[This is re-posted from my March 18 blog post]
Most people are stupid. I've probably said a thousand times by now that the education in this country is atrocious, and our critical thinking skills are about on par with those of common mouse turds. I'm not entirely sure of it, but I'd be willing to bet a small fortune that religion (or at least, religiously-based thinking) is at the root of our collective ignorance.
"Da buybull sez..."
That ignorance is of the most terrifying molds: self-imposed. The fact that ignorance is necessitated by religion, coupled with the modern life-altering "gifts" that science, technology, and otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people have given us, should alone be enough for any sane person to loudly cast religion aside. As I've said in an earlier post, I feel that one of the worst things you could possibly do to yourself is to willfully shackle your mind. Evidence -- pure, unadulterated, on-the-nose evidence -- still isn't enough to make some people see the light, as it were.
So the story goes for the idiots in Waco, Texas, where atheist Bill Nye was literally booed during a lecture where he said that the moon reflects the sun's rays and gives off no light of its own. I mean...wow. Stop and think about that: there are actually grown human beings in this day and age...people with kids...who don't, can't, or don't want to understand that the moon doesn't make light. I suspect the latter, because it's not from a lack of education or some serious head trauma or something. It's because they believe in God. They think their God wrote a book and because it says that he "created two great lights" that any physical evidence, no matter how strong and solid, won't convince them otherwise.
"Jesus, please save us....from your people!"
The knowledge that people like that make up a majority of the electorate, are raising children, and have a say in the education of future generations makes me physically ill. After typing the above paragraph, I actually had to stop and go outside for a bit. Just like when politicians or judges simply ignore rules clearly stated in our Constitution, the realization that some (most?) people can't seem to put two and two together makes me wish there was another habitable continent on this planet that wasn't already filled with the likes of them.
Religion is to blame for the ignorance in Waco, surely. Religion is synonymous with ignorance; it means ignoring evidence and reason in favor of "this-is-how-it-is" doctrine from other morons who don't know what they're talking about. Christianity's book starts out with humans being ignorant, and the first attempt at knowledge warrants damnation of their kind. And think a little more on just how that story went down: you have two ignorant humans listening to opposing discussion (by a snake, no less). Now forget the symbolism, ridiculousness, and supposed sacredness of the text, and ignore the idea that the snake wasn't lying, etc. Just think about what the story implies. The worst thing you can do is talk to someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Ignorance is bliss.
And IGNORANT!
-STA
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 106
All I can add is my personal opinion that when people proudly proclaim that they have 'faith' it is tantamount to holding up blind ignorance as a much-admired virtue.
But I think THAT is s-l-o-w-l-y changing ... or should I say, 'evolving'.
Are you serious? People think the moon PRODUCES light?
I'm religious, I am NOT one of the Big 3 Religions. I love the end of your post about the garden of eden and the tree of knowledge and knowledge being a sin. That's awesome.
So if I someone is an atheist, according to da bully, sounds as if he's deduced that they're automatically smarter. That's ingenius logic. Where can I find this dude? I think I'm in love.
And, Sue, pointing out someone else's ignorance is not the same as claiming intelligence. You're much smarter than that.
And your sarcasm could use a little work, too.
I specifically quoted the heading of the two following paragraphs that did nothing but try to make non-atheists look like fools, and it was to that and the comments that I replied. There's not a whole lot of critical thinking needed, unfortunately. That you think that critical thinking is needed to discern 'the point' is certainly not my folly.
As far as the sarcasm in the first comment, no it wasn't that good, in fact it was downright lousy, because my best sarcasm usually goes unrecognized except by a few, taken quite seriously here, and provides me with a lot of entertainment.
The problem isn't that the people think...it's that they don't think....they don't want to think...they want to be told....reality doesn't matter to them.
Don't you think that's just a matter of not having been educated rather than anything else? I just don't see it as anything else. Am I really missing something here?
That said, it's clear that only a small minority of Christians would have a problem with this, and from the article, it seems that Bill Nye specifically brought up Genesis, which puts this in a slightly different light, I think. He wasn't just telling people about science--he was telling them that the Bible is wrong. And he has every right to do that, but then, to be fair, we need to admit that those who boo'd or stormed out might have been responding to what they saw as an attack on their religion rather than because they actually believed that the moon has its own light. What do you think, Tristan?
I read two different accounts of the incident at Waco...in both, the adults.... who reacted with ANGER... led their children away...they didn't question Nye about the scientific reason for the phenomenon..they simply threw the bible at the whole notion that a contradiction to the bible was possible.
