Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[Pladio]

You do understand that this actually proves the idiocy of both sides of this argument, right? You have chosen to trust one side over the other based on your personal perception of the world. Then, you make the logical leap that somehow your choice based on your personal perception is somehow more valid than someone else's choice based on their personal perception.

Based on your personal choice of evidence, which is somehow magically promoted to preferred status whilst the other side's personal choice of evidence is summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit within your personal perception. For claiming to be so damned smart, I don't see how y'all can't see the fallacious hubris just pouring out of that dogpile.

You misunderstand me dte.

If you believe it's all magical or that it's all parables then I do not have any arguments against that.
However if you are trying to say that the bible is factual in the way we currently understand the world then I do have a problem, because many things in the bible have been shown to be wrong.

If you say Noah's ark could fit 1 million animals because God made it so. Then so be it.
However that's not what most people seem to be saying.

They change words and basic biological concepts ( two kangaroos will be able to make both grey and red kangaroos ), which we know does not work that way.

And that's very different to telling them that their beliefs in magic are wrong as that is something I personally cannot show to be wrong (at least not online)

Typing this on my phone, so not as in depth as it could have been.

One more thing, I put "trust" in apostrophes to indicate that I do not believe it like a believer believes in God. A few reasons for this, but a very important one being I do not understand it well enough.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

They predicted that the radiation caused by the big bang is uniform.



I am intrigued. I thought that the uniform distribution would mean that there wouldnt be large amount of black areas. Please explain further.

Large amount of black areas? On the pic posted on the wikia? Quantifying what large amount of black areas mean toward the other areas might help.

 

[Roq]

Have you got any reference to this? AFAIK they used drugs to turn their minds to mush before indoctrination.

As usual you've got this backwards and it's you who is making unsupported assertions. AFAIK they were all martians, at least noone has specifically denied that. But, if the bombers were all martians or all drug addicts, likely that would have emerged. Instead the picture we have of them is that they were for the most part educated people who themselves chose to commit these horrible atrocities, whilst under the impression they were acting righteously. The bombers involved in the 2005 London bombings had a similar profile, two of them in fact were married with children.

 

[Damian]

As usual you've got this backwards and it's you who is making unsupported assertions. AFAIK they were all martians, at least noone has specifically denied that. But, if the bombers were all martians or all drug addicts, likely that would have emerged. Instead the picture we have of them is that they were for the most part educated people who themselves chose to commit these horrible atrocities, whilst under the impression they were acting righteously. The bombers involved in the 2005 London bombings had a similar profile, two of them in fact were married with children.

I have already posted my references. Doesnt that make my assertions supported?

 

[Roq]

I have already posted my references. Doesnt that make my assertions supported?

No because the reference you posted, does not say that all the 9/11 bombers were drug addicts who's brains had turned to mush and even if it did it's just part of a para that summarises many different opinions. Suggest you read it more carefully. Of course if you take a random sample of suicide bombers, you are likely to find that they have a wide range of life related problems. If that wasn't the case they'd be abnormal. No doubt you'd get much the same result if you took a random sample of RPG Watch members.

A lot of the speculation on the internet is just post facto, justification - they know that the bombers performed a crazy atrocity, so they must have been mad, on drugs etc. etc. mustn't they? and that *must* have been the reason? Seek and ye shall find. But there is one common denominator that *all* the bombers had - and we know what that is, don't we?

 

[dteowner]

You misunderstand me dte.

If you believe it's all magical or that it's all parables then I do not have any arguments against that.
However if you are trying to say that the bible is factual in the way we currently understand the world then I do have a problem, because many things in the bible have been shown to be wrong.

If you say Noah's ark could fit 1 million animals because God made it so. Then so be it.
However that's not what most people seem to be saying.

They change words and basic biological concepts ( two kangaroos will be able to make both grey and red kangaroos ), which we know does not work that way.

And that's very different to telling them that their beliefs in magic are wrong as that is something I personally cannot show to be wrong (at least not online)

Typing this on my phone, so not as in depth as it could have been.

One more thing, I put "trust" in apostrophes to indicate that I do not believe it like a believer believes in God. A few reasons for this, but a very important one being I do not understand it well enough.

So then, you have a problem with a theory evolving over time, with adjustments being made as additional information/interpretation becomes available?

Or is it just a hangup with using a 2000 year old book as a reference? Which, we all know, is completely unheard of in the scientific realm since we've completely discarded the works of Socrates and Aristotle, right? Because everything those guys wrote down was 100% correct based on today's information/interpretation, right, and none of those books have ever been (mis)translated over time, right? No conflicts, no errors, right?

