"I disagree with the FACT"

[tblue37]

We often joke about how fundamentalists can refuse to accept celar, irrefutable evidence if it goes against their beliefs.

On one of my websites I have a true anecdote entitled "Snakes Got Feet!" In it I tell the story of taking a nearly 10-foot boa constrictor to my kids' elementary school to show the students the boa's vestigial feet and claws and allow the students to touch and feel them. I also explain in it that X-rays of a boa's body will show the skeletal structures that would be legs if they were still outside the body.

I got a comment in the site's geustbook today from someone who sure sounds like a fundie to me:

"My ex-boyfriend and I have had an ever-lasting arguement about this snake thing.... I disagree with the fact that snakes have legs. THEY DON'T! God made snakes the way he wanted-- limbless <emphasis added>. But i just thought I would let you know that I visited your site. Thanks and Have a nice day."

This seems to me to be a perfect example of this sort of thought process:

"I disagree with the fact. . ."

The point of the story is that a large snake like a boa not only does have feet and claws, but they can be seen and touched. Nevertheless, she feels perfectly justified in disagreeing with a fact and insisting, in caps, that "THEY DON"T!"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Those who do not belong to the reality-based community

generally feel free to "disagree" with established facts to the extent those facts inconveniently conflict with their dumbass fundie worldview.

Snakes don't have legs because God made them that way, even though they actually do.

[rpgamerd00d]

2. Nothing is Factual to a Neocon

- Post some information? Neocon denies it.
- Refute the denial? Neocon asks for a link.
- Post the link? Neocon attacks the sources credibility.
- Backup sources credibility? Neocon attacks the individual reporter.

Not once have I ever, ever, ever, seen a Neocon ask for a link, be provided with one, and go "Oh, crap, you were right. My bad."

Never.

Why?

Because Facts to a Neocon are like Kyrptonite to Superman.

[tblue37]

4. True--but neocons and fundies aren't the same group.

Neocons are former liberals like Scoop Jackson and Irving Kristol who became a "new kind" of conservative. They tend to have an authoritarian streak, and they originally were particularly concerned that liberals were not fierce enough against the Soviets or willing enough to project military strength.

Fundamentalists are religionists. They and the neocons came together in a marriage of convenience to take over the Republican party, but they have significant differences. The neocons use religion to manipulate the fundamentalist foot soldiers, but many neocons are Strausserians, and they often don't really have strong religious convictions--or any, for that matter.

On the other hand, neocons certainly do have a similar ability to deny reality when it conflicts with their lunatic assumptions. But they base their assumptions not on God's will, but on the notion that they, being the intellectual elite, know what really matters and what needs to be done about it.

Irving Kristol's ridiculous little son, Bill Kristol, is a perfect manifestaton of the neocon pretense to special wisdom, a self-confidence that is never shaken simply because reality has smacked him upside the head.

[unpossibles]

3. she also obviously disagrees with the dictionary.... n/t

[valerief]

5. They prefer Factiness to Facts. nt

[tblue37]

8. Heh heh heh--good one! (eom)

[Bucky]

6. I disagree with the fact that the earth is round. If the earth is round, how come we don't fall off?

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. Because we are on top.

the folks on the bottom have special planet gripping shoes they wont tell us about

[tblue37]

10. Yeah, down there the snakes have to have

their feet and claws on the outside, so they can hold on and not fall off!

[mrcheerful]

22. Maybe, just maybe the person in question

mistook a road runner cartoon for a documentry. Just like the fundies did with the Flintstones.

[tblue37]

7. BTW, I forgot to link to my story.

In case you want to read the story about the boa's feet, here is a link:
http://www.pettales.homestead.com/snakefeet.html

[Az]

11. You have to understand how the human mind works

I could present you with a very strong argument that you should be able to walk through walls. I could provide you with ample evidence supporting my argument. I could provide scientific studies showing how it works. But if I ask you to try it no matter how well framed my argument is you are going to blink just before you walk into that wall.

The mind accumulates its understanding of the world around it via experience and emotional relevance. Strong emotional reactions lend themself to events or ideas and reinforce their impact on our mind. Repitition increases the emotional impact of an idea. In this way our mind builds its internal model of the world and forms its beliefs.

Reason and rational thought are tools the mind turns to when it is in doubt about a matter. Doubt creeps into the mind when it is ill informed about a subject or when there are conflicting beliefs about the matter. The mind samples all its various positions on a matter weighing the emotional relevance of each point and combining similar ideas. Conflicting ideas dominate or are pushed aside based on how much emotional relevance they have to the mind.

But when there is too little information or there is a balance of positions the mind is incapable of rendering a descision. Doubt and uncertainty plague the mind and cause it to struggle to shift this balance. It turns to tools such as reason and rational thought (although there are other tools it can turn to that are less reasoned).

So unless there is doubt in their mind concerning an issue they will not be impacted by words or arguments you pose. They will simply fall away from them or at best be stored for later reference should doubt finally arise in their mind.

It would take a direct experience for them to impart sufficient emotional relevance to begin to impact their strongly held beliefs. They would literally have to dissect a snake themself and see the legs before it would begin to have any impact. And there are plenty of defense mechanisms that are likely to kick in before that came to pass.

[tblue37]

12. I emailed the girl back and asked her how she dealt with the fact that

a person can not only see but also touch and feel the snake's feet and claws. If she responds, I will let you know.

