This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Xipe Totec]

1. My first love's kiss did that to me. nt

[Xipe Totec]

3. In a manner of speaking, yes.

No, not a place, I miss a moment in time

January 6, 1973, 10:00AM. A cafe, somewhere in northern Mexico.

Do you love me? - I asked.

Yes. - She said.

And for a moment, I was held in the gaze of an angel.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5804352

[FigTree]

32. Same here.

Under a large tree during a September storm in Paris.
As for the rest, if one's need for belief is so intense that it is able to break from reality (e.g. "life after death&quot , there's nothing anyone, or anything, can do about it.

[Jim__]

4. Are the Tyson videos available online?

It would be easier to discuss your post after watching the videos.

[Jim__]

8. Searched "youtube neil degrasse tyson".

This is the first video that comes up (about 9 mins long):

[center]

[/center]

His arguments are mostly about the Christian God of the bible, but not in the way you said. Three of the arguments he makes:

1. He doesn't see God's goodness in the world;
   
2. Scientists who believe do not use their biblical beliefs as a basis for their scientific beliefs;
   
3. Government should not be based on religious beliefs.

It's probably not one of the videos you watched.

[rug]

6. He's usually better than that.

Antitheist arguments against literalists are as pointless as they are predictable.

[AlbertCat]

26. Antitheist arguments against literalists are as pointless as they are predictable.

Nonsense.

They are the basic "problem" with believing ancient superstitions, and all the theological bologna of centuries will still not make this literalist problem irrelevant. Otherwise the Bible would be as relevant as the Illiad or Gilgamesh (which it actually is).

[rug]

61. QED.

[AlbertCat]

62. Oh god!

Rug's QED thang!




Thank you Dr Pangloss.

[rug]

63. I rest my case.

[AlbertCat]

64. I rest my case.

That'll be the day....

[Warpy]

9. First, he's talking about the "bible as literal truth" people who do think it's a science text

which is why they have such silly ideas about how the earth is only 6000 years old and the sun travels around it and the moon generates its own light.

Second, he must have struck a nerve somewhere. I suggest you reflect on exactly what that nerve is.

He's a scientist first, and while god-of-the-gaps annoys him, he does understand the impulse. He just thinks all those gaps will eventually be filled in by science, while the gaps people think there will always be more questions than answers. I think they're both correct.

I would vastly prefer to watch his videos wherein he talks about his field. Religious and anti religious videos both tend to bore me.

[trotsky]

15. Do you believe Jesus existed?

Do you believe he was crucified?

Surely you take at least some parts of your holy book literally.

[trotsky]

28. So every believer is a literalist.

No one can take the entire Christian bible literally, everyone picks and chooses, so on the parts you want to be true, you are a literalist. Just like Franklin Graham and Ken Ham are literalists on the parts they want to be true. And they also believe their faith resolves the paradox between science and creation. Thanks for clearing that up.

[trotsky]

41. Nope, I understood perfectly.

You just don't like the conclusions of your own logic.

You throw around the term "literalist" without clarifying what it means. Other than someone who believes that there are parts of the bible that should be taken literally that you don't believe should be, of course. Because you are the sole authority on what religion really is. Everyone's religion.

I'm just pointing out that since no one believes the entire book literally, the term is either describes no believers, or describes them all.

[trotsky]

52. "channel your inner William Clinton" - What the hell does that mean?

And you are indeed not just setting yourself up, but declaring yourself as the authority on what religion - yours or anyone else's - is. You have declared that despite centuries of Muslims defending violence against non-believers, that they aren't Muslims - that only peaceful Muslims are following the religion.

You are wrong. All of them are Muslims. You don't get to define someone else's religion. That's exactly what the extremists do when they declare moderate and liberal believers aren't following the religion either. How can you not see that?

[Brettongarcia]

83. But you said Jesus literally existed?

[trotsky]

85. I'll continue to point out exactly what it is you're saying for as long as you say it.

Go back and read ANY of these threads. You constantly declare that those who commit violence in the name of a religion are wrong. You and you alone therefore declare what a religion is or isn't, and when someone doesn't fit in the boxes you've made, you say they are lying when they give a religious motivation for their actions. You've never been able to prove it, you just keep declaring it.

Your position is obvious for everyone to see.

[cleanhippie]

16. Do you believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected?

Do you believe Jesus literally performed the miracles described in the bible?

[trotsky]

31. Answer the question.

You were specifically asked if Jesus performed the miracles in your bible. Don't sidetrack this into a discussion on what is a miracle. Do you believe all the events in the story of Jesus' life are literally true? Did he actually feed a huge crowd with just a couple of fish and loaves of bread? Did he actually turn water into wine?

Very simple questions, yet you won't answer them. That says a lot.

[trotsky]

49. Where is your answer?

Please link to it.

[Brettongarcia]

84. So Jesus, resurrecting, was really reborn?

[Brettongarcia]

185. So the proffered reading of resurrection was not yours?

[Brettongarcia]

194. So there's no stable, fixed, reliable meaning...

[Brettongarcia]

198. Can we live our lives according to poetry, religion?

It's too evasive and unclear.

If it's like a Rorschach blot, then it's not truth. It's just a projection of personal psychopathology.