As to the specific question you pose...."Don't you think that's just a matter of not having been educated rather than anything else?" ..I can't offer an opinion about the level of education these people have achieved...I do not know. Did they go to school and reject what the science teacher taught? Did they not go to school? Did they value the word of their preacher more than the words of science?... I don't know.
But more importantly...what else do they reject about the reality of the world and what are they teaching their children? If their children are being taught science in school...are the parents telling the children that their teachers are wrong?
My IMPRESSION..my wild stab is that these folks have rejected what they want to reject...not because they have not had the opportunity to consider science. It's not like it would take a high school education to have been taught that the moon is reflecting light...not producing light...this is elementary stuff.
Nonetheless, I don't agree that people who believe in the bible's inerrancy are stupid. And I have no evidence that you, Tristan, are any smarter than the average bible-believing Christian.
It would be comforting to think that we and those who believe as we do are the smart ones. That it is some lack of intelligence or willful ignorance that sets them apart from us. If that were true, we could ignore them in good conscience. We could not think about the ways we are just as misled or confused or illogical in spite of our attachment to the rational. We could avoid the difficult task of trying to forge political alliances across these fault lines with, for example, Evangelical Christians who believe poverty is wrong, and stand opposed to injustice.
I also don't think it's useful to disrespect or disdain entire groups of people. I think it would be good to change the political philosophy of these folks, but you don't do that through disrespect.
Even if you interpret the Bible literally, and I'm not sure exactly where in Genesis that allusion to the moon is offhand, I don't think the Bible is stating that the moon is its own source of light. As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible contains the truths of the universe, so I could not possibly think that it would state or imply anything other than what is already also scientifically known to be true.
I think your assessment of the negative reactions might be so. It doesn't mean anything to me one way or another when someone states, "Jesus, please save us....from your people!" That not only implies, but blatantly makes a statement that the people of Jesus are a people from whom the rest of the world needs to hide in fear because of such ignorance. To me, that is about as ignorant an understanding of what Christianity is as anyone not knowing that the moon reflects the light of the sun.
@Aniko: Even if Nye brought up Genesis specifically to point out that "little flaw", does that make it wrong? The fact is that Genesis IS wrong, and the people who believe in 100% bible truth can't reconcile that with reality. Religion gets a free pass all too often, and that's just what happened here. They were confronted with truth and they want to claim "religious attack" or whatever instead of dealing with reality. They want to have their Jesus cake and eat it too.
Sue, nowhere am I claiming that atheists are somehow smarter by default. There are some dumb atheists out there. I will say that the kind of thinking (or lack thereof) that's needed to produce the claims theists make can only come, like Chuck said, from willful ignorance. Most of the people who shun faith and gullibility are more likely to not accept religion as well, because religion entails faith and not thinking for yourself.
Sue--as I said, I know the vast majority of Christians would have no problem reconciling that line from Genesis with what they know scientifically about the nature of the moon. I can imagine, however, that it would become an issue for a few. I don't think those few represent the majority.
However, your principle that the Bible could only say what is scientifically known to be true doesn't necessarily lead to the acceptance of a scientific finding. When it comes to evolution, for example, some Christians interpret Genesis symbolically so that it doesn't contradict what is known scientifically, while others solve the problem by refusing to accept that evolution is scientifically known.
I have to agree with Charles and Aniko.
GOD DID NOT WRITE ANY BOOK~!! Men did, men who needed to create an atmosphere of awe and wonder and keep the people slobbering for a promise of Glory!
Well said Tristan!
The people I'm talking about here knowingly keep themselves away from reality because they would rather keep their belief in their religion. I once was talking to a theist and we got to the point where he was begging me to stop the conversation because he felt his belief slipping away. That kind of willful self-shackling is the very opposite of good mental health and the antithesis to progress.
Sue, nowhere am I claiming that atheists are somehow smarter by default. There are some dumb atheists out there.
You forgot to add that there are some brilliant religious people too, Tristan. :-)
I will say that the kind of thinking (or lack thereof) that's needed to produce the claims theists make can only come, like Chuck said, from willful ignorance.
That's true for some theistic claims (I suppose a defense mechanism that blocks certain directions that thinking could otherwise follow is a better description). There are some theistic claims though that merely appraise probabilities, or the significance of those probabilities to us, differently from the atheistic position.