[trekbiker]

60. I propose an experiment..

you stated "It would take a direct experience for them to impart sufficient emotional relevance to begin to impact their strongly held beliefs."

my experiment: take a church full of Fundamentalist Christians and spike thier grape juice (blood of christ) with LSD. Then record the various reactions. separate them into two groups and tell the first group they just injested LSD before the drug takes effect (this is just hypothetical so assume they all dont freak out and panic upon hearing this). Do not tell the second group anything. After the experience is over combine the two groups and let them relate their individual experiences to each other. A cruel experiment perhaps but it would be interesting. How would they reconcile seeing or feeling God with the chemical source of the experience?
Years ago in my late teens and early 20's my own experiments with LSD and psilocybin mushrooms were revealing, possibly something akin to a "religious experience". My built in "frames", my own version of reality was broken down by these drugs chemical affect on my brain. My brain could not interpret what my senses were telling it in the usual manner. Food could become more texture than taste, visual experiences like color and form would change, negative spaces could become positive spaces and vice versa like an optical illusion, sticks could become snakes, pieces of glass become exotic iridescent seashells. This was at times exhilarating, scary, intense, etc. Individual brain "wiring", or genetics is possibly also a relevant factor and every individuals experience is different, some good, some not so good. Intentionally breaking down frames of reference or "walls" is not an easy thing to do for many people and can result in "bad trips". It's too bad these drugs are labeled illegal or "bad" and more experimenting by qualified professionals in science and mental health could be done. Valuable insights into the workings of the brain/mind might result. Especially with regards to religion.

[Cleita]

13. If I remember Genesis correctly, when God cast Adam and Eve

out of the Garden of Eden, he also cursed the serpent stating that he would crawl on his belly in the mud from thence on. So this could allude to the fact that the serpent had feet to begin with and God took them away for punishment.

I know you aren't going for a religious slant on this, but it does strike me curious that people who believe in every word of the Bible as truth, haven't really read it to understand it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. "would be legs" ... that aren't?

your "true anecdote" claims that snakes have "skeletal structures that would be legs if they were still outside the body". Does that mean that they in fact, aren't legs then? I'm just curious to know what YOUR thought process is in regards to this. Can I sum it up this way?

If it looks like a leg, it is a leg, whether it is a leg or not.

Then, in your last paragraph, you make the statement that large snakes such as boas have feet and claws but neglect to mention legs. I must admit to being thoroughly confused...

[tblue37]

16. The title of the article is "Snakes Got Feet!"

The legs on a snake are vestigial skeletal structures. The feet are also vestigial, but as they are actually outside the body, they can be seen and touced. The point is that "God" did not make snakes without legs.

Do you eat those nits after you pick them?

[Az]

18. You want to have some fun introduce a Young Earth Creationist to Ice Cores

We have ice cores that go back over 170,000 years. And they are very easy to date and do not require any radiometric techniques that the YEC camp loves to complain about.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. I disagree with a lot of facts, personally.

I disagree with the fact that I am apparently not destined to be rich.

I disagree with the fact that Bush is still in office.

I disagree with the fact that I am old and fat.

And that's just for starters. Don't get me wound up.

[tblue37]

17. Nah, JR--you don't "disagree" with those facts,

you disapprove of them.

[tblue37]

19. Here is a pic of the claws on a female python.

On large male snakes (like Ralph), you can actually see the feet and claws, not just the small claws like in this pic of a female python.

[tblue37]

20. I know I have found pics on the Net before of

snake feet and legs. I will keep hunting for them if people are interested in seeing them (or skeptical, for whatever reason).

[RebelOne]

66. I am skeptical because I owned 2 boas at one time

and I'll be damned if I ever saw any feet or claws on them.

[China_cat]

21. Point to ask her

If the 'serpent' of Eden was a snake with no limbs of any kind, what kind of punishment was it for god to curse it to 'go on its belly'?

[mrcheerful]

23. Now now now, don't go confusing the poor slack jawed thing with

things in the bible,she'd go running to her church preacher and only say something even more stupid. I've seen them do that over and over. Had one such person say that dropping 2 balls only meant that they had weight to them and did nothing to prove a thing about gravity. When said person was asked how come men float in space, I got man never made it to space, it was all faked by HollyWood movie people. He knew that because he saw the flag on the moon move when a breeze got it. Never mind that Armstrong was playing with the pole it was attached to when said flag moved, he showed me the video of the flag moving to a breeze. So that was proof that man never made it to space yet.

[Evoman]

24. Thats why when I teach my evolution classes I have an old empty spray bootle labelled BS repellent

When fundies start up on me, I don't say anything. I just spray them.

Okay, no I don't, but that would be funny. Actually, I've semi-convinced quite a lot of fundies into accepting evolution. Once you study evolution (and learn about genetic and molecular evidence), its hard NOT being convinced. I feel sad for all those fundies that never go to college, and learn about the interesting FACTS of evolution....they're really missing out on the one the most powerful explanatory theories in science.

God has nothing on evolution.

[TRYPHO]

25. God has nothing on evolution

I'm smiling, but I'm not going to say anything :-)

TRYPHO

[Evoman]

26. No, please...go ahead.

Don't stop yourself on my account.

