Lausten said,It’s like listening to pop music, you can tell the song is going nowhere after 3 bars.
I love the analogy.
I love the analogy.
Sree said,Carlin explains? To whom?
Thinking people.
Widely regarded as one of the most important and influential American stand-up comics of all time, Carlin was dubbed by one newspaper to be "the dean of counterculture comedians".[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
There are few who are as influential as the great George Carlin. What he has contributed to American culture, and humanity itself, goes beyond any earthly limitations. Although his work sparked controversy, Carlin presented witty and thought-provoking perspectives on our society that continue to echo throughout the world.https://everydaypower.com/george-carlin-quotes/
Lausten said: “Sree is a troll. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Asking what I mean by earth. Come on man.”
And you don’t think Dawkins was regarded as a troll by theists when he first came out with his book “The God Delusion”? He would question creationists what was meant by God. How dare he, and how ridiculous of me.
Are religion and science two sides of the same coin? Yes, because they are two faiths practised by the same congregation.
I rest my case. And Merry Christmas to me and all of you too.
Sree said,While scripture gives us the whole human story in one fell swoop, science concocts the fantasy one bit at a time.
For starters science does not deal with fantasy at all. Science is concerned with facts, not fantasy. That argument is pure BS when used to describe the “scientific method.”
As to the scripture giving us the whole human story in one fell swoop, how about mythology, do you think the old gods were real because people believed in them? Mythology also told the whole human story in one fell swoop and it is also part of the spiritual world.
It is religion which concocts the fantasy one bit at a time. 39 books in the OT, 27 books in the NT, and about 10 versions of each with just a little different account.
Are you familiar with story of “loafs and fishes”? How many versions with different cited “numerical facts” are there? And the argument that this story is allegorical does not in any way prove anything . All fables are allegorical, but none of them are literally true.
If you wish to know the flaws in the bible instead of blindly following what the"anointed ones" are telling you, check out this compilation of critiques (both good and bad) of the Bible, the Q’uran, and the Book of Mormons in the Skeptics Annotated Bible;
HighlightsAbsurdity
Commandments
Injustice
Cruelty and Violence
Intolerance
Good Stuff
Contradictions
Science and History
Family Values
Interpretation
Women
Sex
Prophecy
Language
Boring Stuff
Homosexuality
Politics
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
This is a major work for use when studying any of these versions of “Revealed Divine Truth”.
Sree said,He would question creationists what was meant by God. How dare he, and how ridiculous of me.
Well, do I dare question you what you mean by God and why? Are you a creationist and proponent of intelligent design and irreducible complexity? And do you see the bible as divine revelation, superceding science.
All those perspectives argue against universal evolution.
Write4U, I am neither a theist or an atheist. The nature and origin of life, if it even has a beginning, are mysteries to me. I have no doubt that Nature, which includes me, is one hell of an intelligent design. As for the Bible, I don’t knock it because it would be bad manners. It is not an American value to go around acting like an ass dissing other people’s beliefs. Besides, it’s against the Constitution.
Thanks for asking the question directly Write4U. I was just hoping he would get around to providing us with his source of wisdom. Not that it matters. He doesn’t understand the First Amendment. He doesn’t seem to know what intelligent design is. Definitely confused about what good manners are.
Lausten said: “He doesn’t seem to know what intelligent design is.”
Do you know that there is an organ, called the heart, in your body? It beats inexplicably, and the spasms squeeze blood, pumping it, as we speak. The moment it stops, even for a few seconds, the lights go out and Lausten disappears, hopefully for a few seconds. Is that amazing or what? What are you, really? Pull the plug out and you disappear. You, the scientist who has discovered the universe.
Humility is a Christian value.
Hi Widdershin, Jesus stories are not different from stories of science about how the universe began and how humans evolved. They all provide appealing explanations to those who need them.Don't insult my intelligence. I do not for one second believe that you truly believe that "some guy making up a story" and "the process which has gotten men to the moon" are exactly equivalent. No story, no matter how "pleasing", has ever accomplished anything. Science does not exist to give us "pleasing stories". It exists to give us workable answers. Note that it does not give us "correct answers", which is what your story claims to be. It gives us only "workable" answers. Answers we can do something with. Answers we can use to accomplish something. Like build robots to explore distant planets and land them safely on the surface of those planets. Can you name a Bible quote, no matter how "pleasing", which built a rocket to get a man on the moon? Can you name a "Bible chip" in your computer, build from knowledge obtained in the bible?
And that is the big difference right there. “Stories” are not the same as “knowledge”. Science isn’t about giving us “appealing explanations” for anything. Often times the scientists hate the explanations they come up with. Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. But he was right anyway. Science does not exist to “appeal” to us, it exists to gain knowledge. While a story can impart some small amount of knowledge, that is not the purpose of the story. You don’t read a story to learn about gravity. You read a story to be entertained. Stories and scientific explanations have literally nothing in common.
