|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
IMO this is because most of the media are liberal/democrat, and will bend over backwards to make a Republican look bad, and also to do the reverse for a Democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Much of the Bible, especially the New Testament, is written in parable and story form so that people could grasp complex ideas.
Not everything in the Bible is literal. Again, what is a day to God before the universe exists?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
So then are you saying that the story of Creation of Adam and Eve, which are fairly detailed, are not what Christians are to believe as fact and are parables for a larger, grander story?
To an independent like me...yes. But most devout (devout being the key word here) believe that Adam and Eve were created by God just as it is described in Genesis. It's the whole basis for the creation vs evolution argument. I've never seen a creationist claim that the story is a parable.
We know other stories are parables because Jesus proclaimed them to be. I don't recall him mentioning that the story of creation is a parable.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I believe that the creation story was written in a way that could be understood by man of the time.
If Genesis said:
In the beginning, God created existence. Prior to this, there was God, who is all and everything, but he hadn't yet created existence, so it was Him alone prior to his created everything. God created energy, from which all other creation springs. He did so with a big bang in the middle of creation. Existence exploded into being, and God began to organize His creation. He created suns. He aligned planets in orbit around those suns. He also created stars, red giants, and other types of celestial bodies. .........
No one of that time would have had a clue what the writer was talking about.
The Bible says that Eve was created when God took a rib from Adam, with the implication that man now is missing a rib. This is definitely not the case.
Genesis isn't a parable ..... but it is a way of telling the story of creation in such a way that early man could understand it without having his head explode.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Because, as I said before, being a devout Christian is part of the Republican core. It's not with Libs/Dems. Libs/Dems never claim to make any sort of decision based on faith. They keep it more personal and to themselves where Republicans are more open about their faith guiding their decisions and policies. I think it makes sense to ask these questions more of Republicans because faith holds a higher meaning to them. At least publicly.
Fair enough, but when Obama is in many parts of the country, he never mentions religion... the quote above was in the middle of South Carolina because he knew it would be reassuring to most of the folks there who support him. I'm sorry, he shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If he has a large voting bloc that will vote for him because of his liberal and progressive plans and another group that needs to hear about his faith in order to support him, then the media should ask him about the apparent contradiction and what exactly his beliefs are. I hear all the time and I see bumper stickers about how Democrats believe in God too, etc... Democrats just never get questioned about it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
And I agree with you because I've always thought you to be a rational person who can look at Genesis with a bit of mental flexibility.
But that's not what any Republican candidate would say. When the author of this article mentions anti-intellectualism, I can understand what he is saying but I'd narrow it down even further calling it anti-flexibility.
Do you think Perry, Palin, Romney or Bachman would state what you just did? Not likely. They'd lose all kinds of support from the people that think the Bible is word-for-word factual.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
And I agree with you because I've always thought you to be a rational person who can look at Genesis with a bit of mental flexibility.
But that's not what any Republican candidate would say. When the author of this article mentions anti-intellectualism, I can understand what he is saying but I'd narrow it down even further calling it anti-flexibility.
Do you think Perry, Palin, Romney or Bachman would state what you just did? Not likely. They'd lose all kinds of support from the people that think the Bible is word-for-word factual.
What do you think Obama would say if he was asked if God created the universe? If Jesus was raised from the dead? If there will be a judgement day?
Don't worry. The media will never ask him. Liberal Christians are never asked these questions.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Quote:
Quote:
And I agree with you because I've always thought you to be a rational person who can look at Genesis with a bit of mental flexibility.
But that's not what any Republican candidate would say. When the author of this article mentions anti-intellectualism, I can understand what he is saying but I'd narrow it down even further calling it anti-flexibility.
Do you think Perry, Palin, Romney or Bachman would state what you just did? Not likely. They'd lose all kinds of support from the people that think the Bible is word-for-word factual.
What do you think Obama would say if he was asked if God created the universe? If Jesus was raised from the dead? If there will be a judgement day?
Don't worry. The media will never ask him. Liberal Christians are never asked these questions.
And that makes sense. To put it another way...Who would the media ask about the skills of a QB coming out of college...Mel Kiper and Jon Gruden or Joe-Q Dawgtalker? Does it mean there is a media bias? No, it means they ask the ones who known to be the most knowledgeable.
You can't make the argument that Libs/Dems aren't asked these questions just as fairly as Reps. It's an apples to oranges comparison based on their public stances on such matters.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I don't remember seeing any pictures of Dems like this...  