[TRYPHO]

27. Well....

The Old Testament has two versions of the making of the Universe, and one stands up to scrutiny in terms of the order of events that todays scientists say things happened in. I know and accept completely that it is utterly irrelevent to anything, AND that it got it wrong in the other version, but I still think it's impressive to have got right in one instance and written it down over 3000 years ago.
I'm not swearing that God gave a nudge here-and-there either in the process or in telling the ancient Israelites what to write down in the OT, but it does impress me none-the-less.

Most non-fundie extremists/believers would accept evolution AND God are quite compatable. You really have to be brainless to think that the Universe and all thats it in is not subject to Evolution, especially when experiments have shown evolution taking place within the last century or two (there was a moth that used to be white, but the species became black once acid-rain turned the buildings black as the whiter moths all died out before getting a chance to mate, and their genes went inside the tummy's of larger creatures).

So, you're suggestion that "God has nothing on evolution" is really a good test question to see if someone is a sane person or a radical extremist fundie loon.

It should be a question on the green immigration form, which is a much more sensible question than the ones you currently ask immigrants:

1. Are you a commie?
2. Did you kill people for fun?
3. Have you any/many psychiatric diseases that result in the deaths of others?
4. Are you packing?
5. Do you personally support Al Quaeda?
6. Did you have membership of a terrorist organisation or do you now?
7. Are you insured?
8. Do you believe in George Bush as the Almighty Revolutionary Saviour Extroardinaire (ARSE for short) that he says he is?

Clever questions that would trip almost anyone up.

Boy, did I get side-tracked!

God, what is He good for?

Answer: Getting you elected and keeping you in office.

TRYPHO

[cain_7777]

29. I'm not familiar with any part of the bible that stands up to scientific scrutiny

I have heard of the two differing accounts of creation but specifically how does the second hold any water with current scientific theory?

[TRYPHO]

31. Well it aint a science book is it!

But where it has sections of scientific interest it would be interesting to see if they are right or wrong by todays understanding. Thus we know pigs are carriers of threadworm and are more likely to cause harm than other meats. That meat with the blood removed and stored with salt is far safer in hot regions that if not done. That good hygiene and regular bathing is important. That having sex during the menstrual period will not produce a child. That circumcision offers greater pleasures for the man, carries far less risk of disease (including 50% reduction in HIV risk I might add to any fundies reading this - so God must really be punishing Christians for not keeping the laws of the OT) and, frankly, looks nicer! That avoiding foods (fish or mammal) that obtained their nutrition by scavenging is sensible especially prawns which are always risky!

The list of sensible scientific laws in the Old Testament are amazing AND, as I say, stand up to today's scientific scrutiny.

Defendant wins, case closed.

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

35. Inconclusive

That circumcision offers greater pleasures for the man,

The opposite is more likely true.

carries far less risk of disease (including 50% reduction in HIV risk I might add to any fundies reading this - so God must really be punishing Christians for not keeping the laws of the OT)

Irrelevant. There would be no sexual propagation of disease if sexual behaviour laws were kept.

frankly, looks nicer

Opinion, not fact.

The list of sensible scientific laws in the Old Testament are amazing AND, as I say, stand up to today's scientific scrutiny.

Bullshit.

People all across the world have discovered many things to help in their survival. Why? BECAUSE THOSE WHO DIDN'T DIED.

No mystery there.

No more mystery to all the crap that ISN'T useful either. Some conclusions were just plain fucking wrong. Like god.

[TRYPHO]

38. I think you miss the point...

Walking around the middle east three or four thousand years ago was no Greyhound journey, it was a harsh life, and a short one. And if your Dad said don't eat red seeds you didn't and were glad when you mate Billy did and died. So imagine what monumental wonder it must have been to have a BOOK the size of a tent that had all this life saving and life enhancing power in it. Your people survived, thrived and multilpied, and you were grateful and thanked God for letting you live so long and so well.

So, when you say, so nicely:

Bullshit.
People all across the world have discovered many things to help in their survival. Why? BECAUSE THOSE WHO DIDN'T DIED.

That doesn't mean much when a South American doesn't know what a Kangaroo is and an American Indian doesn't know what an Elephant is.

To further up the level of my wonder, the bible rules were written in such a way that the laws cover any and every known and unknown food source. So, for example, no Israelite had ever seen a Llama, but the rules would clearly define whether it was kosher or not based on whether it had cloven hooves and chewed the cud. The only exception is a Giraffe which <would be> kosher, but no-ones knows where to cut the throat correctly.

Anyway, perhaps this is one of those YOU vs ME arguments best left to simmer; and trust me when I say I don't want to appear like some fundie,evangelical, bible-pushing wierdo.

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

52. You've got about the same level of objectiveness as a fundie

So imagine what monumental wonder it must have been to have a BOOK the size of a tent that had all this life saving and life enhancing power in it.

How naive are you? This book did not drop out of the sky fully formed.

That doesn't mean much when a South American doesn't know what a Kangaroo is and an American Indian doesn't know what an Elephant is.

WTF?

To further up the level of my wonder, the bible rules were written in such a way that the laws cover any and every known and unknown food source.

Bullshit.

So, for example, no Israelite had ever seen a Llama, but the rules would clearly define whether it was kosher or not based on whether it had cloven hooves and chewed the cud.

According to Kosher rules rabbits chew the cud.

Um, no. That's wrong.