[Brettongarcia]

204. How about living more by physical facts and science

Few people really live by politics or Phil.

Lots try to do that religion though.

[Brettongarcia]

206. I use some philosophy. But priests and ministers....

...stress speculative spirits rather too much. Even as they reify/dogmatize their speculations far too much.

Extrapolating somewhat speculatively from science, seems better.

Science isn't just about matter, too. It's also about invisible energies and other things too.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. There was no "matter that exploded" in "the Big Bang"

so there is precisely nothing to explain about your particular pocket of ignorance.

You are correct however that we do not yet have a theoretical understanding of the moment in time referred to as the Big Bang.

It would be more accurate to describe it as the first moment of time itself, the beginning of the universe, there is no before, not an explosion of matter into some pre-existing void. Instead it is quite important to understand that matter was at its most uniform state at that moment and has ever since been becoming less uniform, more disorganized.

If you took the time, pun intended, to understand the role that entropy plays in the unfolding of, as a rather bright fellow put it, the history of time, you might understand just how massively ignorant theistic teleological explanations are.

Or not. Better to get all in a huff because ndt hurt your fee-fees.

[trotsky]

88. Funny how the same people who indignantly state that theology should be left to the theologians...

are the same ones who feel perfectly justified in criticizing scientific theories about the origin of the universe and life on earth.

[Worktodo]

12. What it's all about

On a higher level, what you're calling Religion is about our relationship to the eternal and reconciling the higher and lower nature of human existence. Different faiths, beliefs, and rituals are like highways on a map-- there are many routes to the transcendent. Faith and belief might be part of the journey but they aren't the destination.

That map of ritual, faith, and belief is kind of like an operating system. Some people should not attempt an upgrade. But if you want to understand the software-- go learn more about it. Study other religions, history, etc.

I think, most of all, have an open mind. There is validity to Tyson's viewpoint. Also that percentage of literalists is much higher than you'd like to admit.

[Worktodo]

82. Thanks and it's nice to be here

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. "The doctrine of the Trinity ... is stated in the Bible". No, it's not.

Sorry to get all literalist on you, but there's no mention of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. There's no mention of "the Trinity" at all. The final sentence of Matthew's gospel says to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", and that's as close as you'll get. Hardly a 'doctrine', and many scholars think its position at the end may show it was tacked on to the book after its first version (since talk of the Trinity in Christian writing took about a century to appear after the gospels are generally dated to).

Why LeMaitre claimed the doctrine is in the Bible, I don't know. He wanted to give it a bit of spurious authority, I suppose. If he thinks it's "necessary for salvation", that's a problem for the first couple of hundred years of Christians.

[trotsky]

20. Sure it is.

Because that priest said so.

End of discussion.

[trotsky]

14. Hate to rain on your parade with pesky facts again, but...

a majority of Christians don't accept evolution in one form or another.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

"Guided" evolution is not evolution. Evolution is a purely naturalistic process - there is no god required to explain the diversity of life we see.

Carry on.

[trotsky]

36. Read my post again.

Evolution is a purely naturalistic process. It does not require a god at any step.

Of those Christians who "believe in evolution," take a close look at how many of them believe that evolution was divinely guided. Those people don't accept the theory of evolution, as you claimed.

Add those to the literal creationists, and you've got a majority. I am correct, and you are not.

[AlbertCat]

44. That is your opinion.

No.

The theory of evolution does not require anything supernatural. It merely states that speciation is achieved thru natural selection.


Your opinion of what you think the theory of evolution is is just an opinion.

[AlbertCat]

51. mutations are caused by radiation?

But such mutations do not effect evolution unless they remain and influence the gene pool.

Mutations in and of themselves are not evolution.

And radiation is another natural phenomenon that does not require a god or creator.


Gods are simply superfluous.... tho' they're great for action fantasy films!

[trotsky]

54. We have evidence that radiation can cause mutations.

Hell, we've used it to do so ourselves. Before gene splicing, we'd try to flip genes using radiation. Sometimes it worked.

Where is your evidence that your "outside force" (i.e., god) has caused a mutation? Even one?

Do you believe your god melts glaciers or causes radioactive atoms to decay? Why or why not?

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Ok how does this god force work?

How exactly does it push particles around?

We've found all of the particles that have significant ability to interact with matter. Your God particle isn't in the list. We know what the associated forces of those interactions are. There is no room in physics for even a spoon bender, let alone a force guiding evolution.

[trotsky]

86. Yes, that's exactly what you are doing.

Don't mince words. Prove your god is an outside force that can manipulate genes. Go ahead.

[trotsky]

47. No, that's not my opinion. It's the definition of evolution.

Sorry that you lose again.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. This whole thread fork is depressing because of how little you know.

The Catholic Church calls its interpretation of evolution "Theistic Evolution".

Essentially, as you were just told, evolution guided by a designer. Not so much as a designer actively pulling levers along the way, but in the sense of having arranged laws and put everything on rails so the plan would proceed as intended.

There are other Christian groups in the us that arrive at the same conclusion by different means.

The Episcopalians officially affirmed in 2006, the endorsement of Evolution, as an evidenced belief in "the glorious ability of God to create in any manner", adopting the theistic evolution model of a designer that is actively pulling levers along the way.

