Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13709)	2/16/2011 3:29:03 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Discrimination based solely on ones religious beliefs is something atheists have complained about long and loud. It's telling that as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, all of a sudden it's something that is (in their narrow, bigoted, thinking) is completely justified. Can the re-education camps and the Killing Fields, be far behind? There is nothing irrational per se about the concept of inerrancy, just as their is nothing at all irrational about the idea of revelation. Rejecting it out of hand, simply exposes ones own a priori presuppositions. In your case, the idea that one must be able to enjoy the "privilege of evolving beyond a dusty and troubled book." is in itself an unsubstantiated dogma. I have more to say, but I must be up early and the wife just reminded me of that, so I'll leave it there for now. Good evening. Greg

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13709)	2/16/2011 8:28:19 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

“I agree that reason allows one to put paid to inerrancy. As for infallibility, it becomes a matter of degree, and what we'll call being a Christian“ I think you might underestimate the disconnect between “believers” and any scientific or rational impediments to their belief and practice of ANYTHING which permits them to rationalize their terror of death away. And that is their prime motivation. Let me digress for a second. I actually had someone in real life accuse me of having no basis for morality, if there was no God. And I thought--what a loser. He basically is saying that if science was able to prove that his imaginary friend definitely WAS imaginary (perhaps we find an alien named Jehovah and all the records are there, but he is really only a unicorn with no exceptional powers), then HE would have no reason to be loyal and kind to his wife, to love his children, to respect my property--etc. etc. etc. Because (absent the fear of death and punishment) he knows he is contemptible and he believes (unbeknown to himself) that ALL of humanity is contemptible! Oh, and he is right. Because of Original Sin we ARE all contemptible. Sorry, I forgot the facts for a moment, there! ;-) But that was a digression, wasn’t it? OK, I’ve read through several of these papers by scientists trying to contort their bodies and minds into the most grotesque shapes in order to sanitize and vouchsafe a dusty old book of tribal mythology, history, and warfare. I find they are more dangerous and more unteachable than uneducated Fundamentalists because they are intelligent…and there are few (if any) limits to where they will allow their irrationality to meander in order to find an island of perceived biblical safety. One fellow decides that the Psalm mentioning that a day feels like a long watch is not sufficient to re-interpret the multiple and contradictory accounts in Genesis (his intelligence won't let him go there). So instead he uses his scientific acumen to “prove” that the flood could have been local (which is what the bible really meant). The fact that he is arguing whether one should break the small end of the egg or the large is irrelevant to him. It is truly frightening to watch how glibly and how insanely they “justify” absurdities. Do I want to take a hard line against them teaching my grandkids? YES! asa3.org A LOT of reading in here! I’m trying to look at one or two of them every day. This one estimates the weight of the loaded ark to be ten million pounds! Who would have thought! Mostly, they “prove” whatever they can (even if it is not in the bible) and then they fall back on the hypothesis that no proof is needed because God is not constrained by natural laws (or our understanding, either). So how can such people be impartially qualified to teach innocent young minds objective facts about what we know about reality--things like, God won’t help you unless you wear your parachute? asa3.org “Christians liberal enough to have a place in their minds for science and or logic are automatically disqualified in your analysis“ I am used to being misunderstood. They are disqualified (IMO) through what they say and what they write that repudiates science and logic. If they only had a place for a humble awe and wonder at the Universe (such as Einstein had) but also showed a rational face at obvious mythic material when it is absurd, contradictory,, and barbarian through and through--then you would find no opposition from me. But there is a difference between tolerance and sufferance. I practice tolerance to the point where sufferance is demanded of me--and then I take back my life and my reason. “I see that attitude as fatal to religion. It denies it the privilege of evolving beyond a dusty and troubled book“ It denies nothing to “religion”. There were myriad religions that Christianity outlasted and out-killed. Many of them still survive as shadows of their former glories. The Christians themselves are forming offshoots on a daily basis. Fine and good. But eventually, the book will need to go, won’t it? Because it just gets older and never any wiser. And humanity gets older and (hopefully) wiser. Science has destroyed much of the dusty old book. Civilized sensibilities have destroyed much more of it. Education supplanting superstition continues to make it irrelevant at best and dangerous at worse. Have you read it lately?? There are religions that do not practice exclusivity, superiority, and separation of humanity into several polar opposites of favored/good and evil/contemptible. You may feel that the choice is irrelevant. Indeed, somebody reminded me that towers can always be rebuilt. But I believe that religions always were a tool of politics and social power and control --and while I know the future of our planet and the likelihood of horrendous religious wars may or may not be of deep concern to you--I, nevertheless can only hope you will forgive me for understanding the concern it will be for those I love and who must face this world when I am resting peacefully in some quiet glade and unable to assist in any way...