Teaching Kosher biology would be just as accurate as teaching Genesis evolution - that is, not at all. (Despite your protests otherwise).

and trust me when I say I don't want to appear like some fundie,evangelical, bible-pushing wierdo.

And yet you insist on giving one book special awe and treatment and ignore the inconvenient failings because it would make it fall to the same level as every other ancient writing.

I fail to see the difference myself.

[TRYPHO]

53. Some rights wronged/1 or 2 errors/one point STILL valid...

How naive are you? This book did not drop out of the sky fully formed.

There's a fair part of me that wants to answer "No, it was given to Moses 'by hand'", but I think I'll give a more acceptable answer and say that the point I was making still stands, that thousands of years ago a book was being used by people to rule their actions, and thereby protect them because it included sensible precautions and actions that other tribes didn't persue.
Correct the book didn't fall out of the sky fully-formed, but even before it was put into its final form after the return from the Babylonian exile, one can presume that (I'll be generous here and just say) SOME of the contents had been in action/known/practiced etc, beforehand - ie during and before the 1st Temple period.

According to Kosher rules rabbits chew the cud.

To be honest here, I've never seen Rabbit on the menu in any kosher restaurant I've ever been to, and I've never had reason until now to ask or enquire if a rabbit is kosher or not. I will now - and I won't say why I am querying it - and if the answer comes back a yes I shall then ask if they believe the rabbit chews the cud, and if they say yes to that then I shall check in to that with someone else I guess...

And yet you insist on giving one book special awe and treatment and ignore the inconvenient failings because it would make it fall to the same level as every other ancient writing. I fail to see the difference myself.

Ok, I admit it, I'm baised. And there ARE times I'm wrong. I >think< I've been mistaken about the accuracy of my time-line theory regarding the OT "making the univers and all the living things in the correct order vs reality" theory. I stand corrected, probably! But I still, as I said earlier on THAT subject - don't care - it's not a biggie, just something I thought I had been told and spouted out here without really lookling. BUT I still look at the validity of the OT (when taken together with the other books of the Tenach and the Talmud) as awe-inspiring and valid to me as a good method for living by. I accept I am biased, and I accept the OT has failings - but I am not so unscientific or fundified (?) to feel the need to "unsee" the obvious.

If/when I'm wrong I'll accept it graciously. If you PROVE to me the bible (thats the Old Testament as opposed to the NT which is another matter entirely of course) contains errors - then proof is proof - and I'm well read on the OT so I know when its flawed in terms of style/content/inconsistency probably more than the average DUer does (though not all by any means).

OK, I hope I've appeased you/explained my position to you/admit one or possibly two errors to you, but I did want to make valid my point that I still believe that 3-4000years ago the Torah was revered with (some) good reason in an age when there was (virtually) no science*.

TRYPHO
* - they were good at astrology and building

BIG

buildings though!

[TRYPHO]

54. Rabbit - NOT KOSHER

Non-Kosher animals include pig, horse, camel and rabbit
--
From a simple google search rather than asking anyone clever, but this was far quicker since is 2.40am currently!

So, err, cyborg_jim I'm afraid this comment:

According to Kosher rules rabbits chew the cud. Um, no. That's wrong.
Teaching Kosher biology would be just as accurate as teaching Genesis evolution - that is, not at all. (Despite your protests otherwise).

Get two thumbs down. Mammals need to have cloven hooves and chew the cud for starters.

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

58. Actually...

The point is that rabbits don't chew the cud yet:

Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Says they do.

So like I said; Kosher biology? Failing grade.

[TRYPHO]

61. Sorry for the delay but ....

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
which has further info

regards,

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

62. Answers in Genesis?

I'm sorry, could you find me a less objective site?

Thanks.

[TRYPHO]

63. Sorry - If you cant accept its another simple mis-translation problem..

then i'll leave you to your own grumblings.

I thank you for bringing this to my attention though, it will be a pleasure to add it to my list of known errors in translation. Current top 2 are:

1. Jesus born of a virgin birth; WRONG! The prophecy states a YOUNG GIRL - not virgin.
2. Thou shalt not kill; WRONG! Thou shalt not commit MURDER: completely different meaning.

Good fun though. Aramaic->Greek->Latin->Germanic->French->Old English->Modern English.

Guess even genes make enough mistakes in 6 generations to go from good to bad.


How reliable or accurate is the New Testament text? Answer: 54.5%
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html

(not that you'll spend the time reading it, but for anyone else here who does, it is a fascinating and intelligent article, at a very high level, from a very surprising source!)

TRYPHO

[cyborg_jim]

64. Um, do you know anything about AIG?

AIG plainly states that the Bible is ALWAYS RIGHT, regardles of science, history or anything else. The irony of you using that site in this thread is not lost of me. AIG are exactly the sort of people who like to establish their own facts regardless of reality.

You would do well not to use the site as a reference if you want to have any credibility in the future - especially since you are not a fundamentalist Christian (or so you have led us to believe).

Hence I would like you to provide a source that is not biased up the wazoo if you please.

I thank you for bringing this to my attention though, it will be a pleasure to add it to my list of known errors in translation.

The translation error argument is flawed because it assumes there was a perfectly unambiguous meaning there in the first place. I do not know of a natural language that precludes the ability for misinterpretation - a commandment to not commit murder exemplifies that point by leaving the ambiguity of what murder is since it only leads to the fuzzy path of trying to define the lawfulness of an act of killing.