How is it possible you don't know that? And yet here you are, rudely dismissing people as if you know better, when you clearly know nothing about this topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. You still don't get it.

It's not a minority at all.

"As to what I know, some at DU obviously feel that any view that differs from their own is the result of ignorance. A trait shared by Donald Trump."

I thought you might say something like that. That's why I specified precisely what you were ignorant of. I see that didn't stop you from attempting this feint.

What is depressing to me is the demonstrated inability of some to recognize that there are differences of opinion, and unless you claim to be omniscient, your opinions are no more or less valid than another's.

Doubling down after I demonstrated various (majority) religious groups have differences of opinion on the specifications of theistic evolution. An interesting tactic. Tell me more.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. No, words like 'minority' and 'majority' have meaning.

And you don't get to pretend it's just a difference of opinion when you use one incorrectly, and someone points it out.

You are spinning and deflecting, attempting to minimize and thus make NDGT's point invalid. It's not. Yes, people believe in varying degrees of biblical literalism from pure allegory, to word for word exact, but that's not germane to his point. The MAJORITY of all Christian sects in the US actually believe in some variance of theistic evolution. (a spectrum of methods and involvement) So that means NGDT is in fact speaking to the majority of US Christians. And you don't get to pretend he's misidentified the minority as the majority.

You gave no indication that you understood that. Now it's starting to look like you understood it, but undertook to be deceptive about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. I didn't change the conversation. You did in 33 and 42 when you tried to pretend that

The Theory of Evolution allows for a external designer and still remains ToE, and not creationism.

Because that's what you tried to do inbetwixt all the navel-gazing.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. "natural selection"

Nice try though.

[trotsky]

171. You're engaging in some significant intellectual dishonesty here.

You're arguing that evolution allows for "outside influences," giving examples like mutations and asteroid strikes, but then trying to sneak your creator in as a mere "outside influence."

"Natural selection" doesn't mean "natural events caused by a god" as you are now using to try and sneak in your specific creator. I asked a question elsewhere in this thread that you (naturally) declined to answer: do you believe your god causes radioactive atoms to decay?

[AtheistCrusader]

176. That is not the majority christian view in the united states.

Those that think god plays an active hand are not some tiny insignificant minority.

You are being deceptive.

[AtheistCrusader]

178. Ok, where'd you pull that number from?

I specified Episcopalians as an example, not an entirety.

[AtheistCrusader]

180. I didn't base 'majority' or 'minority' on poll results.

I based it on official entity positions. Dogma, etc. The Catholic Church has an official position on this. So too for most but not all Christian denominations.

If the Episcopal church has an official position on the subject, and people elect to be members of the church, then NDGT's message is for them. Even if they personally don't share that one specific aspect of one specific piece of church dogma.

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. Yet again, you're falsely claiming the "28% say every single word of the bible is true" number

applies to a belief about something else.

Here are the Gallup numbers (same polling org you use) for evolution:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

42% think God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so
31% think human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guide this process
19% think human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process

I think the problem is that you've seen one poll number, and are determined to misrepresent it because you think it means more American Christians think like you do. So you ignore the words next to the number, and cling to it despite the evidence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. Yes, Biblical literalists - the people who believe every letter is true

I gave the link to the Gallup poll, not you, in #120, and it clearly says it's the people who say "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word".

You are repeatedly getting it wrong. You are the one who reads what you want to see.

You said "the Creator created matter and existence. End of the Creator's part. The rest, meaning the last however many million years, followed with no input from the Creator" in #173, and then claimed in #177 that's a majority view in the USA, with only 28% disagreeing with it. But that's not true. We find that 42% think God created humans in the last 10,000 years, and another 31% think God guided the evolution of humans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. No, you did say that.

AC, #176: "That is not the majority christian view in the united states. Those that think god plays an active hand are not some tiny insignificant minority."
You, #177: "if 28% constitutes a majority in your universe you are correct."

You explicitly tried to apply the 28% figure as "those that think god plays an active hand".

Just read what you wrote. And read what the polls say. And then don't forget it before you write your next post. And if you've forgotten by the post after that, then go back and read it all again. Do this until it's stuck in your head what the 28% number refers to - those who believe every word of the Bible is from God, and literally true.

[trotsky]

187. Then you're not a theist, you're a deist.

Any evidence for those claims, by the way?

[AtheistCrusader]

172. That is the catholic view, that the creation and rules are fixed by a creator and the results must

then follow. That no other outcome could happen. That's the official take by the RCC. That's not The Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection at all. That's actually a subset of creationism. A 'light touch' version of it, whereupon creation and design continue, even if the supernatural force that started it commits suicide on day 2.

That's not the official view of the Episcopalians. To them, levers continue to be pulled by a designer.

If you knew that, getting back to the origins of this thread fork, you would know better than to pretend NDGT was talking only about a literal minority of Christians.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. You'd like to pretend that.

[edhopper]

17. um, no

So his arguments in these three videos should be framed as an attack on the literal provability of the Bible. And if he simply said that the Bible cannot be proven to be true by science I would have no argument. It cannot. But the vast majority of Christians do not believe that it can. The vast majority of Christians believe that much of what is called the Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament as well, are highly symbolic. And if it is taken as symbolic, much apparent contradiction is eliminated.