Modern learned literature gurus will tell you that Moby Dick can be read on 7 different levels and have all sorts of documentation to back that up. Yet, you feel perfectly fine in demanding that the bible be read with a single, literal interpretation? That's supposed to be your rock-solid highly-educated argument? [insert John Travolta "Grease" laugh]

 

[zahratustra]

You have to rein in your tendencies to start well and than push your arguments too far dte. First: TBBT and ToE are indeed honest to goodness theories while the question of the existence of god isn't. And second: yes, we completely discarded validity of Socratean and Aristotelian thoughts about physical world. We still value their works, but only in the same way as we value our grandfather's clock which, through it doesn't show the correct time, is of great sentimental value.

 

[Pladio]

So then, you have a problem with a theory evolving over time, with adjustments being made as additional information/interpretation becomes available?

No, please read what I said again.

Or is it just a hangup with using a 2000 year old book as a reference? Which, we all know, is completely unheard of in the scientific realm since we've completely discarded the works of Socrates and Aristotle, right? Because everything those guys wrote down was 100% correct based on today's information/interpretation, right, and none of those books have ever been (mis)translated over time, right? No conflicts, no errors, right?

See Zahra's reply.
We try to take the most "correct" stuff and stop using the most "wrong" stuff. Doesn't mean it's all worthless.

Modern learned literature gurus will tell you that Moby Dick can be read on 7 different levels and have all sorts of documentation to back that up. Yet, you feel perfectly fine in demanding that the bible be read with a single, literal interpretation? That's supposed to be your rock-solid highly-educated argument? [insert John Travolta "Grease" laugh]

I do not demand it, I am not sure where you get this from. Also not sure about Moby Dick.

To me it seems you're putting words in my mouth, rather than reading what I say. This isn't very productive in my opinion. I've been speaking directly to either Topcat's claims of factual understanding of the bible or Damian's factual misunderstanding of frequency distributions. I have no idea where you get your arguments against me from.

Could you please be more specific? Otherwise I see little point in arguing with you.

 

[Roq]

You do understand that this actually proves the idiocy of both sides of this argument, right? You have chosen to trust one side over the other based on your personal perception of the world. Then, you make the logical leap that somehow your choice based on your personal perception is somehow more valid than someone else's choice based on their personal perception.

Based on your personal choice of evidence, which is somehow magically promoted to preferred status whilst the other side's personal choice of evidence is summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit within your personal perception. For claiming to be so damned smart, I don't see how y'all can't see the fallacious hubris just pouring out of that dogpile.

Haven't we already been through this pathetic argument earlier in the thread? To summarise: The most reliable scientific theories that we have today are those that have stood up to repeated replicable tests without failing. So we have a *justified* trust in them. The bible OTOH is a collection of ancient fables that predicts nothing, except when "interpreted" post facto by creationist apologists, of course. Look at that computer in front of your face, if all these scientific theories are false, it wouldn't work would it? Similarly, for every aspect of modern life. And when it comes down it even creationists go to the doctor, because if you treat yourself with the bible, you end up dead.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Modern learned literature gurus will tell you that Moby Dick can be read on 7 different levels and have all sorts of documentation to back that up. Yet, you feel perfectly fine in demanding that the bible be read with a single, literal interpretation? That's supposed to be your rock-solid highly-educated argument? [insert John Travolta "Grease" laugh]

Playing semantics again. In the current case, concerning the Bible, it does indicate that the bible cannot be read on a litteral level and then should be read on a different level.

Is the same as Moby Dick? Probably not as the mention indicates it as a book that can be read on 7 different levels. Which is by the way only diversion as the way Moby Dick can be read is no way linked to the way the bible can be read.

When people state that the four corners of the Earth or the ark story should not be taken litterally, it means that for the related extracts, the bible can not be read on a literal level.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

And… You are tryin to say?

That all religions were invalidated by science. People who believe in a god whose religion is not invalidated by science are believing a different god than all gods that were depicted in all human religions.

For a religion like Christianity, that includes the 2nd commandment,

You shall have no other gods before me

it only means that those believers mock their own beliefs by placing a god before their own.
Good thing though with stuff like that as they are not real, there will be no consequence for that disbelief other than those brought by other human beings. No divine punishment for placing another god before theirs.

 

[dteowner]

We try to take the most "correct" stuff and stop using the most "wrong" stuff. Doesn't mean it's all worthless.

Then why would you not extend the same courtesy to the bible thumpers? If you're allowed interpretation and adaptation, why would they not be allowed the same rules? Because you (non-specific "you") say so?