Do you think all the problems with interpretation vanish if there is a perfect translation? Well of course! That works out so well for Islam where most of the followers read it in the language it was written. You know, I don't think I've ever heard of any disagreements between Muslims so I guess you must be right. My mistake.

[cyborg_jim]

57. Reply (ugh)

There's a fair part of me that wants to answer "No, it was given to Moses 'by hand'"

Might want to explain how he wrote about his own death then.

and thereby protect them because it included sensible precautions and actions that other tribes didn't persue.

It also contained whole fuckload of nonsense - making it much like any other ancient rulebook.

I >think< I've been mistaken about the accuracy of my time-line theory regarding the OT "making the univers and all the living things in the correct order vs reality" theory.

You are mistaken. It is a common apologetic that falls flat on its face when you actually examine the claims carefully.

BUT I still look at the validity of the OT (when taken together with the other books of the Tenach and the Talmud) as awe-inspiring and valid to me as a good method for living by.

And yet I doubt you own slaves or stone people. Again it is the selective reading that annoys me - you cannot just ignore everything that was wrong to then come to the conclusion at how amazingly right these people were.

If you PROVE to me the bible (thats the Old Testament as opposed to the NT which is another matter entirely of course) contains errors - then proof is proof

Well, the account of creation is certainly in error. There is no way in which is could be said there is any scientific insight in a story that doesn't recognise the basic operation of plants, ignores bacteria completely and does not start with life in the oceans. These are important things in the story of life.

but I did want to make valid my point that I still believe that 3-4000years ago the Torah was revered with (some) good reason in an age when there was (virtually) no science*.

My friend, you are blinded to the great achievements that man was making whilst your chosen people were arguing about what a god considered correct food for them to eat.

Maybe it was jealousy of the great achievements of Egypt that led them to conjure up a tale where their great hero Moses completely humiliates them by ensuring the wholesale slaughter of the first-born?

Either way you seem to be arguing that some food laws that you can happen to apply to animals the Israelites knew nothing of (as if they had a complete taxonomic system) is the most amazing achievement of the ancient world.

That, IMO, is quite laughable.

[Az]

36. 2 Chronicles 4:2

2 Chronicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Lets do the math.

Diameter=10 cubits
Circumfrence=30 cubits

Circumfrence=PI x Diameter

so

30/10=PI=3.0=wrong

PI /= 3.0

PI=3.14159

[TRYPHO]

39. Close but not close enough...

Az writes:

Chronicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. Lets do the math. Diameter=10 cubits Circumfrence=30 cubits Circumfrence=PI x Diameter so 30/10=PI=3.0=wrong PI /= 3.0 PI=3.14159

So they are estimating pi to 3 not 3.1, shit man, that's a serious fuck up when you want to build the next temple.

I apologize profusely, your are quite right, you have found the error in the system, the bible is a fakery, and I must accept it. The clincher would have been if it had been in the five books of Moses, which it isn't, just in the writings we call the Ketubim, which are written by man. But God has been knocked for six (English cricket reference, shall I say knocked for a home run?) by your awesome mathematical genius in spotting the rounding down from 3.1 to 3 in a time when there were no non integers, no decimal places and no zero'. But other than that you are well on the way to causing me to have a massive re-think of my position.

Thanks,

TRYPHO

[greyl]

55. You said it would be interesting to view the science of the text

through today's lens. Through that lens, it's wrong, as AZ has shown us. Your excuse for the error in the Holy text is that is was written by man. What was your point again?

How long do you think humans have been around?

Take 4 equal lengths of flexible material. Fashion 3 into individual rings and place them side by side. Lay the 4th across them.
Stare at it for a while. Play, experiment, think creatively - like biologically modern humans have been doing for a couple/few hundred thousand years. I doubt it would take you long to spot the approximate relationship between diameter and circumference.



Humans weren't ignorant of the effects of gravity before Newton came along. His genius was in formulating them as a law. Unfortunately for you, your Holy text, in regards to pi, shows a lack of divine intervention or apprehension, and a lack of exacting science.

edit:spling

[Evoman]

42. The bible is of no scientific interest.

Just because the people who wrote it made some observations of their world, its doesn't make it useful. They made observations that we would make today...and then they completely fabricated reasons to explain these observations.

I'm not saying that these primitive people didn't understand their world (at least superficially)...they did. They had to, in order to survive. They were very aware of their surroundings. Enough people get sick eating pig, they stop eating pig, obviously. But these observations are in no way even CLOSE to scientific laws or theories. If you honestly think that, you don't know what the heck science is. You think a scientist who reads the bible thinks..."man...these people aren't eating pig...I find their scientific theories that pigs are infested with demons, and that women who menstruate don't get pregnant because satan eat menstruations babies interesting...hmm. I'm going to write a scientific paper on Satan and menstruation!"

I repeat. Nothing in the bible is scientifically valid or interesting.

[Meshuga]

44. BTW

"Enough people get sick eating pig, they stop eating pig, obviously."

Not eating pig in Judaism has nothing to with science and it has nothing to do with pig being a dirty animal or people getting sick. Pork just does not fall under the category of animals that can be eaten in a kosher diet:

- Land animals must be mammals which chew their cud and have cloven hoofs.
- Birds of prey are prohibited
- Fish must have fins and scales (non-fish seafood is prohibited)

I agree with the bible not being scientifically valid. The bible being interesting is a matter of opinion. But if Satan likes menstruation babies then we prove that there is taste for everything!