This is simply not true, as any discussion of the Exodus confirms.

Not to mention the Nativity.

[Iggo]

23. The vast majority of people who use "the vast majority" as a statistical percentage...

...to support an argument are making it up.

Myself included.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. We've had people seriously assert here that

the alleged parting of the Red Sea is credible.

These same people insist that the lack of any historical record or archeological evidence of an actual enslavement of the Jews in Egypt is no reason to discount the biblical fairy tail.

But they aren't literalists. Or something.

Actually they aren't "literalists" in the context of the theological debate over inerrancy, over the claim that all the text in the bible is emitted from the big guy itself. Those people would be better referred to as inerrantists, only that isn't a word. Somewhere around 1/3 of US Christians are in that category.

Instead the vast majority of abrahamic believers accept some subset of the steaming pile of goofy shit in their foolish books as "real" and then attempt various intellectual deceits to explain the rest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

184. No, you're OK with 'inerrantist' as a word

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inerrantist

[cleanhippie]

18. It's always funny to watch a believer say their holy texts don't mean what they say....

But instead, try and tell others that their holy texts mean what they believe it means.



Especially when they tout their "University level" training on what they believe their holy texts actually mean.

[trotsky]

19. One of PZ Myers' greatest observations - the "Courtier's Reply."

Once you're aware of it you see it all the time.

[trotsky]

53. You mean like believing that Jesus literally died and was literally resurrected?

That literal?

[cleanhippie]

58. Do you believe Jesus existed, was killed and resurrected?

Never mind. I see you already deflected from answering this and the other questions. As expected.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. 56% of Americans think Adam and Eve were real, historical people

Let’s start with the number at the top. When Americans are asked whether “God (or some other intelligent force) was involved in any way with the origin of humans,” two-thirds say yes. But when they’re asked to choose among three versions of this divine role—“direct involvement by miraculously creating humans,” “direct involvement but through the ordinary laws of nature,” or “indirect involvement by creating the laws of nature which led to the emergence of humans”—only half choose the “direct involvement” version. And when these people are asked about their level of certainty, the percentage who say they’re “absolutely” or “very” certain about a direct role drops to 30. (The next option below “very certain” was “somewhat certain.” Saying you’re only somewhat certain is basically a way of saying you’re not certain.)

The next most popular statement was that “Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.” Fifty-six percent of respondents affirmed this statement. But when they were pressed, only 44 percent said they were absolutely or very certain about it. A majority became a minority.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It proves that only a minority of Americans don't think Adam and Eve were real

so that "the vast majority of Christians believe that much of what is called the Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament as well, are highly symbolic" is not true in the USA, because Adam and Eve are one of the most unbelievable parts of the Old Testament (and deGrasse Tyson would have been aiming his remarks at Americans). You don't really understand what American Christians believe.

So I don't think your ideas about the deGrasse Tyson clips are very useful. If you could point us to them, it would help give some meaning to this thread.

In the mean time, here's deGrasse Tyson saying that educated people know not to use the bible as a science textbook, but that it's the religious fundamentalists who are the problem - which seems to be what you wanted him to say:

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. The Gallup figure is for people who believe every word of the bible to be literal truth

if you're taking it from here (it would always help if you gave a link to what you're talking about - it looks like you still haven't bothered finding the videos you're talking about, so we're all having to work through your individual interpretation and memory of what you saw): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/americans-bible-word-of-god_n_5446979.html

They were asked if they agreed with "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word". But that doesn't mean that none of the rest don't take significant parts of the Bible as real events, even when they are incompatible with our knowledge of science and history. As I showed, twice that amount think Adam and Eve (the example you introduced) were real historical people.

No, my argument is with your interpretation of the Gallup result. It was about every single word being true (and from God), but you claimed that "the vast majority of Christians believe that much of what is called the Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament as well, are highly symbolic." No; what the Gallup poll told us was a large majority of American Christians accept there could be something that is symbolic, or mistaken, in the Bible (and it contradicts itself at times, so that doesn't tell us much; it might also apply to, say, the stories of Jonah or Job being symbolic). It doesn't tell us how much, or which parts.

If you want to know how many people have beliefs specifically at odds with science, then you have to ask them about the belief - and we find that a majority think Adam and Eve were a historical couple; 41% think humans did not evolve from non-human life; and 37% that God created the Earth in 6 24 hour days. I don't think 63% would be a 'vast majority', and so you cannot say a vast majority even accept basic astronomy, physics, chemistry or biology, but rather take the Bible as the true guide to those areas.

Yes, you did quote Lemaitre; I don't know why you think that's useful. Lemaitre may have recognised a separation, but those 56% of American believers in Adam and Eve don't, and that's who deGrasse Tyson was talking about, not a Belgian priest and scientist (I presume; again, you need to tell us what the YouTube videos were).

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. If you look at the transcript I've given you in #127, you find he was addressing the literalists

and I told you that already in #45 (a slightly shorter YouTube video of the same interview), but you ignored that, and didn't bother to rewatch the video you posted.