It's funny how y'all rail at the "flat earth" point. After all, SCIENCE declared anybody that disagreed with that stance a total crackpot until a few hundred years ago. I seem to remember a certain guy having to take poison over a similar crazy theory, but let's not put a smudge on the glorious throne of science. That's completely different, right? You get to correct/adapt, but the bible thumpers have to remain static because if they change their interpretation that's an admission of failure. Seriously? That's supposed to be enlightened discussion?

To me it seems you're putting words in my mouth, rather than reading what I say. This isn't very productive in my opinion. I've been speaking directly to either Topcat's claims of factual understanding of the bible or Damian's factual misunderstanding of frequency distributions. I have no idea where you get your arguments against me from.

Could you please be more specific? Otherwise I see little point in arguing with you.

I do think we're suffering from disputing multiple angles of the argument at the same time. There's a crusade against biblical literalists that I find rather pointless. As best as I can tell, we don't have any literalists taking part in the discussion and that entire angle is a strawman created to deflect more interesting points. As I've stated before, my angle is poking a hole in the smug certainty expressed by the science crowd. I don't have any skin in the game beyond attempting to get people to think about their supposed certainties.

I'm a strong believer in keeping the rules the same for both sides of the argument. That's actually nearly impossible for this discussion since the two sides operate in completely different frameworks. While the science framework certainly has the stronger argument for the time being, if the scientists are going to be true to their creed, they MUST accept and agree that the biblical hooey is possible, understanding that we haven't developed a "hooey meter" at this time but the possibility that there's something that we just don't know how to measure CANNOT be summarily dismissed.

So, if y'all want to say that, *based on current understanding and perception*, the biblical interpretation looks like garbage, that's fine and more power to ya. If you take the further step (which has been taken more than once in this thread) that "all religions are invalidated by science", then you're flat out wrong and there's simply no way around it. Further, to hold that errant stance and then get "holier than thou" with the bible thumpers (irony intended ) is baseless and frankly rather rude.

 

[Pladio]

Then why would you not extend the same courtesy to the bible thumpers? If you're allowed interpretation and adaptation, why would they not be allowed the same rules? Because you (non-specific "you") say so?

But that's what I said (or at least meant) when I said:
"If you believe it's all magical or that it's all parables then I do not have any arguments against that."

If "bible thumpers" are now saying it's all allegorical or it's all literal, then fine.
I do have a problem when someone like Tomcat says that :
"There are several scientific statements in there that is absolutely correct
the earth is round…
…
In the kooran and other religios scripts there are lots of inaccurate statements
like where the sun sets. filosofical maybe but thats not my cup of tea. I like facts."

That was something very specific I argued against with taking Noah's ark as an example.

It's funny how y'all rail at the "flat earth" point. After all, SCIENCE declared anybody that disagreed with that stance a total crackpot until a few hundred years ago. I seem to remember a certain guy having to take poison over a similar crazy theory, but let's not put a smudge on the glorious throne of science. That's completely different, right? You get to correct/adapt, but the bible thumpers have to remain static because if they change their interpretation that's an admission of failure. Seriously? That's supposed to be enlightened discussion?

Changing their interpretation is not a problem, however changing their interpretation based on nothing more than misunderstandings (such as not actually understanding physics or biology) and changing what things mean in those scientific subjects to suit them is wrong. (see microevolution and density functions)

I do think we're suffering from disputing multiple angles of the argument at the same time. There's a crusade against biblical literalists that I find rather pointless. As best as I can tell, we don't have any literalists taking part in the discussion and that entire angle is a strawman created to deflect more interesting points. As I've stated before, my angle is poking a hole in the smug certainty expressed by the science crowd. I don't have any skin in the game beyond attempting to get people to think about their supposed certainties.

I'm a strong believer in keeping the rules the same for both sides of the argument. That's actually nearly impossible for this discussion since the two sides operate in completely different frameworks. While the science framework certainly has the stronger argument for the time being, if the scientists are going to be true to their creed, they MUST accept and agree that the biblical hooey is possible, understanding that we haven't developed a "hooey meter" at this time but the possibility that there's something that we just don't know how to measure CANNOT be summarily dismissed.

Yes and no. For all practical and pragmatical purposes, scientists can say all the hooey does not exist until someone can prove it does by creating a hooey meter that works.

Otherwise we'd be forced to take demons and spirits and ghosts seriously in our day-to-day lives and arrest goats which are actually thieves who transformed into goats :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7846822.stm

While this might actually be true. Our current understanding of things show it to be false and thus for practical purposes we can dismiss this as it does not further much in anything.

Am I making sense ?