[Evoman]

45. Yes, but I was responding to Trypho

and his observation about not eating pig. Honestly, its possible that the Jews could have realized that not eating pig was healthier or whatever, but then made up this story about in not being kosher. I mean...what reason really is there for those animals not being kosher?

Not that it really matters to me one way or the other. I could care less what Jews eat. I think its stupid not eating something for religious reasons....unless its health related or for moral reaons (like vegetarian and vegan DUers), it makes no sense to me.

[Meshuga]

49. A secular Jew

or an atheist Jew might choose to eat kosher and sometimes a Jew who goes to synagogue might not. There is no "You better eat kosher or God will strike you down!" or "You better eat kosher or satan will poke you in the ass for eternity!". Eating kosher serves the purpose of identity, some rabbi's came up to a conclusion that it is also a way to limit the number of animals we could use as food (sort of like, if you are not strong enough to be a vegetarian at least leave these groups of animals alone).

Remember, these rules were set to ween people from behavior that perhaps were practiced at that point in time so there are rules in kashrut (laws about food) about prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, the requirement for humane means to kill the animal you use for food.

As far as other purposes of kashrut if a particular brand of wine is made with the aid of exploited labor picking the grapes then that wine is no longer kosher.

There are prohibition just for pure rejection of other religious practices at that particular era such as eating blood (which was symbolic to the life of the animal) and boiling a kid in its mother milk, explaining the prohibition of mixing meat and dairy. Both of these in the present day serves the purpose of identity.

Eating kosher perhaps might have it's health benefits but it also serves the purpose of identity, ethics, or religiosity (for a pious Jew).

[greyl]

56. "serves the purpose of identity" - I'm very interested in that angle.

I think "because it serves the purpose of identity" would be the best discussion resolver ever in response to critical analysis of beliefs in traditional custom, superstition, myth, and all other cultural aesthetics and mores if the conversation were taking place within a tribal system.
However, that is not the system that most humans on Earth today find themselves a part of. Our civilization's gestalt isn't "foster diversity", it is "eliminate the competition".
Discussion here in R/T is in relation to the global conflicts intrinsic to a particular non-tribal system - one that, for the past 10 thousand years, has been enacting the myth that Earth was made for humans, and humans were made to conquer and rule it and that "we"(salvationist religion) are the highest example of humanity, as dictated by God - God Approved, God certified, GOD triple AAA.
That myth extrapolates itself into countless directions, at many levels. Lifestyle, occupation, career, politics, legislation, war, evolution, science, education, sustainability, peace, so on.

Do most pious Jews look forward to the day when tribal boundaries are honored?

[Meshuga]

59. Very important, I think.

"Do most pious Jews look forward to the day when tribal boundaries are honored?"

I think that in Judaism "tribal boundaries" are very important. Especially for the orthodox and ultra-orthodox who fight with tooth and nail for the survival of the Jewish tradition and claim that non-orthodox are killing Judaism for "abandoning" some of the mitzvot in order to assimilate with society.

Jews, pious or secular, have no interest in conquering anybody or anything. One of the most important aspects in Judaism, if not the most important, is identity. We care about maintaning our tradition, philosophy, sense of peoplehood, spirituality, etc. We worry about survival of Judaism however we are not out actively seeking converts and trying to convince people to be Jews.

If an individual's spirituality is compatible with Judaism and this individual feels a connection with the sense of Jewish peoplehood we would accept this person with open arms. But this person would have to contact a Rabbi on his/her own in order to join the Jewish people and this person would have to go through a long process of conversion since once you are part of the Jewish people you are always part of the Jewish people. There is no going back.

Spiritual connection only is not sufficient for "conversion". This person needs to feel strong identity in order to join. And just like the people who are born into judaism (from the humanist to the ultra-orthodox), the Jew-by-choice is expected to spend his/her life working on making that identity even stronger by living as a Jew.

The ultra-orthodox Jew is not worried about what a non-Jew believes or does not believe or what non-Jews do or don't do. The ultra-orthodox cares more about what a non-orthodox Jew is not doing as part of the "Jewish People". The religious clashes we have are mostly inside the Jewish community, not outside.

[cyborg_jim]

34. Um, no.

and one stands up to scrutiny in terms of the order of events that todays scientists say things happened in.

I don't know any scientists that would say photosynthesising plants existed before the sun.

The 7 day creation story is still crap. It requires a lot of give to allow it any sort of harmony with science.

[TRYPHO]

37. Number 3....compare with number 11....

From http://www.bible.com

1 First God made heaven & earth
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light" ; and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

snip

11 And God said, " Let the earth put forth vegetation , plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.

So I think you have that wrong. Also, the order of progression of plants through to man follows evolutionary timelines correctly too.

TRYPHO
(actually, I'm not bothered either way, but I recall being told it does)

[cyborg_jim]

51. LIGHT before plants, not the SUN.

Jeez, this is exactly the kind of selective reading that I'm talking about:

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Sun, moon and stars after plants? Um, no.

Like I said, you have to be generous. You have plants before life in the oceans. You have plants before the sun. Insects and cows evolving at the same point? No, no, no, no, NO.

It's just wrong in so many ways.