28% of the people believe every single word of the Bible is true; that is not the same as "all the rest will take science over what the bible says for the formation of the earth, or the biological history of humanity". And this is about those things, because that's what the Cosmos program covered. You yourself gave the example of Adam and Eve; I showed you over half of Americans think they were real people.

[Brettongarcia]

90. But part of your religion isn't faith

You claimed Jesus literally existed, and resurrected. As facts. Not relating to faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. There is in fact approximately zero direct evidence.

The one nearly contemporary independent document, Josephus, is dubious at best and is clearly doctored in part.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. Hmmm. No actually it is a fact, accepted even by

most biblical scholars, that Josephus is the only extant contemporary independent document, that it contains exactly two references to a Jesus, and that one of those references was added to the text long after it was authored. That, in any other circumstance, would be an inadequate data set on which to make a claim of historicity.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Again, the only independent contemporary

Documentation is from Josephus. You might do a bit of the Google yourself to find out what's wrong with the rest of your list and why there are problems with Josephus.

[Brettongarcia]

186. Most of these date from c. 115 AD ff.

Not really contemporaries, and not eyewitnesses.

So? No sufficient historical evidence.

[Brettongarcia]

195. Or they all heard the same unreliable rumor

Which 80 years after the reputed events, and 40 years after the destruction of Jerusalem itself in 70AD, was impossible to confirm or deny.

Hence the need for faith. Or credulity.

[Brettongarcia]

199. The tendency to believe anything

The suspension or simple lack of intelligence and reason.

In its origins in philosophy by the way, one merely temporarily "suspends belief" in something... in order to fairly try it out and examine it more carefully. Then if it fails? Then it has failed

From the Greek skeptics, Descartes, Kant, Husseralian phenomenology.

It was really the suspension of belief, not disbelief.

[Iggo]

22. My answer to the tone argument is, as always: Fuck tone.

[Iggo]

50. People respond better to bluntness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. It turns out that deGrasse Tyson's tone was quite measured

and the descriptions in the OP of him as "consistently dismissive in tone and language, consistently rude with all who cannot or will not appreciate the sheer brilliance of his attempts at logic, and consistently intellectually dishonest and simplistic" are complete bullshit. They've finally put up a link to one video, and the OP's description is utterly useless.

[AlbertCat]

24. why I say intellectually dishonest and simplistic.

Because he disagrees with you?

[AlbertCat]

43. a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Like when it says that a god exists?

[MFM008]

55. Why are atheists so

Absolutely sure they know the unknowable .
I used to be an athiest.
There was no future in it.
Some of us have supernatural religious experiences that cannot be neatly shoved into the "science" drawer.
When I was an atheist I was right and everyone else was stupid. It was sooooo obvious.
Not everyone is a snake waving, gibbering parishioner.
Perhaps your moment comes to you when it is time.
All I realized was I didn't know everything in heaven and earth Horatio.

[trotsky]

56. ...

[jonno99]

59. Well said. nt

[trotsky]

89. The "snake waving Biblical literalist" is a great example of what is wrong with religion.

So is the Islamic suicide bomber.

So is the abortion doctor killer.

So is the Religious Right.

So are honor killings and genital mutilation.

So is the subjugation of women and reproductive rights.

There are some who simply declare that none of those people are actually acting because of their religion. That they must have other reasons they are doing what they do. It is a pity those people don't see how they are the mirror image of the insane fundies, setting themselves up as the arbiters of what a religion is or isn't.

No wonder both groups hate atheists so much.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Gazing in the mirror isn't terribly productive.

[rug]

98. Speak for yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. ok.

[MFM008]

79. still didnt answer the question

of knowing what is not knowable.
You dont have an answer for sure yes or for sure no.
you just dont know.
Neither do I.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist. Because I know what words mean.

Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

I don't KNOW there is no god. So I am an agnostic. A- prefix meaning 'without knowledge'.

I don't BELIEVE there is a god. So I am an atheist. A- prefix meaning 'without belief'.


I don't need to KNOW for certain that there is no God to have a complete and utter lack of belief that there IS a god.

A theist is making a positive claim about belief.
A gnostic is making a positive claim about knowledge.

I lack either in this space and that makes me an agnostic atheist and until the gnostic theists can fucking prove their claims, I will continue to be the cantankerous atheist that works to keep their bullshit out of our laws and politics.

[trotsky]

96. Such nuance is wasted on some.

Atheists are arrogant because they claim to know everything about the universe! Done and done!

[AlbertCat]

95. Absolutely sure they know the unknowable .

This is nonsense.

It is impossible to know the unknowable..... by "unknowable's" very definition.

And I don't think there is a single atheist who thinks they know what religionists prattle on about with absolute certainty.... like some kind of god exists.

We're back to that scale where 1 = knowing for sure a god exists and 8= knowing for sure a god doesn't exist. You'l find most atheists (like Dawkins) are a 7.... which is: it is simply impossible to say for certain some thing like a god doesn't exist somewhere, maybe, but due to observations of nature and the universe, such a notion really is superfluous. It simply doesn't add to anything. The likelihood of gods is just too remote to worry about.

[trotsky]

99. Because some people fall into the logical trap...

Error 1: All atheists claim to know for certain that no gods exist.