Sure, there are some really smart theists. Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project is a Christian (he was walking in the woods and saw a waterfall that had frozen into three parts and because a Christian). He's a brilliant person, but when it comes to theism, he's a fucking moron. It's possible for smart people to believe stupid things, it's called compartmentalization. The point I've been making is that religion goes against critical thinking. Do I really have to make the case for that?
Hate the ignorance, not the ignorant.
Witness the statement that "religion is to blame for Waco." With that ignorant logic, you could blame every tragedy that has ever occurred on the planet on religion, and ignore all the investigations and historical facts behind each. You can also blame the Oklahoma City bombing on religion, an act carried out as revenge for the tragedy at Waco. There have been giant conflicts, down through history, that focus attention on the power of symbols and the emotional narrative of an insane leader. It operates on more than an individual level, having nothing to do with God, the Bible, or religion. Waco was a cult, led by a fanatic. The Branch Davidians were not a religious group that lived in a religious community. Rather, they were a "dangerous cult," of polygamists, among other things, who lived in seclusion, armed to the teeth with illegal weapons, abused women and children, then committed ritualistic mass suicide. Jim Jones, among a myriad of others also comes to mind... but you can blame this on religion, as well. These are akin to motivational symbols and rhetoric in everyday life that affect people in various ways, who have been brain washed by a maniac. Consider what the swastika , as one of the many symbols, meant to many.
Genesis 1-16 says, "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also." This being a reflection of the great light of day to separate it from the night, and reflect it's light, obviously. Ignorant atheists might miss that, however. since they lose the spirit and intent of God's word when it is not read in faith. God taught us all about life, how to live it, and living and loving throughout the Bible...he even told us, way back then in the Bible, that the world was round, among many of the geographic, etc. teachings of the Bible. Magellan just had to prove it, for atheists.
Tristan, your statement that "Religion is synonymous with ignorance," only reflects on you, your ignorance, and promotes your persistent articles --written only for the shock effect. That is stereotyping at it's worst and you're labeling about two billion people as "ignorant" with that broad brush.
Your main theme is always the same ... anyone who believes in God is silly, superstitious, ignorant, and unlearned. It's so old. You need to get a new theme for these silly articles.
I invite you to read, "Why I left atheism," here, an article similar to one you might, one day, write.
Like I said, religion gets a free pass, where we can't talk about it or criticize it (like the UN wants). Why do we have to live in a world where -- in the age of internet, modern medicine, technology -- we have to censor ourselves because religious people might get offended?
I do not believe those folks were under the impression that the moon does not shine because of reflected sunlight. The Book does not say, or imply, that one of those lights could not be reflecting the other, and indeed, at another point the difference between the sun and moon is used as an example of the differences in the basic nature of things. You may not be flexible enough in your thinking, to conceive of two lights not meaning two generators of their own light, but that is your problem, not those who study the Book.
I just read on another thread, that Mr. Nye made an obscene gesture at that meeting, and that is why a few folks walked out. Can you produce any statements by any people, Christian or otherwise, that actually declare a lack of belief that the moon shines by reflection? Or, are you simply assuming that was the problem folks had with Mr. Nye?
Okay -- that's my rant. Atheists can't remember that faith is believing without seeing and that kind of self-discipline is admirable, and Christians can't remember that their own leader, Jesus, asked them to see all as his God sees them: to see the good. I don't know. Well, there it is.
I did get your point about Nye's comment that the moon reflects the sun's rays; however, your other comments about:
"but I'd be willing to bet a small fortune that religion (or at least, religiously-based thinking) is at the root of our collective ignorance,
The fact that ignorance is necessitated by religion,
Religion is to blame for the ignorance in Waco, surely. Religion is synonymous with ignorance; it means ignoring evidence and reason in favor of "this-is-how-it-is" doctrine from other morons who don't know what they're talking about. "
seemed to be the larger part of the article's intent, and could have implied the "other" incident at Waco, as well.
I don't think I am prepared for you to say anything as disingenuous as, ""Jesus, I know that I am a sinner..." at this point. I would occasionally like something more from you, as an atheist, than "Christians are ignorant." You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance.
A fine rant, I think, with some rather good points.
(Though, I think that final paragraph could use a 'sometimes' or 'often', or two ; )
Consider that following: human sacrifice; torture; public executions for things like stealing bread [insert a list of favorite methods from a list of horrors]; ethnocentrism and racism; pogroms; widespread pillage and rape during wars; different legal status of slaves and free men, of nobles and commoners, of men and women; the treatment of children, the handicapped, the mentally ill--all these things have been steadily improving over the ages. We're more ethical today than we ever were in the past.