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And that makes sense. To put it another way...Who would the media ask about the skills of a QB coming out of college...Mel Kiper and Jon Gruden or Joe-Q Dawgtalker? Does it mean there is a media bias? No, it means they ask the ones who known to be the most knowledgeable.
You can't make the argument that Libs/Dems aren't asked these questions just as fairly as Reps. It's an apples to oranges comparison based on their public stances on such matters.
I disagree. If somebody professes themselves as a person of a faith, any faith, then they should either all be open to questions about it or none of them should.
If somebody takes the position that they want to teach creationism in schools, then ask them about that. If somebody says they want an amendment to ban gay marriage then ask them about that. But that is not the line of questioning that most R's get... asking a Christian republican if they think Noah's flood really happened serves NO PURPOSE....
But aren't you just a little curious how somebody like Obama would try to answer questions about his faith without ticking off his more liberal base? I know I am.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
And that makes sense. To put it another way...Who would the media ask about the skills of a QB coming out of college...Mel Kiper and Jon Gruden or Joe-Q Dawgtalker? Does it mean there is a media bias? No, it means they ask the ones who known to be the most knowledgeable.
You can't make the argument that Libs/Dems aren't asked these questions just as fairly as Reps. It's an apples to oranges comparison based on their public stances on such matters.
The better analogy would be for Kiper and Gruden to only ask about arm strength for quarterbacks from the SEC, and to never ask about any other QBs arm strength.
I missed the interview when Obama was asked if God created the universe, and if so, does he support teaching it. Don't worry, he's not an SEC QB, so he doesn't have to make a public stance.
It's a gotcha question for Christian politicians, but only asked of one conference. You believe, but don't want it taught. Why not? That doesn't make sense. You want it taught, you're a fringe lunatic.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Excellent example Divot.
Democrats are allowed to profess their faith and that's enough, from there it's just sort of assumed that they are Christians but they don't really BELIEVE a lot of it. They are never forced to reconcile their faith with their politics the way republicans are.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
i'm going to disagree slightly here.
if a generic Dem was asked any of these specific questions, then they could just simply answer: "I believe in separation of church and state and my beliefs do not affect my policies."
if a generic Rep answered that same way, then there would be a certain segment of their voting base that would be upset with that answer (I still think it is the correct answer)
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
i'm going to disagree slightly here.
if a generic Dem was asked any of these specific questions, then they could just simply answer: "I believe in separation of church and state and my beliefs do not affect my policies."
if a generic Rep answered that same way, then there would be a certain segment of their voting base that would be upset with that answer (I still think it is the correct answer)
Do you honestly believe there is a single politicians that would say "I don't believe in separation of church and state?" Or believe one that said "my beliefs do not affect my policies?" Of course their beliefs affect their policies.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
i'm going to disagree slightly here.
if a generic Dem was asked any of these specific questions, then they could just simply answer: "I believe in separation of church and state and my beliefs do not affect my policies."
if a generic Rep answered that same way, then there would be a certain segment of their voting base that would be upset with that answer (I still think it is the correct answer)
Do you honestly believe there is a single politicians that would say "I don't believe in separation of church and state?" Or believe one that said "my beliefs do not affect my policies?" Of course their beliefs affect their policies.
you misread. i said nothing of the sort.
the Dem can give that answer and nothing else because there is no part of their constituency that will get upset (or a very small portion at least).
many Rep don't feel they can simply give that answer because there is a significant portion of their constituency that wants to know their beliefs (I think that generic answer is what they should give though).
of course people's beliefs affect how they govern, but there's no reason to feed the media frenzy (IMO).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
you misread. i said nothing of the sort.
the Dem can give that answer and nothing else because there is no part of their constituency that will get upset (or a very small portion at least).
many Rep don't feel they can simply give that answer because there is a significant portion of their constituency that wants to know their beliefs (I think that generic answer is what they should give though).
of course people's beliefs affect how they govern, but there's no reason to feed the media frenzy (IMO).
I see your point. That "non-answer" would be acceptable to a much larger portion of Dem supporters than Rep. I say it doesn't answer the question. The Rep candidate could also just say "I believe in the Constitution, and will keep my policies within that framework." It also doesn't answer the question, but I doubt the media would let that answer just slide by, unlike the Dem non-answer.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622 |
I can't believe I ever called myself a Republican. My how they have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
if a generic Dem was asked any of these specific questions, then they could just simply answer: "I believe in separation of church and state and my beliefs do not affect my policies."
if a generic Rep answered that same way, then there would be a certain segment of their voting base that would be upset with that answer (I still think it is the correct answer)
Then ask them both and let the people decide which answer they will accept .... but as it stands, one side doesn't get asked at all and the other side gets drilled on things that are totally irrelevant.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
Quote:
I know far more than you can possibly imagine
i don't know, i can imagine a lot.  i'm going to ignore the poorly guised personal attack, and move on to the content of your response...