Error 2: One must have absolute knowledge of the entire universe before declaring that even one particular god doesn't exist.

Conclusion: "Hyuk hyuk, atheists are stupid and arrogant!"

[trotsky]

57. Please post a link to the exact video clip you watched.

Thanks in advance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. You said you didn't watch the video in #8, and the poster thought it was a different one

because they thought his arguments in it weren't like you described in the OP. Are you saying you have now watched it, and it was one of the 3 you were talking about?

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. OK, what you've put in the OP is a slightly longer version of what I posted in #45

and as I said then, he said that educated people know not to use the bible as a science textbook, but that it's the religious fundamentalists who are the problem. So I think your understanding of what he said is extremely muddled. I've transcripted some of it, to show you, with the bits where he says roughly what you seem to think he ought to have:

He's asked "do you give people who make the case that this (the Big Bang) was the beginning and that there had to be something that provoked the beginning - do you them an A at least for trying to reconcile faith and reason?"

He says he doesn't think they're reconcilable, and that nothing will come from attempts to reconcile the science of the Big Bang with faith. He talks about how Genesis and the bible tell you things about the stars or the formation of the earth that are flat wrong, and an attempt to describe the universe using the bible would fail.

"What happened was, when science discovered things, and you want to stay religious, or you want to continue to believe the bible is unerring, what you would do is say "let me go back to the bible and reinterpret it". Then you say things like "oh, they didn't mean that literally, they meant that figuratively". So this whole interpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It's the fundamentalists who want to the that the bible is the literal truth of God, and want to see the bible as a science textbook, who are knocking on the science doors, trying to put that content in the science text.

Enlightened religious people are not behaving that way. They say "yes, science is cool, we're good with that, and use the bible to get your spiritual enlightenment and your emotional fulfillment. "

Moyers then focuses on a Carl Sagan phrase "the cosmos is all there is, and was, and ever will be", and how some people might think that excludes God. NdGT replies that people are free to believe in whatever gods they want to, but:

"the problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based in objective realities, that you then want to put in the science classroom. Then I'm going to stand there and say, no, I'm not going to allow you in the science classroom. I'm not going to tell you what to think, I'm just telling you in the science classrom, you're not doing science. This is not science, keep it out. That's when I stand up. Otherwise, go ahead. I'm not telling you how to think."

He then talks about a 'god of the gaps', and says "if you're going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to be more to you that just 'where science has yet to tread'. So to the person who says "maybe dark matter is God" (Moyers' example) - if the only reason you're saying it is "it's a mystery", then get ready to have that undone".

I think you need to start quoting the exact things deGrasse Tyson said that you object to, rather than relying on your memory and subjective impression of what he said.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. What part of "it's the fundamentalists who want to say that the bible is the literal truth of God"

do you not understand? Or, right before it, "So this whole interpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that"?

And, as I pointed out with my words, and the words of Georges Lemaitre, there is no reconciling faith and science.

And he says that too. What was your problem?

Your claims that he was rude are balderdash. Now we have seen the video, we know that. If you'd just linked to it in the first place, we could have dismissed most of your OP in just a few minutes.

Your post described your impressions of what he said, which were mostly wrong. That's why I took the trouble to write down what he said, since you couldn't be bothered. You just wanted to attack a strawman.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. But if you could have been bothered to link to the video, we'd have seen your opinion is bizarre

and doesn't use the normal meaning of 'rude'. Instead, you lazily said you didn't need to show us which videos you were talking about, and you mischaracterised what he said, as well as the tone.

Do you seriously think he's 'rude' in the video you've linked to? If so, you live on a different planet. Your judgement of what is 'rude' is useless.

Why can't someone agnostic attack the idea of faith, by the way? Faith involves holding beliefs without evidence, and an agnostic refrains from that. Not that deGrasse Tyson's 'attacks' are aggressive; as we saw in the video, 'criticism' seems a better word, and it's aimed at people who try to insert their faith into education.

[trotsky]

145. Well done, muriel. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. He explicitly said he was addressing fundamentalists, not educated Christians

and he said, at length, that the Bible cannot be validated by science. That's what that video clip is about.

I trust this means you'll stop arguing.

[trotsky]

87. I believe the videos you claim you watched don't exist.

The one link that someone else provided doesn't say what you claim to have seen.

Is there anything taught in your religion about bearing false witness? Provide the links. Aren't they in your browser history? Should be pretty easy to find them.

[trotsky]

144. Looks like my belief was correct for link 1 of 3. Waiting on the other two.

He is most definitely NOT saying what you claim he is.

[trotsky]

155. And much like our stances on religion itself...

my beliefs have evidence to support them, and yours don't.

It is a pity you felt the need to slander an prominent scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson as you did. But not surprising, given my interactions with you.

[trotsky]

157. Yes and you have faith that NDT said what you claim he said.

Faith needs no evidence indeed.

[trotsky]

104. I assume you've been busy today looking for those links.

Can't wait to see the videos for myself.

[jonno99]

60. Thank you for a thought provoking and insightful thread. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Yes I too am just shocked at the angry rejection of

the view that religion is in general a steaming pile of loopy horseshit that humanity would be far better off consigning to fairy tail status.