[Evoman]

41. People keep telling me that evolution and belief in god is compatible.

And I suppose that in some ways, it is, if you believe in a lazy, useless god. Evolution, while not directly refuting God (obviously), simply eliminates him as an important factor in the origin of human beings. Again, god has no place in this world. We don't need god to explain anything. Its also gives us confidence that god is not needed to explain the universe.

Evolution, as well as findings in other areas of scientific inquiry (chemistry and physics, as well as microbiology, etc) shows us what the bible really is: a book written by primitive humans which is full of errors and falsehoods. The bible, aside from perhaps a bit role (along with other old manuscripts) in understanding the minds of a people long dead, is useless.

[TRYPHO]

43. Yes it is to Christians that don't know the other half of the story

Which is the Oral Laws, that were finally written down in the Talmud, and constantly updated the Original written law, and thence to Rabbinic law, to current theology. If you only count the Old Testament you would be quite correct, but Jews only count it as the starting point or history book of our religion.

Christians just said it was superceded, which is ok too.

So, basically, no one (except fundie loons) actually "use" the OT to live by.

Evoman wrote (of science):

Its also gives us confidence that god is not needed to explain the universe

Well, you must be very nervous when you go to bed at night if you require scientific proof of the non-reality of God. God fearing folk use science to keep warm by and drive more safely and to send $ to those tv evangelist preachermen that say "its for the good of the Lord, halleluyah, Amen, Brother" (only joking there, Evoman). But seriously, I have FAITH in God, based on nothing substantive, and my understanding of science has no conflict with my understanding of the Old Testament. So I dont need to gain any confidence from science to increase my faith (but as I say it doesn't negate or disprove it either, in my understanding), but I am surprised you say you need science to comfort you that God doesn't exist.

Imagine one of those things kids blow bubbles with - looks like a "P" somewhat. They dip in it bubble liquid (or washing up liquid) and blow through it. In my picture of the Universe the only thing God did was blow through the whole - He created it, then left it to fly away in the wind (so to speak). So in my mental picture of the Universe God looks on admiringly at His creation, (my what a beautiful bubble, and smiles), but doesn't play an active part. Just set the parameters for expansion of the universe and let it go....

How would you disprove THAT! (Or prove it?).


TRYPHO

[Evoman]

46. You misunderstood my point.

"Well, you must be very nervous when you go to bed at night if you require scientific proof of the non-reality of God. God fearing folk use science to keep warm by and drive more safely and to send $ to those tv evangelist preachermen that say "its for the good of the Lord, halleluyah, Amen, Brother" (only joking there, Evoman). But seriously, I have FAITH in God, based on nothing substantive, and my understanding of science has no conflict with my understanding of the Old Testament. So I dont need to gain any confidence from science to increase my faith (but as I say it doesn't negate or disprove it either, in my understanding), but I am surprised you say you need science to comfort you that God doesn't exist."

I never said I needed scientific proof to have no belief in god. I had no belief in god waayy before I knew anything about science. I was not talking about my personal beliefs or non-belief. My point is simply this: before evolution, we didn't really have an alternative to god or some sort of creator. Not really. Of course, there was no proof that god existed, but we had no other way to explain the diversity of species...to some degree, it was a failure of imagination. After evolution, god wasn't needed anymore. It opened up a new trail of thought without god as a conclusion.

I never EVER said I need science to comfort me. If I ever stopped "believing" in evolution (which is impossible, I cannot..it is as much a fact to me as gravity or cell theory), I would still not believe in god. When there is no evidence for something, the only reasonable position is to ignore it until you have more evidence, or not believe. Faith is self-defeating. If you have no belief, and evidence comes up, then its easy to change your mind. If you have faith in something with no evidence, then your stuck--since nobody can ever prove a negative, your mind is effectively closed forever.

As to god and his blowing bubbles...it makes little sense to me that a creature so complex and powerful could exist that could create a universe, and that the religious mind can stop at that. Where did god come from? Is he a result of natural selection and evolution? God is really a ridiculous concept.

[Meshuga]

50. Religion and Science

"After evolution, god wasn't needed anymore. It opened up a new trail of thought without god as a conclusion."

For scientists, the universe evolved from randomly conjoined combination of carbon, oxygen, and potassium molecules. According to Darwin, we were not designed by devine election but by natural selection. Clearly, "The Origin of the Species" is not "Genesis". However this distinction between scripture and science has never been viewed in Judaism as a contradiction, but rather as a different way of understanding, of describing, of thinking about the world.

In his commentary of on Genesis 1:1, the great 11th century commentator Rashi insists that Genesis does not set out to give a complete account of creation. The verses with which the Torah begins, he said "tell us nothing at all about the chronological sequence of creation."

There are accounts of the rabbis even deferring to gentile sources on matters pertaining science. In considering the debate on the calendar and the movement of the moon and stars, the Talmud concludes that "the word of gentile sages are preferred to the words of Jewish sages" (Peshachium 94b). We follow the gentile sages, Rabbi Rabi said, because in matter of astronomy they are superior to us. Truth is truth whatever its origin.

Given the tradition of distinguishing between religion and science, the Jewish world was not shaken by Darwinism. In contrast, the church felt compelled in choosing between the truth of Darwin or the truth of God's testament (either/or). Look at what happened to Giordno Bruno and Galileo. There are no parallel in Jewish history about such cases. The synagogue never produced a librorium prohititorum.