Quote:
Do you think everyone in your industry is altruistic???? Look, you said it yourself...funding is terrible...and when money is scarce...those who produce the desired results will get the most funding and the most exposure to further their careers. And WHO is the largest funder of science in this country???? The US GOVERNMENT. So don't tell me this is not political.
of course not everyone is altruistic...although i think that's the wrong term here. most scientists i know do the work b/c they love it, not b/c of the ultimate benefit to others. that's a perk, but not a reason to drag yourself out of bed every morning. anyway, no profession is free from people with poor ethics...doesn't speak to the profession being unethical.
the corruption of science that you speak of is primarily in the private sector...who have $ riding on desired results. sounds like you have a good deal of firsthand experience in this arena. and you said it yourself, often it is those who process and use the data that manipulate it, not those who generate the raw data...i.e. the actual scientists.
however, from your statements, you don't understand government funding. granting agencies do not preferentially fund investigators with desirable results, b/c there is no direct interest by the funding agency whether the answer to the hypothesis is "yes" or "no". and government funding agencies are not political, at least not in the R/D, lib/con sense. grants are awarded by panels who review pools of proposals. these groups are made up of other investigators, who read the proposals, convene to discuss them, and deliver relative scores. the budget of each agency then determines what number or proportion of grants they can afford, and a percentile cutoff line is drawn and applied to the panels' scores.
if $ and power grab issues were rife within the scientific community, wouldn't we see more high profile scientists? more scientist-turned-politicians? instead, we see doctors, lawyers, and business execs dominate politics b/c those professions are much more heavily populated by type A personalities driven for $ and power.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
YTOWN... Quote:
If Genesis said:
In the beginning, God created existence. Prior to this, there was God, who is all and everything, but he hadn't yet created existence, so it was Him alone prior to his created everything. God created energy, from which all other creation springs. He did so with a big bang in the middle of creation. Existence exploded into being, and God began to organize His creation. He created suns. He aligned planets in orbit around those suns. He also created stars, red giants, and other types of celestial bodies. .........
No one of that time would have had a clue what the writer was talking about.
The Bible says that Eve was created when God took a rib from Adam, with the implication that man now is missing a rib. This is definitely not the case.
Genesis isn't a parable ..... but it is a way of telling the story of creation in such a way that early man could understand it without having his head explode.
i'm not trying to be glib about your comments, but why wouldn't God wait to divinely inspire the writing of His story until man had the knowledge to comprehend the reality of the universe?
btw, DC, i agree that Dems get an unfair free pass. that said, i don't have a problem with anyone having faith...just don't impose faith-based policy on others is all i ask.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
granting agencies do not preferentially fund investigators with desirable results, b/c there is no direct interest by the funding agency whether the answer to the hypothesis is "yes" or "no". and government funding agencies are not political, at least not in the R/D, lib/con sense. grants are awarded by panels who review pools of proposals. these groups are made up of other investigators, who read the proposals, convene to discuss them, and deliver relative scores. the budget of each agency then determines what number or proportion of grants they can afford, and a percentile cutoff line is drawn and applied to the panels' scores.
I'm asking this hypothetically... but let's say you and I are applying for a grant from the EPA or one of its subsidiaries and we are both similar in education, experience, etc...
Your proposal outlines the area of cause and effect related to greenhouse gas emissions, etc that you hope to study and it's all great and you highlight your past experiments and the results achieved, and how greenhouse gas is impacting the environment blahblahblah..
And I do the exact same thing with an equally well put together proposal only the past work that I highlight showed no causality between man-made greenhouse gases and a change in the climate, etc.
Are you saying we are equally positioned to receive the grant from the EPA?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
YTOWN...
Quote:
If Genesis said:
In the beginning, God created existence. Prior to this, there was God, who is all and everything, but he hadn't yet created existence, so it was Him alone prior to his created everything. God created energy, from which all other creation springs. He did so with a big bang in the middle of creation. Existence exploded into being, and God began to organize His creation. He created suns. He aligned planets in orbit around those suns. He also created stars, red giants, and other types of celestial bodies. .........
No one of that time would have had a clue what the writer was talking about.