[trotsky]

103. Indeed.

Why, there should be laws to address this. Society definitely needs to crack down on those who would criticize or mock certain ideas!

[rug]

130. "steaming pile of loopy horseshit" is exemplary logic.

[Warren Stupidity]

140. QED.

[Moostache]

70. The Bible as anything other than metaphor is incomprehensibly evil.

I started writing a long treatise on why Christianity is offensive as a religion, but I erased the whole 2,300 word screed and leave you with only this:

The OP and likeminded individuals should leave science to the scientists and take up your cross with Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, and the rest of the YEC clamoring claptrap of inanity. Your true quibble is with them anyway. Science and Religion are (to steal from Gould) "non-overlapping magisteria". There is no nexxis of intersection and to use either to validate the other is a disservice to both.

This is also true of scientists already. There is no convincing the literalists and fundamentalists of anything - they are a total loss; and the good natured people of faith at least those that I have known and wish to continue to associate with, have no need for external validation of their beliefs....they are in no need of 'converting the lost' or 'preaching the word'. Their beliefs give them hope and peace and that is enough, as it should be for all.

Religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one, and great to be proud of yours...but keep it out of public view and away from children, period.

[Moostache]

72. Sure, I could....

I would prefer not to.






"Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!"

[rug]

77. “What I saw that morning persuaded me that the scrivener was the victim of innate and incurable

disorder. I might give alms to his body; but his body did not pain him; it was his soul that suffered, and his soul I could not reach.”

Melvile's best work.

[Brettongarcia]

91. LeMaitre first proposed the Big Bang

Which in one reading is creation ex nihilo. A religious notion.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

75. Are you saying that your beef with NDT

is that he essentially sets up a strawman (that all Christians literally believe the Bible as the word of god), then attacks the position he framed himself?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

135. Then I'm confused

Why did you do the same thing to NDT with your post?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

142. You mischaracterized NDT's stance

By implying that he considers all Christians to literally believe all of the Bible is literally true. Then, you used the mischaracterization you constructed to attack him. It's intellectually dishonest.

[trotsky]

146. I'm sure everyone is as shocked as I am...

that a Christian would lash out at a prominent non-Christian with false accusations.

[trotsky]

158. Perhaps you could link to the OTHER two videos in which you claimed he did the same thing.

Certainly it will bolster your case!

That is, if there actually were other videos.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

181. But, did he specifically say that

he attributed literalist beliefs to ALL Christians? If not, then you mischaracterized his position, then attacked him for it. Basically, you're banging on NDT for attacking a strawman, while using a strawman of your own.

Do you agree that NDT didn't say that all Christians are biblical literalists?

[mike_c]

76. I'd be happier to accept the notion that religious faith doesn't conflict with science...

...if religious people didn't work so hard to remove science from school curricula and replace it with religious dogma. I presume you don't have any problem with my dismissing that 28% you cited as utterly delusional. The literal truth of invisible people living in the sky is no more safe from challenge than assertions that Earth is flat and the moon is made from cheese.

Religion as allegory and symbolism is fine as long as we understand that allegorical lessons and symbolic truths are individual experiences that cannot be imposed on others with any success. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they don't try to shove it down other peoples' throats or us it to define the collective moral boundaries of the rest of us.

[Skittles]

78. lol

stop acting like the ability to be "faithful" is some kind of ACHIEVEMENT - it ISN'T

[Skittles]

123. IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS LEAP OF FAITH

some people are simply wiling to accept REALITY - END OF STORY

[Skittles]

125. LOL

ALRIGHTY THEN

OVER AND OUT

[AtheistCrusader]

97. I have faith that lightning can kick my ass.

I write this not in an attempt to convert anyone, not to attack any one’s belief or non-belief, but simply because I find it silly when I hear arguments about the supposed incompatibility of faith and science, or faith and logic. Faith has been defined as the “willing suspension of disbelief”. Faith is. It requires no proof. If you cannot accept this concept, cannot make this leap of faith, that is one thing, but many can.

It does not reduce, diminish, or invalidate that faith to empirically test how much ass lightning can kick. I can validate the number of deaths it causes. The injuries, temporary and lifelong. The property damage. Etc. my faith in lightning as a dangerous and unpredictable release of energy is not transmuted into something else by knowing and validating and even reproducing its properties.

The only difference is, my faith in the destructive capacity of lightning and the EXISTENCE of lightning can be scientifically validated.

Not so, for anyone's imaginary friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. One of us is, sure.

Or at least, about the durability of/nature of faith.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Does not require but also does not preclude.

My faith in the destructive potential of high voltage discharges is no different than the alleged faith of alleged people that allegedly saw god in various forms throughout the bible, as a burning bush, smoking pillar of fire, allegedly in the flesh as the biblical character of Jesus, et.

All tangible things to the alleged observer, yet one would not describe them as not having faith, because they had an opportunity to allegedly experience the presence of god itself.

Experiencing something in person, in the material universe, does not rob you of the agency of believing whatever you like about that thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

160. Moses KNEW the burning bush (allegedly) was of god/god's angel messenger.

Was Moses still a man of faith or not?

Knowledge does not necessarily kill faith.