So, if y'all want to say that, *based on current understanding and perception*, the biblical interpretation looks like garbage, that's fine and more power to ya. If you take the further step (which has been taken more than once in this thread) that "all religions are invalidated by science", then you're flat out wrong and there's simply no way around it. Further, to hold that errant stance and then get "holier than thou" with the bible thumpers (irony intended ) is baseless and frankly rather rude.

See above (practical reasons) and Roq's explanation of repeatability of experiments)

EDIT :

Also, for me it's an obvious thing that when I speak it's with our current understanding of things.
It might be wrong and if that's the case it's fine. But again, I was speaking about very specific issues.

 

[Roq]

I'm a strong believer in keeping the rules the same for both sides of the argument. That's actually nearly impossible for this discussion since the two sides operate in completely different frameworks. While the science framework certainly has the stronger argument for the time being, if the scientists are going to be true to their creed, they MUST accept and agree that the biblical hooey is possible, understanding that we haven't developed a "hooey meter" at this time but the possibility that there's something that we just don't know how to measure CANNOT be summarily dismissed.

But we do accept that the biblical hooey (at least some of it) is *possible*. But that's a *very* small concession: it's also *possible* that Father Christmas delivers all those Christmas presents in some way.

The point is that it isn't science on one side & religion on the other, both make factual claims about how the universe is, it's that if you make a claim, unless you have evidence for that claim, it's highly unlikely to be true. And further, none of the evidence we have from looking at and measuring the universe supports the factual claims in the bible. So there simply isn't any rational reason to believe those claims. OTOH everything we can and have measured supports the theory of evolution, which is why it has such a high credibility.

 

[zahratustra]

Then why would you not extend the same courtesy to the bible thumpers? If you're allowed interpretation and adaptation, why would they not be allowed the same rules? Because you (non-specific "you") say so?

Errr.... because thoughts of Socrates and Aristotle about physical world (using those 2 again just as an example) are taught as a part of History of Sciences. There is no attempt to interpret, adapt or make them fit, somehow, into the body of the modern science.

 

[dteowner]

Errr…. because thoughts of Socrates and Aristotle about physical world (using those 2 again just as an example) are taught as a part of History of Sciences. There is no attempt to interpret, adapt or make them fit, somehow, into the body of the modern science.

I'd be willing to bet that given sufficient motivation, I could find Socrates talking about earth, air, fire, and water as the building blocks of matter. Or I could dig up that scientist that stated several decades ago with great certainty that there's nothing smaller than an atom. Since those things have since been proven to be wrong, does that give you license to dismiss everything associated with either gent? You're using that logic with the bible thumpers.

 

[dteowner]

But we do accept that the biblical hooey (at least some of it) is *possible*. But that's a *very* small concession: it's also *possible* that Father Christmas delivers all those Christmas presents in some way.

The point is that it isn't science on one side & religion on the other, both make factual claims about how the universe is, it's that if you make a claim, unless you have evidence for that claim, it's highly unlikely to be true. And further, none of the evidence we have from looking at and measuring the universe supports the factual claims in the bible. So there simply isn't any rational reason to believe those claims. OTOH everything we can and have measured supports the theory of evolution, which is why it has such a high credibility.

Then how does science progress? Until some guy decided to start looking for something that every learned individual was quite certain wasn't there, we had no sub-atomic particles. Until some guy decided to sail into "Here there be dragons" when every learned individual was quite certain all there was out there was an edge to fall off, we had a flat earth.

Until some guy manages to create the "hooey meter" to measure something that isn't there, every learned individual can be quite certain that the bible thumpers are full of crap.

Enjoy your certainty.

 

[txa1265]

Until some guy decided to start looking for something that every learned individual was quite certain wasn't there, we had no sub-atomic particles.

Um. No. And I suggest you just stop talking science, as it obviously isn't your forte.

 

[Roq]

I'd be willing to bet that given sufficient motivation, I could find Socrates talking about earth, air, fire, and water as the building blocks of matter. Or I could dig up that scientist that stated several decades ago with great certainty that there's nothing smaller than an atom. Since those things have since been proven to be wrong, does that give you license to dismiss everything associated with either gent? You're using that logic with the bible thumpers.

You are muddling up science and scientists again. Scientists are also people and you can still do science even if you have crazy beliefs - Francis Collins being a good example. Scientific theories are not dependent on individual eccentricities, even when the insights on which they are based stem from a single brilliant person such as Newton, Darwin or Einstein.

 

[dteowner]

Dalton named them atoms from the Greek atomos, meaning indivisible. Think he was thinking about quarks when he thought indivisible?? Quit being an arrogant prick, Mike.