The Bible says that Eve was created when God took a rib from Adam, with the implication that man now is missing a rib. This is definitely not the case.
Genesis isn't a parable ..... but it is a way of telling the story of creation in such a way that early man could understand it without having his head explode.
i'm not trying to be glib about your comments, but why wouldn't God wait to divinely inspire the writing of His story until man had the knowledge to comprehend the reality of the universe?
.
Maybe because He loves and cares about all of His children.
You don't wait until your child can understand what you are saying to tell them you love them. Frankly, I don't think that we, as a people, understand the universe yet. Are you saying that God should have ignored all of us as well?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DC...
i believe most EPA funding is intramural...i.e. $ goes to EPA labs with specific missions, e.g. tracking water pollution in a given area. however, hypothetically speaking, no, i wouldn't have an advantage b/c of what the data says. at least not objectively speaking. now, if there is a dominant reviewer on our grant panel that personally believes in my hypothesis over yours, they may try to convince the other panel members that i deserve the award. however, these decisions are primarily made based on how extensive the preliminary data is (therefore how likely it is that we will find something), how well we lay down an argument that we can achieve our experimental goals (ROI for the funding agency), how prepared for potential problems (including alternatives to pursue), etc. the reviewers of a typical study section have no vested interest in one answer or another. the political appointees at the head of the EPA might, but grant reviews do not see the political hierarchy, to my knowledge.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
YTOWN... Quote:
You don't wait until your child can understand what you are saying to tell them you love them.
no, you don't. but you don't tell them that love is an invisible butterfly made out of rays of sunshine that can fly right through their body and make them happy, either. i mean, why go out of your way to create a childish representation of truth? if you're God, can you not implant the truth within each and every person's consciousness?
Quote:
Frankly, I don't think that we, as a people, understand the universe yet.
fair enough...we've got a lot better grasp than 2000 years ago, though.
Quote:
Are you saying that God should have ignored all of us as well?
well, didn't He ignore everyone pre-Christianity? i mean, what about all the older religions, mono-theistic and othewise? were they not worthy of His word? couldn't a parable be delivered in a way understandable to them?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
I find your "invisible butterfly" comment offensive. It is the same as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" usually reserved for atheists to attack people of faith.
I know a man, a devout Christian. You would probably call him a Bible thumper. The day you step up to match his lifetime of deeds, we'll talk. I know I am not even close to his contribution to the lives of others, but I would never insult the faith that drives his passion to help strangers.
Please list your lifetime of sacrifice for others, and if it is half of what he has done I will apologize.
Edit: He tells me his greatest need is socks for the homeless. The soup kitchen feeds dozens every day. He volunteers to teach homeless inner city kids. What do you need to help the homeless every day in your community?
Last edited by Divot; 09/03/11 05:06 PM.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
You must not know anyone with kids, because while people may not say exactly what you posed, some things people tell their kids is not far off that.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
So if some individual did all these things in the name of, and gave all glory to, the invisible butterfly, would that somehow make the invisible butterfly more respectable and believable in your opinion?
While this person's actions are commendable, your statement has absolutely nothing to add to the question. It is less offensive, than simply ridiculous.
Mussolini made the trains run on time, does that make him a good and effective leader?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
So if some individual did all these things in the name of, and gave all glory to, the invisible butterfly, would that somehow make the invisible butterfly more respectable and believable in your opinion?
While this person's actions are commendable, your statement has absolutely nothing to add to the question. It is less offensive, than simply ridiculous.
Mussolini made the trains run on time, does that make him a good and effective leader?
I will answer your questions, though I noticed you did not show the same courtesy when I asked you a question. Another score for the atheists!
No, the invisible butterfly probably would not be more believable. Yes, it would be more respectable. The point is that this person is more respectable than any atheist I've met. If he was running a soup kitchen, visiting strangers in the hospital to offer comfort, offering blankets, clothing and shoes to the homeless, teaching inner city kids, and adopting an impoverished town in WV that he visits once a month with a van or pick up truck filled with food, clothing, and blankets, then I would respect him, regardless of his beliefs.
Mussolini? Really? Again, I will give you an answer to your question. No, I don't believe that making the trains run on time make you a good and effective leader. Though I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation.
Again, my question to you is what are you doing, as an atheist, to make the world a better place? I'm sure that as a good representative of the clear-thinking atheist community you do far more than the poor deluded fool that I know. After-all, you have all that extra time you don't waste at church.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
What question did you ask me that I failed to answer?
How can you respect something you don't believe in?