Your second example might not work. Can the scientist know at a glance the water is impure? If it's completely pure, no, it won't freeze at 0c. That scientist might have faith that it will freeze at that temp and pressure, and might be surprised at the result.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. No, because then the water wouldnt' be at 0c.

Who is parsing now? Pure water won't start a crystalline structure.

I point out an exception that doesn't require violating the parameters of your initial rules. Water with a heat lamp to prevent it from freezing is not achieving 0c.

[trotsky]

167. The guy who says NDT should leave theology to the theologians...

is trying to do science.

It's so cute.

[AtheistCrusader]

170. No. Not even close.

My POINT, was that a person like you aware of science-y stuff and all, can have 'faith' that X will happen (Water freezes at 0c) and discover conditions where water achieves 0c, but doesn't actually freeze until around -45c, and other bizarre behaviors like spontaneous freezing when you strike the container it is in, etc.

You HAVE to test it. Testing these things finds the truth. Truth CAN be found. And knowing the caveats and exceptions doesn't obviate the assumption (faith) that water freezes at 0c, because most water on the planet is not, in fact, pure.



One can go on believing, or having faith, that water freezes at 0c with that exception knowledge in their back pocket. Moses could go on with Faith(TM) in his god, even though he was allegedly subject to direct exposure to supernatural powers that tend to validate the existence of an alleged supernatural being.

I don't think you followed the point of this conversation at all.

[Skittles]

126. BUT

their "FAITH" is always "DIFFERENT" - you know, to get around the fact that what they have "FAITH" in can not be PROVEN (for good reason)

[Lint Head]

201. Focusing on the attitude instead of the substance can be

detrimental to logic. There are medicines that taste and smell like salty shoe soles but can cure horrible deseases. Seems like you're shooting the messenger. There are many passages in the Bible where God takes revenge or sends plagues yet the message of love comes through.

[immoderate]

203. Pretty sad. Rude? I think he was very polite in the clip you presented.

He clearly doesn't begrudge anybody their beliefs (very un-Christian) he just wants to keep mythology out of the science class.

As a former teacher, I had to deal (very gingerly) with students who demanded time for creationism in science class. And there are widely used "science" text books, that say the earth is 10,000 years old, etc.

To say that evolution is guided, is saying it is something else. Evolution by Natural Selection cannot be guided. The terms contradict each other.

You pick parts of the Bible that you think are literally true. How do you know which ones to pick?

--imm

[trotsky]

207. LET THE RECORD FORMALLY SHOW THAT:

1) You claimed you watched THREE videos that showed Neil deGrasse Tyson being "consistently dismissive in tone and language, consistently rude with all who cannot or will not appreciate the sheer brilliance of his attempts at logic, and consistently intellectually dishonest and simplistic"

2) You have provided a link to only ONE video.

3) The ONE video you've linked to definitively shows that NDT is directly addressing young-earth creationists, not believers in general as you claimed.

Three strikes, and YOU ARE OUT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

210. God speaks through you, then?

Who's arrogant, here?

Of course, you didn't even manage to quote that whole sentence of Tyson's, let alone give it any context. So you left out the 'if...', so you could radically change the meaning. He's saying things that agree with what you approvingly said of Lemaitre in the OP - "LeMaitre states that his faith has nothing directly in common with science. He understood that faith and science deal with different things."

The whole excerpt is the suggestion, that someone made to Bill Moyers, that since dark matter holds galaxies together, it might be seen as 'God'. So Tyson explains about astronomers and scientists who explain some natural laws, and then credit a 'god' for what they can't explain.

"When I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies" - these are the planets going through retrograde and back - the mysteries of the universe - "when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch the earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself, and take my fill of ambrosia."

He didn't invoke Zeus to account for the rock he's standing on, or the air he's breathing. It was this point of mystery. And in gets invoked 'God'. This, over time, has been described by philosophers as the 'god of the gaps'.

If that's where you're going to put your god, in this world, then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. If that's how you're going to invoke God. If God is the mystery of this universe. These mysteries which we're tackling. One by one. If you're going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just "where science has yet to tread".

So, to the person who says "maybe dark matter is God", if the only reason why you saying it is because it's a mystery, then get ready to have that undone.

Like Lemaitre, Tyson is advising people not to use God as an explanation for physical phenomena that science still hasn't explained fully. For some reason, rather than being happy that Tyson says things that are compatible with what your hero says, you find it necessary to insult him, and pretend it's your god doing the insulting, too.

[trotsky]

211. That's the funniest part of this whole thread.

He's been railing against Tyson for holding pretty much the same position he does. Hilarious!

[muriel_volestrangler]

213. So, why do you insult Tyson for agreeing on that point?

Why did you start this thread?

[muriel_volestrangler]

215. Yes, I disagree. Your original post was extremely unclear

and at odds with reality. That is the main message I have taken from this thread, for several days.

The secondary message is that you have no interest in actually showing us the 2nd or 3rd videos you thought you'd seen. Whether that's because you now realise you hopelessly misinterpreted them, because you actually have no interest in the point you originally tried to make and are now just arguing for the sake of it, or something else, I really can't tell.

[Orrex]

216. I attended a Catholic wedding two years ago with a full mass

Felt like Eternity seven times over.

YMMV