Religions are notoriously useless in encouraging good behavior, because they allow for self-serving justifications. Even though Jesus's message was universal, churches have a strong tendency to align themselves along nationalistic lines, for example--"God is with us". Not all religious people engage in such justifications, but there's no clear mechanism in religion to prevent them. And, in addition, there is no evidence that nonreligious people are any less ethical than religious people, or that less religious societies are any less peaceful.
"Religions are notoriously useless in encouraging good behavior, because they allow for self-serving justifications."
I disagree, completely. I know of no religion that "allows for self serving justification", not one. I know of adherents that do such things, against the teachings of the religion they profess to adhere to, but your comment just looks like self serving justification for badmouthing religion, to me. Honest.
(What am I supposed to be justifying, and through what? In other words, what is it that I'm doing that needs justification, and where's my claim to a superior channel to morality that makes me right, no matter what?)
The Middle Ages in Europe were a time of extreme violence, cruelty, murder, and mayhem. Yet practically every single person, as far as we can tell, not only believed in God, but in heaven and hell as well. When I was (sort of) religious, I tried to wrap my mind around how they were able to do this. In truth, I can't--I can only say that I don't see religion achieving what Michael S. is claiming for it. Perhaps you are right and the "adherents do such things against the teachings of the religion they profess to adhere to." I don't think that's much different from what I said, in practical terms--adherence to a religion doesn't make a person more moral. Whether it's because some people are fake believers (your version) or because engage in self-serving justifications (my version) doesn't make much difference from the point of view of the end result: lots of (supposedly) religious people, and no increase in ethical behavior.
No, atheists DO know what faith is, and it's anything but admirable. You having the conviction against all evidence that there's an invisible monster under your bed isn't an admirable virtue. There is nothing at all admirable about believing something -- anything -- without evidence. Actually, I highly doubt you nor anyone else can name me one other aspect of life in which faith exists.
Aimee: "You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance."
Indeed, this wasn't intended to be some kind of carefully reasoned explanation, and that's the main reason why I didn't submit it to the Debate Faith group. It doesn't stand on its own as a critical analysis of how theists are ignorant. What it does do is 1) highlight supreme ignorance (how could anybody this day and age not know basic scientific truths?), and 2) draw the comparison between what it takes for such ignorance to occur and what theists have (namely, faith).
"What it does do is 1) highlight supreme ignorance (how could anybody this day and age not know basic scientific truths?)"
No, it was just you claiming such things. You have yet to produce any evidence that those people, or any people, actually believe the moon makes it's own light. You claiming that is what was going on, is just some dude named Tristan, talking about what he imagined or heard a rumour about.
(By the way, you haven't demonstrated anything more than blind faith in some vague pseudo-entity you call "science". That don't take any real knowledge or education at all.)
"Just think about what the story implies. The worst thing you can do is talk to someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Ignorance is bliss."
. . . Is just plain funny, cause that ain't what the story says, or implies. You are ignorant of the very thing you use as a demonstration of other people's ignorance . . . This is rich ; )
I am thrilled that you claim no intent of an explanation to my comment which was, "You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance. " Your article mentioned, time after time, the ignorance of Christians for that belief.
Whether or not you submitted it to the Debate Faith group (whatever that is) is immaterial and irrelevant. You posted those comments in this article in this venue, and are unable to support your accusations of ignorance.The truth is you have no idea what those people knew. Nor do you know that every person who believes in God is ignorant. You failed to highlight supreme ignorance, or draw any comparisons on anyone but yourself.
I do understand you point Sue.
It's not my job to prove these people what those people knew. I took the story at face value. From the description, they left because they were confronted with descriptions about reality that conflicted with their core beliefs. Why else would people leave a building saying "We believe in God!" without some form of self-ignorance at show?
I think the larger point here is that you believe I'm calling you ignorant, and it hurts your feelings. But as I've stated before, Aimee, I hate ignorance, not the ignorant. Ignorance means lack of knowledge; it doesn't mean being stupid. Willful ignorance with regards to basic scientific knowledge is stupid, so say I. Whether it be regarding the moon shining, the earth being flat, or Creationism, those who keep themselves from reading, learning, and understanding remain ignorant -- and a lot of them wallow in the fact.
Your "case in point" link was another atheist, on a blog, saying the same things you say !
Your link to DZ Meyers, another of the "New Atheist Group," and ignored in many circles, is a Christian-hating fanatic, with a degree. He is being sued for assault, libel and slander. He desecrates the Catholic and Muslim religions, and the objects they consider sacred. Not an impressive link.