The Mussolini story about the trains is a classic example of one action that has nothing whatsoever to do with a larger principle. It's kind of like having a running back who has a low avg and fumbles a lot, and somebody says "but he's a good blocker."
If a Cannibal did something good and wonderful, does that make cannabilism a good and wonderful thing? Or is it that there is no relationship whatsoever between the two?
Atheists, SFAIK, have never burned hundreds of people to death just for having a black cat, and they have not created a huge, powerful, monolithic organization which offers aid and comfort and all manner of support for vicious, evil child molesters. They have not started wars over differing interpretations of the same book. They have not participated in murdering millions of native peoples.
Or do you think that the missionaries who handed out blankets from people who died of smallpox to the Indians were also good and wonderful people, whose actions should exemplify ALL people of the same faith, and indeed stand for the greatness of that faith?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
The question is "what are you doing as an exemplar of the atheist community to make your corner of the world better?" You seem to be deliberately obtuse.
And I'm not talking about Hitler the atheist, Musollini the atheist, Chairman Mao the atheist, Stalin the atheist, Castro the atheist, or any other of the wonderful atheists throughout history, just you. We all know of their wonderful contributions. Another score for atheism! Everyone ridicule people of faith! Join our club of illustrious leaders!
As I said, I'm sure your contributions to society outweigh the devout Christian man that I know, with you not wasting all that time going to church and praying and such.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
What question did you ask me that I failed to answer?
How can you respect something you don't believe in?
The Mussolini story about the trains is a classic example of one action that has nothing whatsoever to do with a larger principle. It's kind of like having a running back who has a low avg and fumbles a lot, and somebody says "but he's a good blocker."
If a Cannibal did something good and wonderful, does that make cannabilism a good and wonderful thing? Or is it that there is no relationship whatsoever between the two?
Atheists, SFAIK, have never burned hundreds of people to death just for having a black cat, and they have not created a huge, powerful, monolithic organization which offers aid and comfort and all manner of support for vicious, evil child molesters. They have not started wars over differing interpretations of the same book. They have not participated in murdering millions of native peoples.
Or do you think that the missionaries who handed out blankets from people who died of smallpox to the Indians were also good and wonderful people, whose actions should exemplify ALL people of the same faith, and indeed stand for the greatness of that faith?
I want to answer your questions.
I don't believe in Buddhism, but I still respect a Buddhist's beliefs. I see no benefit in being disrespectful. I would never think of mocking them for following a dead fat Chinese guy. I'm sure your mileage may vary.
Why do you keep bringing up Mussolini the atheist to make your point? It seems to be self defeating.
I believe cannibalism is appropriate in certain extreme circumstances. I see no relationship between a person's life actions and a possibility of resorting to cannibalism. This would not make me be judgmental, or make me resort to ridicule.
I don't believe that missionaries intentionally infected Native Americans with small pox infected blankets. Did it happen? I'm sure it did, just not intentionally. The people that did it intentionally are what we call atheists.
Please see my earlier post of the recent atheist leaders if you want to discuss the murder of millions. I can add to the list.
As long as you insist on ridiculing people of faith, can't you at least bring up the Spanish Inquisition? You know, the atheist's ace in the hole.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
I see no benefit in being disrespectful. I would never think of mocking them for following a dead fat Chinese guy.
Yep, that post just oozes respect.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Quote:
I see no benefit in being disrespectful. I would never think of mocking them for following a dead fat Chinese guy.
Yep, that post just oozes respect.
Satire, for effect. I suggest you never read Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal." You won't believe what that man actually proposed.
The topic is about being disrespectful to people of faith. I thought my comment was blatantly disrespectful, and obvious, in an effort to show how wrong it is to seriously believe these types of statements are appropriate.
Last edited by Divot; 09/04/11 01:15 PM.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I am unaware that I have been elected as an exemplar of the atheist community.
I am not the one saying that a belief system is good, or bad, because of one or more good, or bad, people.
I see no relationship between a particular belief system and a particular individual's actions. Atheists who do bad things rarely do them specifically because their belief system instructs them to do so. They receive no messages from God to kill those who believe differently, at least not in large numbers, anyway.
I AM saying that many belief systems, through basically mob action coupled with usurped and fraudulent so-called "authority" based on a being of the highest order yet totally unavailable, run by men who very often are nowhere near the example you cited, are often guilty of great evils and I have no use whatsoever for these systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
I am unaware that I have been elected as an exemplar of the atheist community.
I am not the one saying that a belief system is good, or bad, because of one or more good, or bad, people.
