism as a valid possibility, then you are involved in mentally damaging young impressionable minds, which is unforgiveable.
Oh geez...the hyperbole machine is in high gear today!
Originally posted by iMac David
To finish, you've avoided answering the question as to whether you believe the Ark to be a truthful accurate description of a genuine event.
Sorry, your multiple-chice answers were loaded.
I believe that the event is possible, though I do not pretend to comprehend all of the details (of course the Bible does not provide ALL of the details either). I certainly cannot prove that it did not happen.
I recognize the "far-fetchedness" that many people see. But...
far-fetched != impossible
improbable != impossible
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.
For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning. An earlier poster listed a number of logical reasons why it didn't happen, and I won't bother to repeat them.
I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist. Please stay that way.
David
PS I didn't understand your "hyperbole machine is in high gear today" comment. Am I wrong about the legislation? Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?
I finish replying to Chris, and then pick up my paper to finish reading. And what do I read:
Last week in Texas George W Bush called for "intelligent design" to be taught in state schools so that "people can understand what the debate is about"!!!!
According to the article the majority of Americans believe in this view, which includes the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.
You just can't make this stuff up..............the leader of the free world pushing this nonsense..........
Chris, I don't suppose you'd answer this - do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?
David
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I believe that the event [the story of Noah's Ark] is possible, though I do not pretend to comprehend all of the details (of course the Bible does not provide ALL of the details either). I certainly cannot prove that it did not happen.
I recognize the "far-fetchedness" that many people see. But...
far-fetched != impossible
improbable != impossible
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
Steven Wright once said in one of his routines something like this: "I came home today, and everything in my house had been stolen and replaced by an exact replica."
Is what Wright joked about possible? Well, sure, it's possible. And if "exact" only has to mean "good enough so you won't ever know the difference", there's at least no violation of the laws of physics here, no need for the miraculous.
Yet would you submit that, on any given day, coming home, looking around your house, and seeing that everything appears as it usually does, that it's equally "based on faith" to decide that nothing has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica as it is to decide that everything has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica? Since both scenarios are "possible", in Chris Cuilla Land this would put both scenarios on some sort equal footing?
Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight. Such a notion of "faith" clearly has no bearing on the general concept of sanity vs. insanity.
To suppose the nothing-stolen scenario, if one even bothers to have such a thought go through one's head, is what most of us would call "sane". On the other hand, to not only imagine, to not merely joke about, but in all seriousness and with great, unyielding conviction to insist upon the everything-stolen scenario -- that constitutes a state of mind well described as "insane".
Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark gives more credence to the Ark than to Steven Wright's story. In all other ways, the story of Noah's Ark is much less believable than Wright's.
Originally posted by iMac David
the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.
It is good for you to begin on a positive and respect note.
Originally posted by iMac David
For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning.
Prove it didn't. That list was merely a set of things that would have to happen for it to not be true, certainly no where in the vicinity of a proof that it could not.
Originally posted by iMac David
I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist.
Whatever you wish.
Originally posted by iMac David
Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?
I think that you are wrong.
Originally posted by iMac David
do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?
I dont have a definitive opinion on the age of the earth.
Is this really what everyone thinks that all people that believe in creation think. That if you believe in creation you MUST believe that the earth is only 6000 years old?
Originally posted by segovius
science and rationalism is against their faith
That is not what I or most of the Christians that I know think.
Originally posted by shetline
<snip crappy analogy>
Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight.
I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.
Originally posted by shetline
Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark
That was funny. No, really. Very good.
Actually, you are close. At my church...we have a big sign requesting people to turn their brains off before entering. That is only for visitors of course. Once they get trained (Pavlov's dog style) in the cookie/pat on the back routine it isn't a problem. For the real stubborn ones, frontal lobotomies of course.
you're priceless, you really are.
How can you say that
uote:
Originally posted by segovius
science and rationalism is against their faith
originally quoted by Chris
That is not what I or most of the Christians that I know think.
and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.
Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.
Or did you mean that you are happy to accept scietific principles where they don't conflict with the bible - to take an example, gravity. In the Garden of Eden an apple fell. So there was gravity back there, so...........ok, gravity os Ok as a scientific concept.
Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark. Have you any idea of how many species there are in the world?
David
Originally posted by iMac David
Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.
First the age thing...as I said, I do not have a definitive opinion on it. I am willing to accept a gazillion year old thing. No problemo. Even a big bang. No problemo. At the core though, is question of whether everything has happened naturalistically or whether there is something/someone behind it all that has created to begin with. I believe the latter.
Originally posted by iMac David
and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.
Originally posted by iMac David
Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark.
Prove it didn't happen. Read the account. Read it carefully. Very carefully. Tell me how it is not only impossible, but also, please share the scientific evidence that directly contradicts it.
I'm sorry that my beliefs don't jibe with yours. And I also realize that you consider it irrational. But think carefully about what is being said. What science "suggests".
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.
What's with the ridiculous binary standards? "Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.
"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief. What would be your standards of proof for someone claiming the the Flood and the Ark, in all of the associated particular and specific Biblical details, didn't happen?
Would a proof only suffice once you run out of suggested miracles, when you run out of your supply of "well, I don't knows, but I still believe it", when your imagination finally fails you and you can no longer freely concoct any excuse against any evidence you don't like, including things like the old John Birch society bit about fossils being planted by Satan?
The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit or concoct miracles and excuses with unbounded restraint is not only an incredibly poor way to judge the quality of a "proof", but it's the very kind of dysfunctional thinking I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.
You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved" -- and that's quite another meaning.
Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced. People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time, with bitter results. Some kinds of faith are unwarranted and unwise, and, yes, crazy. A simple faith in a God of some sort, which, while I don't find such faith very rational, isn't what I'd call crazy. A self-imposed need to combine that faith with belief in ridiculous cartoonish fables and to imagine such things as historical fact, with no cover other than "you can't prove it didn't happen!" -- that's where the insanity lies.
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.
Originally posted by shetline
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.
Never a truer word said.... get this man a beverage!
However fruitless this thread is.... it's bloody entertaining!
Originally posted by shetline
What's with the ridiculous binary standards?
Well...I took it from the dictionary. Didn't make that up on my own. So...I guess that is where your problem is.
Originally posted by shetline
"Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.
Well, good...then you should have no trouble presenting it. Until you do, stop making making statements like "there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true".
Originally posted by shetline
"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief.
But no one has presented any "counter evidence"...All I 've seen is stuff like "you must be a loony". Hardly evidence.
Originally posted by shetline
The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit
Well, when something that doesn't fit is actually persented...and the "you must be a loony" argumentation technique is set aside...then you might have a point.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.
Of course you are.
Originally posted by shetline
You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved"
Wrong.
Originally posted by shetline
Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced.
I'm not.
Originally posted by shetline
People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time
I totally agree.
Originally posted by shetline
that's where the insanity lies.
Why of course.
Originally posted by shetline
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net
I think that you are absolutely correct.