I prefer your own words, thoughts and opinions as opposed to links to other echoing atheists.
You said, " I think the larger point here is that you believe I'm calling you ignorant, and it hurts your feelings." I must inform you that you are totally incapable of hurting my feelings.
You dwell on your own personal premise about the ignorance of Christians for believing, which you now say means the lack of knowledge of the unread. You try to use a minute part of the great and extensive field of science ---that part which only attempts to deny the existence of God --- as supporting evidence for Christian ignorance. All two billion of us. That is intellectually unsound and incomplete.
I will repeat my original comment which you continue to ignore...." "You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance."
I agree with this. If ignorance was the defining factor for the reason to believe...there would be no people who have considered or investigated the reasons to not believe and yet still believe....taken a step farther....we would have no scientists who believe.
The logical error in the comparison of religion to logic is that, respectively, religion demands no logic....no proof...faith is independent of "proof".
So what is going on? Why do some believe while others do not? Well...one reason COULD be ignorance...."ignorance" being a lack of information...a lack of specific knowledge about a particular subject. Ignorance and intelligence are not opposites. One can be intelligent and ignorant at the same time. Personally...I am not spectacularly intelligent...but I'm at least average...hopefully.... slightly above average. I am, however, totally ignorant in many specific areas of learning...knowledge.
We do not know if the woman who grabbed her children and stormed out of the building at Nye's presentation did so because she was ignorant (had not been exposed to the scientific explanation for why the moon is radiant) or because she rejected the scientific explanation or because she she felt like Nye was attacking her belief system and was therefore insulted.
Back to your statement: "You must have something more carefully reasoned to explain Christian's belief in God other than their ignorance."
Many who have considered the question of why some believe and some do not have asserted that it is the "need" to believe that drives most believers...the not specifically defined "need". Believers believe because they WANT to believe...in order to fill that "need". So what about atheists? Don't we all have the same basic emotional needs...the same compulsion to gravitate towards the spiritual? Evidently not. I asked my sister in law why she believes. She can almost be considered a literalist...she has considered and rejected evolution for example. But when I asked her WHY she believes, her answer was.."I can't help it...I just believe."
This is the same answer I can offer..if asked in the same simplistic manner....I do not believe because I can not believe. Is it the way we are wired? I don't know... but Joseph Campbell believed that for most of us...and most of the world adheres to some kind of belief in a supreme being...the supernatural...the "need" is for the ritual of the belief rather than the specific belief. The reason is that ritual...a structured belief system help organize our lives...adds order and in most cases...meaning. It helps us keep from "free falling" through our lives.
To summarize...ignorance can be a contributing factor in one's personal belief system....but it is not necessarily so.
As an educator, I got stuck on your comment regarding education. Please do not "clump" all educators into any particular category. I can only speak for myself, but I feel it is my responsibility to unlock their minds and have my students think for themselves.
Education is mired with problems, no doubt, but there are many who are still fighting the good fight.
There is a bridge waiting to be built.
I do not have to show why all Christians believe in all types of their god, because that's not the point of the article. Most probably believe out of ignorance -- that is, not knowing a certain fact or set of facts can leave a gap open in their knowledge, and it is in that gap that God can fit. Sure, not all Christians believe because doing so answers questions for them. Like Slim said, some may believe because they're wired to; they just have to. Still, I took the point of the news story at face value. Doing so, it then follows that only a literal fundamentalist could get irate because a scientist talked about physical evidence. Thus, the only way to combat this is to fix the ignorance. It's out of ignorance that someone like that would feel that way. And I suspect that you believers here are ignorant of something, and that believing in God answers that question, closes that gap, for you.
JustMe: I didn't mean to forget about the ones in the educational system who are actually doing a great job. Case in point: Bill Gates' most recent TED talk. (Sue and Aimee: please pay attention to the subject matter within the video that I'm referring to, and not to the fact that Bill Gates is an atheist.)
I also gave the link to PZ Myer's blog because it was a source for the story.
Thank you for posting to this group whose only purpose is to thank you for posting to this group.
"Believers believe because they WANT to believe...in order to fill that "need".
Says who, Slim? How absurd to assume billions of your fellow humans are playing games of self delusion, cause it makes them feel better, and yet fail to grasp the possibility that such a belief in you as that, might be you doing that very thing. One cannot help but wonder WHY you're so easily convinced that ALL who believe merely "want to believe" . . . No chance THAT is self serving fantasy based acceptance of what absolutely cannot be known by you, but fulfils a "need" to stave off the possibility that it is YOU that is lacking awareness of what is really going on, eh?