I see no relationship between a particular belief system and a particular individual's actions. Atheists who do bad things rarely do them specifically because their belief system instructs them to do so. They receive no messages from God to kill those who believe differently, at least not in large numbers, anyway.
I AM saying that many belief systems, through basically mob action coupled with usurped and fraudulent so-called "authority" based on a being of the highest order yet totally unavailable, run by men who very often are nowhere near the example you cited, are often guilty of great evils and I have no use whatsoever for these systems.
Thank you for not answering the question, again.
Are you an atheist? If so, you are an exemplar of the atheist community. Much the same way you believe a priest that molests children is an exemplar of the Christian community.
You aren't saying one belief system is good or bad, you just ridicule people of faith. Good answer.
Believe me, I know that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and dozens of others did not receive a message from God to murder tens of millions. They were all firmly enshrined in atheism and through basically mob action with usurped and fraudulent "authority" were guilty of great evils. Yet you embrace this system, responsible for more evil in the last century than all religious people combined. You think it's fine to ridicule the religious, and not have any disdain for the belief system of these atheist despots. You embrace the atheist system, yet have no shame for the (non) belief system of their adherents, only blame and ridicule for so called people of faith and their misdeeds.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
First, you keep referring to a question that was directed at someone else.
Just as you got upset because you thought the invisible butterfly comment, from someone else, was somehow similar to the flying spaghetti monster comment, from yet someone else. Your suggesting that all atheists are evil just because one or a few are makes as much sense as your altruistic friend proving that all you god-fearing holy rollers are good people just because they got the right book.
Atheists may sometimes claim false authority but by definition they do not claim to speak for God. Claiming to speak for such absolute authority often corrupts, and just guess to what extent? You got it, absolutely. Religious leaders, also by definition, claim just that level of authority. Apparently you are unable to see a fundamental difference here. It is not possible that all of them actually speak for God, unless of course if God is a schizophrenic nutcase, but it is very possible that none of them do. If one atheist is correct, all of them are correct.
Fine, your tribe or clan contains a really nice person. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your collection of morality plays is better than anybody else's. In fact, the original reference was about them being not very understandable, inaccurate, and so unclear as to be capable of multiple and very different interpretations. In that sense, they are IMO inferior to Mother Goose fables.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
So if some individual did all these things in the name of, and gave all glory to, the invisible butterfly, would that somehow make the invisible butterfly more respectable and believable in your opinion?
While this person's actions are commendable, your statement has absolutely nothing to add to the question. It is less offensive, than simply ridiculous.
Mussolini made the trains run on time, does that make him a good and effective leader?
Here is your invisible butterfly comment, for the record.
And yet again, no answer to the straightforward question, "what is this atheist doing to help his community?" I'm sure the atheists are pillars of the community, and not self centered me, me, me types. Atheists wouldn't sit back and mock people of faith that actually make positive contributions to the needy while they sit back and do nothing of consequence, with the exception of ridiculing the difference makers for their religious beliefs.
"All these atheists worship Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, et.al. and have no regard for human rights and want to exterminate millions of non-conforming people. They all want to kill Jews, homosexuals and other oppressed minorities." This statement is about as respectful as claiming that Christian belief is the same as a belief in invisible butterflies.
I don't have a problem with atheists, and I'm not saying that there are not decent atheists. I have a problem with atheists that deride and mock people of faith for their beliefs, while ignoring the atrocities of their atheist brethren.
PS. I now realize that dna brought up the invisible butterflies comment first, but you sure jumped in with both feet.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Sorry, about the delay. I moved on thursday and comcast flubbed the install. I should be back with more frequency tomorrow. Quote:
Due to????? Thanks.
Natural phenomenon. Atmospheric change among them, but it's not limited to that.
Quote:
Problem is, science can't show anything other than the earth is currently warming. Just as it has how many hundreds of times in the past? Just as it has cooled how many times in the past? Thanks.
Sure it has. The science of global warming shows that Co2 is increasing, and the Co2 increase is because of our activity. It's known from previous research exactly how Co2 is a greenhouse gas. It shows that solar activity, as well as other cycles within the atmosphere as being relatively unaffected. The only thing left to blame is Co2.
Quote:
Alterations in the composition of the atmosphere? So, that's happened for thousands of years, huh? Overall presence of carbon that are heavily involved in the "OTHER CHEMICAL CYCLES OF THE ATMOSPHERE." Seriously? So, other things are involved?