One of the great rabbinic enthusiasts of evolution, the first chief rabbi of Palestine Abraham Isaac Kook said:

"Evolution sheds light on all the ways of God. All existence evolves and ascends. The doctrine of evolution is presently gaining acceptance in the world has a greater affinity with the secret teaching of the kabbalah than all other philosophies".

Our sages were not bound by the fundamentalist literalism that can reduce religion to absurdity. We are taught that the Torah should be read like a Shirah (a poem) and to comprehend Torah you have to understand symbols, parables, metaphors, and allegories. Torah is art, a spiritual interpretation of life, not a mechanical record of facts. Science is concerned with facts. The Torah is concerned with values. Science look for physical truths but the Torah looks for subjective truths and again truth is truth whatever its origin.

As far as discussing God with a Jew it's a complicated subject. There is no simple or universal Jewish theology, but rather a process of searching for, rather than finding God. We search for our spirituality through deeds not through creed so we have to perform these deeds and not believe in a certain faith. We are taught that the thing we are looking for is one, it's omniscient, it's omnipresent, incorporeal, etc. We might feel that God's hands are behind creation when we look in awe and see the beauty in nature but the focus is how we need to lead our lives in order to experience "holiness" and what atheists explain it as feeling the satisfaction of doing something good for someone else. But the explaination on how things actually came to being is left to science.

[cain_7777]

28. What do you teach?

After reading many of your post, I am pleased to further read that you a developer of young minds. Evolutiounary Analysis was my favorite genetics class but it was many years earlier that a teacher like yourself set me down the path of natural science. Mrs. Gold my second grade teacher made us learn every bone in the body that sparked an interest leading me to pick up a few degrees- Biology, Physics, English, and am now finishing up Anthropology. I am the quentessential career student! Now I guess its off to grad school...MBA, Ph.D, so many choices. How'bout both?


In regards to your post: "God has nothing on evolution." -Evoman It seems as though the god created by man is weak and extremely fallible while natural law is Pure. Some fundies like to equate the two together but their god taints the mathmatics of nature.

[Evoman]

40. I'm a University lab assistant (grad student)...I conduct lab lectures and excercises.

I've taught a variety of labs...genetics, cell biology, and introductory biology. The lab that I taught (and that the admin liked me doing) was Biology for Non-majors. The lab consisted of introductions to taxonomy, evolution, and some genetics/cell biology. Basically, they gave me a bunch of students who were in the class for a science credit (a great deal of them were in the Arts, Education, and some Business/Admin). Most of the students had no interest in science and didn't want to be there....many of the other grad students avoided teaching it, because it can be disheartening teaching people with no interest in the subject.

I liked teaching it. I found it a challenge. I also found that many times, my students had a lot to teach me about what the common person really thinks about science. I made it my personal goal to change their minds, and maybe teach them something before they were out of the grasp of science education for the rest of their lives. All humility aside, I'm a funny, and engaging teacher, so many people ended up liking the class.

I can proudly say I even managed to convert a couple into science majors.

[MadBiologist]

65. Nice

Good job. I may very well end up teaching biology for non-majors next year as an undergrad if there are any openings (not enough grad students to cover the needed sections) And converting a few of them is my personal goal :)

(of course converting them could also be a part of that evil homosexual agenda as well... shhhh)

The problem is many of them do view science as a burden. Something to be skated through and forgotten because they wont use it. The goal is to teach them that science really is life. Maybe I am weird among biologists (if only half trained ones) when I say that I view science as the closest thing to a holy calling an atheist like me can have. Getting results back on a simple hybrid mortality experiment sends tingles up my spine, and looking at a person and having had the mystery of development lifted and knowing exactly how that individual was developed in the womb....and I am waxing poetic again

[trotsky]

30. Religion has spent much of its history disagreeing with facts.

This is sadly nothing new. Some believers even take strength from holding a belief that runs contrary to observable fact - their blind faith is considered a badge of honor.

[cain_7777]

32. Unfortunately

My two older sisters fall under that category. I throw every piece of knowledge that I have at those two and its like talking to a brick wall. I try to discuss the evolution of religion from an anthropological view - nothing. I talk about the bible in terms of literature; striking at the heart of it by showing its plagarism of older text from other religions and regions- nothing. I attempt to explain physics on their level of understanding to show Carl Sagan's view of the beauty of the universe that does not revolve around us-still nothing. I have even explained the biological facts about evolution and the equilibrium between life and the forces upon them over the millenia - still absolutely nothing. I love my sisters, they both have college educations(not that it means much in the poor US institutions), but religion has made them really, really stupid!

[TRYPHO]

33. Ask them what would it take to convinve them...

a) that God didn't exist

And then ask them what they have that they think might convinve YOU, a nonbeliever that

b) that God did.
--

Then beat them senseless and ask again.

Sorry, not much help really.

TRYPHO

[NMMNG]

47. Why are you trying to confuse fundies with facts anyway?

Do you want their little heads to explode? :nuke:

[Evoman]

48. Doing it with facts is easier, and less illegal, than doing it with dynamite.

Either way though, a fundie without a head is not that much different that a fundie with one. But the ones without the heads at least can't preach to you.

I kid, I kid. I love the fundies. They make great furniture after you bleach the bones with acid.

No, no...I'm kidding. REally. Thats a joke. I really do like fundies. They're great for pumping my gas.

No..seriously. I'm joking.

Geez, lighten up.