I do not believe because I want to believe, but because I have witnessed numerous things first hand, that could only be happening if there was a "heart-knower" with the power to effect events in the space-time continuum, at will. I was led to wonder if such a Being might exist not because I was ignorant of what science had revealed about the continuum, but just the opposite. What I learned of quantum physics, the apparent origins of the universe, and the nature of living things, simply FORCED me, as a relatively logical and scientifically informed person, to face that potential.
I KNOW your hypothesis is wrong about at least one believer.
Although you are subtle in the supposition that Christians are ignorant for their beliefs, the image you portrayed leaves no doubt, or, at least, you were careful to retain that possibility. Then you offered that it may be a "want," or a "need." Neither of which would be my rationale for my belief system, to echo what John Knight said so well.
Every Christian has his/her own definition of God and why they believe. Most religious people have proven to themselves that God exists, but it is something they may not care to put into words, or attempt to encapsulate or explain. It is a personal relationship. I have experienced many evidences which supports the logical conclusion that God exists. Atheists, I believe, are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence, and may be why you can not believe.
There are a variety of stories of why people left Nye's presentation. Some say they left because Nye began dissing the Bible in a disrespectful way which they could not abide. Others say he was parsing Genesis 1:16 in order to take a jab at Christians. Others think he brought up the bible quote to make a point about religion, not science. John Knight read where Nye made an obscene gesture. And on and on. Each faction will choose to believe the version which best suits their agenda. Nye got the same reaction - to that same presentation - at Central Michigan University. Perhaps he is intentionally offending Christians.
You said, " One can be intelligent and ignorant at the same time. " At last, something we can agree on. Only I would change, "ignorant" to "lack of knowledge." For example: a urologist probably could not help me with a nephrology problem, but I would not think the urologist ignorant for that reason.
It's bizarre! If you're not calling us ignorant, you're calling us dense. When do you pause to consider that maybe it's "you?"
Like Sue, I could not even listen to all of the video in your "case in point" link and the PZ Meyers link was a lousy source which I could lend no credence to. That was like asking me to watch or listen to Manson talk about "Thou shalt not commit murder." Before I read, or listen to any videos, I ascertain who the speaker or writer is. Because you have proven yourself to not care about "who" is talking/writing (as long as they are echoing you) I will not go to any more of your links unless you include the source.
Tristan, you said, " Thus, the only way to combat this is to fix the ignorance. It's out of ignorance that someone like that would feel that way. And I suspect that you believers here are ignorant of something, and that believing in God answers that question, closes that gap, for you."
I quote that to point out that you used the word (or a derivative thereof) "Ignorant," three times in four lines of text. There's just something odd about that, which I won't elaborate further on.
Further, you must be careful about what you take at "face value," then write an article on it without checking for accuracy. To say that Nye was "a scientist talked about physical evidence." is disingenuous without relating the facts in their entirety. That brings to mind when the great atheist spokesperson, Dawkins, spoke about the "Religious behaviour in bipedal apes occupies large quantities of time."
Then you said, "I do not have to show why all Christians believe in all types of their god, because that's not the point of the article. Most probably believe out of ignorance -- ."
No, Tristan, you don't...and can't, because you're not qualified to do so. But there's that "ignorance " word again. It appeared 5 times in your one comment. Could I suggest "uneducated" or "unlearned" as a switch word?
I remember thinking holy cow, this guy has been through med school? And there were all the Republican politicoes scurryin around looking for court orders to prevent the poor husk of a former human being from being disconnected from the ventilator. I image that Sue will argue that this had nothing to do with politics, and that Frist was somehow right to interfere in such a heartbreaking family tragedy.
Aimee: Since you bring them up, let's look at these...
"Some say they left because Nye began dissing the Bible in a disrespectful way which they could not abide."
Okay, so making fun of the talking donkeys or the water-into-wine tricks? If so, they fit the description I've already commented about. If they got made because of that, it's because they're ignorant.
"Others say he was parsing Genesis 1:16 in order to take a jab at Christians."
Gen1:16 - "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
Besides the part about the moon, we know how stars are formed. It doesn't take a God. If they got mad because of that, it's because they're ignorant.
"Others think he brought up the bible quote to make a point about religion, not science."