Of course it's changed. Anyone who claims otherwise is 100% wrong. Those changes are what drives the climate. When you alter the atmosphere, you alter the climate. The carbon cycle is just one of the many roleplayers, others exist and have an impact. But, as I've said before, they've been looked at. The changes occurring dont correspond to any change in other cycles.
Quote:
Kinda what I've been saying, not? The earth changes. Always has, always will.
That doesn't mean that this time it can't be our fault. Remember my bacteria story? When life first began on the planet, Co2 dominated the atmosphere along with the bacterial lifeforms that existed at the time. At some point, a population of bacteria developed a way to use sunlight to make simple sugars, and pump out oxygen as a byproduct. Oxygen wreaks havoc with our DNA and proteins if left unchecked in the cell, so most other populations died out. Those that developed a way to live through the new oxygen atmosphere lived. The facts are two-fold. One, organisms, no matter their complexity or size, can alter the atmosphere. Two, those alterations more often than come with a price.
Quote:
And I'll bet they're foolproof, right? Like recording temperatures on the roof's of buildings, right beside air conditioners, right?
You realize that example no longer flies right? The people analyzing the data have taken out the majority of the bad data like the example you listed. Sites like these are gone and yet we still see warming occurring. Also, you can't say on one hand that the earth is warming, then put this old canard out there like it actually applies to your argument. It doesn't.
Scientists get bad data. Many don't hide it like you keep assuming they do. They will fix it, admit they were wrong, and see what comes of it. These are people ABD, not machines. It's not always perfect the first time around.
I'll say it again, if this were the only source of evidence we had, you would have a point. The fact is, it isn't.
Quote:
So, in the past, say 1000 years ago, why did the earth warm and cool?
Look, the only thing that has changed is we are now better able to detect the smallest of changes in any thing. It proves nothing. If man made global warming were provable - we'd hear about it. As it is, all we have is theories - and really not even theories, we have guesses, based on what people put into their computers.
The earth warms and cools how I've outlined in this post and the previous few before. It's primarily changes in the atmosphere, but changes in other roleplayers can make a difference too. Again, think of the climate as a bunch of parts in a machine, if you change the parts of the machine, you change the outcome of the machine. Some parts are bound to have greater or lesser affects on certain outcomes.
My god my irony meter just exploded; you owe me a new one. If man-made global warming were provable we'd hear about? What the heck do you think is going on? Remember, saying it's "only a theory" doesn't fly here. It's a scientific theory meaning it has fact and observation backing it up. I've corrected this before, why are you still making this mistake? And it's not just computer models, that's icing on the cake. We have many avenues of observation backing this up. Satellite data, sea levels, glacier size, temperature readings ... all of it points to a warming earth.
Quote:
Yet the "man made global warming" theory is MORE than dubious?????? Come on - you're better than that, aren't you?
I really don't know what you mean. The majority of the work being done is good, well within the current stringent standards of scientific methodology. There is some that is probably pretty bad though. Just like any other field of occupation there are those that are good and bad at their job. However, the science will sort itself out because of the peer-review process. In time, bad or wrong hypotheses are weeded out and thrown away. Good ones survive.
Quote:
I see. So really, the 70's were the start of all this. Got it. So, since the 70's, we've gone from imminent ice age, to global warming, and we're headed back to ice age. Those damn computers....
What? Who said anything about heading back to an ice age? Again, a few computer models that were lacking the currently used climate data standards showed that we're headed towards an ice age means nothing. A legitimacy of computer modelling lies in their adherence to the most current sets of data that are out for publication. I'm not saying that computers can't be made to say anything, they can. It all depends on the weights of the algorithms used. If it were only computers, you'd have an argument. But that's not the only source of data. There are tons of observational data out there corroborating the computer models.
Quote:
So far, you've done nothing but make excuses for the science that was taken as fact, but now you say is wrong because of some other factors - computers amongst them. Tell me again why what YOU know to be true is true? Because science says so? As you have said many times - science is the art of guessing, then trying to prove it with tests, then guessing again, on and on. (and I don't mean guessing in a negative way - just the first word that came to me.......here's a hypothesis, we'll run with that till we prove it wrong)
It's a valid excuse though. People do this all the time in real life, they're wrong, but it's because they didn't have all the information. It's not because they're dumb, or have an agenda, they just didn't have access to the means by which to gather the best data to solve their problem. The data, the science, wasn't wrong, the final thoughts gleaned from it by the scientists was.
Saying "The science says so" is an easy way to put "because the data points in the that direction." Have I read all of the climate data? No. Do I understand it all? Not even close. But the basics of the data are easy to understand. And what the basics say is that the earth is getting warm. That's the observation. So we make a hypothesis (guess) as to why. Generally speaking, we've gone through each type of chemical in the atmosphere or volcanic activity, even solar activity, and haven't found anything that correlates to our observations ... except the increased Co2.