It beats inexplicably...It's not inexplicable. We understand how and why it beats. We can stop it from beating. We can start it beating again when it stops. We can take it out of a body and make it beat on a table with machines. Do not confuse "I don't understand it" with "Nobody understands it".
It beats inexplicably,Who am I is a great philosophical question. I love exploring that with people who can suspend personal judgments, listen to what others know, and be open to learning.
How does a heart beat can be answered. It will lead to another question and another. Eventually you will get back to questions of where life came from or “why” if that interests you. You will get to the questions that no one as yet has answered, and maybe we will never answer. All very interesting. But what you are doing is being deliberately ignorant. You don’t seem curious about why a heart beats at all. You want to jump to some unanswerable question, then declare a designer.
All stories have value to those who write them or like them. You like science stories for practical value meaningful to you, Widdershin. But not everyone who gazes at the moon needs it to be a quarter of a million miles away.
A story is a conceptual construct, a tool. You put it away when the job is done. Walking around every waking moment with a mental blueprint of the Solar System is akin to holding a hammer all the time long after you have driven the goddam nail.
Being a fundamentalist in science is not different from being a Bible thumper. As Joseph Campbell said, when you treat the story not as metaphor but as fact, you are swallowing a lie.
“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”I think he's overstating the half and half. I think there are many believers and non-believers who understand the place of myth. Maybe it's because of his work becoming more well known. He said this a long time ago.
Lausten said: “You don’t seem curious about why a heart beats at all. You want to jump to some unanswerable question, then declare a designer.”
No, I am not curious about the heart. I learned about that in biology class a long time ago. What I am curious about is “Lausten”, this larger than life entity that materializes like a genie emerging from the magic lamp. The heart is real. “Lausten” is not.
the most prideful Christians
So, just wondering Sree. Who’s basement do you live in? I have an address and a phone and an internet connection. That kinda puts me on the map of reality for all practical purposes. No genie, just a keyboard.
Truth is that which comports with reality and reality is that which can be demonstrated as existing. Existence is something I just accept, unless I’m talking metaphysics. You sound more like someone who needs to up their vitamin C intake.
This guy is a “Christian”. The Bible, he says, is his favorite book, tho his own is a close 2nd. So really? When you say “Humility is a Christian virtue.” This guy is said by Evangelicals to be ordained by God. If he is a Christian, how come he has zero humility?
What is your idea of humility, Tim? Is it a recognizable, practicable value that can be practised and performed? If it is, then you can fake it like a movie star.
All stories have value to those who write them or like them. You like science stories for practical value meaningful to you, Widdershin. But not everyone who gazes at the moon needs it to be a quarter of a million miles away.A story is a conceptual construct, a tool. You put it away when the job is done. Walking around every waking moment with a mental blueprint of the Solar System is akin to holding a hammer all the time long after you have driven the goddam nail.
Being a fundamentalist in science is not different from being a Bible thumper. As Joseph Campbell said, when you treat the story not as metaphor but as fact, you are swallowing a lie.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever silly thing you like. If you don’t want to understand that a method of discovery is fundamentally different than “making shit up”, that’s your choice. Accepting the reality of scientific discovery as the best method of finding knowledge that we have is very different than anything having to do with “faith”, which is not a thing in science. But if you want to pretend they’re the same, I can’t stop you from saying very silly things. And if you want to believe that remembering how you built a house in case, years later, you want to build a second house is somehow equivalent to never putting down the hammer you used to build that house in case, years later, you wanted to build a second house, by all means, make a buffoon of yourself and tell everyone those are equivalents. I tried. You are, of course, free to remain ignorant for as long as you will it.
Sree said,Being a fundamentalist in science is not different from being a Bible thumper. As Joseph Campbell said, when you treat the story not as metaphor but as fact, you are swallowing a lie.
I can certainly agree with Joseph Campbell. He has extensively searched all mythology and wrote books about it. “Hero with a thousand faces”
BTW, what is a scientific fundamentalist? Someone who believes Reality is real and Biblical stories are metaphorical?
But that is not what religious fundamentalists claim. They claim the bible is divine revelation, not metaphor.
Genesis 1:31 is metaphor?
p.s. who or what is Sree? Is Sree real or larger than life?
We know what the fundamentals are. Inerrancy of the Bible, belief in the virgin birth, and of course that Jesus is your savior. Other religions have their versions, all involving belief in things that are not justified outside of those belief systems.
Finding just what is meant by the fundamentals of science is not so easy. Do you mean fundamental things like light, sound, particles? Or the method of observe, question, hypothesize? Probably that second part, but now you have some terms that need more definition, people confuse “hypothesis” with “guess” for example. And, when anyone is critiquing science, they are usually actually critiquing scientism, a sort of faith in science. This is probably due to a grade school understanding of science, where you are expected to accept what the teacher says and regurgitate it. That’s a necessary step in learning, but it’s not what science actually is.