So scientists shouldn't talk about religion? Is it only fair if theologians do it? If he did make a point about religion, it was probably to show how some aspect of it is demonstrably wrong. If they got mad, it's because they're ignorant.
"John Knight read where Nye made an obscene gesture."
I'd like to see credible sources for each of these...especially this one. I don't have the energy to argue how childish it would be to get upset at someone flipping the bird. Sure, if he did it out of spite to be hateful to some, that's different. But if he was joking or making some point, it's hardly something to get your pious panties in a wad about.
And Chris: Yeah, I miss Sagan too. But Nye's still making the rounds, and we got great, likable guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson taking up the baton these days.
I'm disappointed to see you didn't like my suggestion on the substitution for the "I" word !!!
The internet has many articles on what happened at the Nye presentation in Waco ! Just a little research can bring those into focus. I have provided some which you immediately labeled with the "I" word. I don't expect any other type of refutation from you, other than that.
As for the authenticity of the bible... I would have to ask what type of evidence you would be willing to accept as proof? We both know the answer to that.... NONE .... so presenting all that proof for you would be an exercise in futility. So, I won't waste too much time on this.
But ... . VERY briefly .... I could mention detailed Bible prophecies (more than 300) where it gives specific, detailed prophecies that have been and are being fulfilled just as written thousand of years ago.
I could mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Archaeology. Everywhere the archaeologist searches, he uncovers discoveries that bolster ... not refute ... support of the Bible as being a true account of history.
You turn to science, and the "I" word for the denial you espouse, without acknowledging that true science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.
"Every Christian has his/her own definition of God and why they believe. Most religious people have proven to themselves that God exists, but it is something they may not care to put into words, or attempt to encapsulate or explain. It is a personal relationship. I have experienced many evidences which supports the logical conclusion that God exists. Atheists, I believe, are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence, and may be why you can not believe."
Certainly Aimee...not only does every Christian have his or her definition of god...but so do non Christians. It IS a very subjective concept...the possibility of a supreme being or an ultimate authority...OR simply an "orderliness of the universe" so to speak....in which case there would be no "personal experience" as such...other than, I suppose, the awe and wonder of the unknown....a "connection" with the "everything" .
John Knight's and your criticism of my assertion that Christians believe because they want to believe is fair. I don't know that Christians WANT to believe, but it can be generally assumed that the Christian religion fills some NEED for the believer....just as all religions fill some need for those who have adopted a belief in a particular religious doctrine.
You said to Tristan...
"I could mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Archaeology. Everywhere the archaeologist searches, he uncovers discoveries that bolster ... not refute ... support of the Bible as being a true account of history."
This is a rather broad statement...'everywhere is a all inclusive place' ...but I wonder if you can be specific about which discoveries you are referencing? And I wonder how much you know about the real evidence that supports the authenticity of the Bible as an accurate historical account? Would you be willing to offer supporting evidence or references for your assertion? ("Everywhere the archaeologist searches, he uncovers discoveries that bolster ... not refute ... support of the Bible as being a true account of history.")
In my reply, at 5:15PM that day, I stated, "And...since condoms do not in any way inhibit the spread of HIV, it may be likely they can exacerbate the spread of the disease since people who use them to inhibit conception, which they don't even do very well, ARE likely also stupid enough to think that their use can prevent the spread of HIV. You were the one that said people are stupid. Suddenly, it behooves you to change your tune to make a stupid point. "
Just because I pointed out an inconsistency in your logic, it's quite a jump to say that I've accused you of 'making up stories,' if that's what you're babbling about. I agree that most people are stupid, and since that's so, if people who do use condoms to inhibit conception, and many of them do without any other contraception methods which is stupid in the first place, it also follows that these same stupid people may very well believe that condoms also prevent the spread of HIV. Therefore, the pope's conclusion that condoms exacerbate the spread of HIV may very well be so. It's the ignorance of people who use them. You can't say that most people are stupid and also assume that those people are smart enough to know that condoms don't do anything to prevent the spread of HIV, so their ignorance in the use may, indeed, spread the disease. That's all I was saying. I didn't accuse you of making up stories.
In that respect, you may be right. But the larger issue is that the Catholic Church condemns the use of condoms, period. Any chance they get, they try to lump prophylactics in with disease or just plain evilness. Still, that viewpoint has a basis in (here it comes, Aimee) ignorance. The Church's campaign on condoms is equivalent to the f undies' campaign on abstinence-only sex ed; it's demonstrably wrong and harmful.