Quote:
But, with these new computers we're so much better - but we still input old data. Hmmmm - doesn't seem scientific to me. But, I know - we can go get an ice core from 5000 years ago and tell exactly what the weather was back then, right?
Not all of the old data, as i said above. Only the good sites. Again, the "ice age data" that you keep harping on wasn't wrong, there was actually a decline in temperature those years. And it's not just the computers we're using, it's also the techniques they allow us to use. And yes, we can sample the atmosphere of the past by analyzing the gasses in an air bubble, welcome to the 21st century ABD, your rocket pack is in the mail.
Quote:
And I'll bet that in 30 years, all this "man made global warming" crap will be laughed at. But not until some people get very rich off it.
So your proof is that people will get rich off of stemming our Co2 output? Firstly, that's not a valid reason to doubt global warming. Unless you have real proof, this is just a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence. Secondly, since when is that wrong? If this is the next gold rush, why aren't you participating?
Quote:
So, the only thing that has changed over the last 100 years is man made pollution. Got it.
Why were there ice ages, and warming, and ice ages, and warming, over the last 10,000 years or so?
You still can't make the connection can you? I'll try, one more time. The earth's climate, in the past, has changed due to alterations in it's chemical make-up. We know it was different in the past, just as we know the climate was different. Human activities are changing the chemical make-up of the atmosphere, and we're seeing changes in temperature, sea-level, etc. (Basically the climate) Even though the climate changed in the past without our input, doesn't mean that it cannot be primarily our fault this time around.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Just recently there was a post about hard data showing that the earth is radiating away, or losing, far more heat than any of the models had used as their input data. Meaning virtually all of the warming models are incorrect. Now SFAIK these were simple energy readings that are nearly impossible to interpret any other way, but because they contradict the current fashionable thought they are not getting much attention.
Yes. The main beef with the article though was that it used shoddy statistical methods as well as questionable computer modeling.
Quote:
Just as what Perry said is accurate, Evolution IS a theory, and there ARE gaps in it.
Really? Where? You should read why just being a theory isn't a valid excuse for not believing in evolution. The overwhelming evidence shows that evolution, or the transition of one species to another species, occurs, and is still occurring in the natural world. Natural selection is one way, sexual selection is another, and founder effect is yet another. Just because they may not explain all instances of speciation doesn't make the theory, or that there are gaps. This is just an excuse to peddle creationism more often than not.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Let's not pretend that science was so backward then that we were still bleeding patients to cure diseases.
Really? How's that adding machine working for you? Or maybe you'd like a heart transplant where you'd have an almost 100% survival rate and a post-op lifetime of around 15 years? Could you see your house from 200 kilometers in orbit? While we weren't backward, we weren't anywhere near the level of technology that we have today.
Quote:
Niles Eldredge, Stephen J. Gould, Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and Steven Rose argue that we are still missing something big, and that natural selection does not explain the full complexity of evolution. This is not all "settled" science.
No one says that natural selection is the be-all-end-all. That comment is a mischaracterization of what, at least, Gould said. In the theory of evolution, natural selection is but one way in which a species can delineate from it's parent species. Other's I've listed in my previous post to Nelson. We have so much biological, ecological and archaeological evidence that to say evolution (just that fact that it occurs) isn't the means by which every species has come to exist in the past and into the present is completely and utterly wrong. So yes, the fact that evolution can occur through natural selection, or mate selection or geographic isolation is reason enough to call it "settled."
Also, I'm pretty sure Feynman tosses around in his grave when people misuse that quote. In science you are encouraged to question things. But, for everything, biggest theory to smallest fact, there gets to be a tipping point for the amount of data needed to steer you in the right direction for the correct answer. Sometimes it takes years because there's never one piece of evidence that shows the correct answer. But over time, the path straightens out and becomes clear. For evolution, that's the case. There's 150 years of data showing that it happened and is still happening. In all that time no other natural, observable, means has presented itself as a viable candidate to ever switch or alter our present course. At some point you have to give into the idea that you might be wrong, and whoever told it to you was wrong. For global warming there's 20 - 25, so I can see that some will be less than willing to believe. But, there's quite a bit of evidence for it to be occurring and that we are more than likely behind it. Are the smallest details sorted out? I don't think so. That doesn't mean the overall theory is invalid though.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans against science
|
|