It is painfully obvious to me that you are still under the impression that what pops into your head, is reality itself. I don't believe you have any particular understanding of science, or human nature, or history, that involves anything more than assuming you are privy to truth, by default. And what you mean by the term 'ignorance', is nothing more than that someone does not ascribe to the same self-worship dogma, you take to be the limits of wisdom.
I was saying that I, as a believer, have some evidence of the existence of God through personal experience. How can non believers define God, personally, for themselves when He is a being they don't believe exists? It seems to me that atheism is restricted to denying the validity of evidence... a weak position. Even so, atheism implies a faith, a faith that there is no God, and faith is changed by emotional experience, not intellectual discussion or debate.
You are right and I stand corrected on using the word, "everywhere." I try not to use those types of words...like "always," "never," and "everywhere."
The existence of God, and the miracles recorded in Scripture cannot be scientifically tested or repeated due to their nature; however, biblical persons, places, and events can be investigated historically, and often proven by archaeology. This has occurred down through time, recorded and provides unmistakable evidence of God and the truth of the Bible.
Contrary to what some atheists believe, Christians have also had their own doubts, and are not a mindless, question-less, naive, superstitious, struggle-free, unlearned group who arrived at a complete faith and trust of the existence of God and the Bible, without having had intelligent questioning, and "honest" doubt within themselves. Honest doubt is good. "Dishonest" doubt tends to mock and sneer, and imply believers are unlearned... akin to Dawkins advising to "debunk" anything about God/Bible validity, and some atheists obey.
Many archaeologists who were atheists have been convinced by their own findings that the Bible is an astonishing book - some even to the point of becoming Christians.
Now, to the archaeology, which falls into the category above, the reason for the foregoing. One of the best external sources for getting at the historical claims of the Bible, and it's validity is through archaeology. There is an excellent book about evidential archaeology as it relates to affirming Biblical history: "Archaeology and the Bible," by Donald J Wiseman. It is estimated there are about 25,000 Bible sites found through archaeology. here Of course, I couldn't list them all here :) Here are a few:
Sodom and Gomorrah found here
The Dead Sea Scrolls found here
Proof of the Hittites, thought to be mythical found here
Six more cites uncovered: here
Archaelogical Evidence of Biblical Eventshere
Atheism is defined as a LACK of a belief in a god. Atheism..."a" ..without, "theism" ...a belief in a god. I have a lack of belief...not a belief. I do not believe a god exists....it is NOT "I believe a god does not exist". I must believe that a god is possible before I can believe that a god does not exist.
Additionally...I have no "faith" that a god does not exist. "Faith" is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". My belief is based upon the LACK of logical proof or material evidence so my LACK of belief is not faith.
Concerning archaeological evidence that supports the bible history as accurate. This is a mixed bag of concepts rolled into one. Archaeological evidence can support the existence of cities and places...men and historical events....but there is no archaeological evidence that supports the stories themselves. You admit this (the miracles recorded in Scripture cannot be scientifically tested or repeated due to their nature; however, biblical persons, places, and events can be investigated historically, and often proven by archaeology.) ...but then go on to say that the archaeological evidence is proof. (provides unmistakable evidence of God and the truth of the Bible. )
From your first source...."Uniqueness- Though it doesn’t make it true, the uniqueness of the Bible is unparalleled."
No...the Bible is not unique with regards to its stories. Many of the stories have been told time and time again with origins that precede the estimated 1600 year span in which the Bibles' stories were written.
"History and Archaeological- There hasn’t been a single fact of history that has contradicted the Bible. "
Hmmmm....so if a big wooden Ark CANNOT be found...there is no contradiction with history and the Bible....but IF a big wooden ark IS found...the Bible is proved to be true.
This pretext is a logical fallacy....the fallacy of negative proof.
"Prophecy- This is truly the greatest proof of the Bible (Isaiah 48:3-7)."
This is very simple....if one has knowledge of the prophesy...it is very easy to construct "proof" of the prophesy. Consider the prophesy of the savior Jesus...The books of the four gospels fulfill the prophesy of Jesus' life...but they do so more than 150 years after Jesus lived...IF he did in fact live. The story follows the prediction....but the prediction is already known to the story teller.
I can go on here...and I am willing to consider the validity of the "proofs" you offer for the historical validity of the Bible. But the method of broadcasting links to articles rather than discussing the specifics of the articles...the claims..is not a viable means by which specific points may be exchanged.
You are still speaking in generalities when you throw out a handful of links...and do not address specific claims.
I am unable to understand if I insulted your sensitivities by my statement where I said, "...atheism implies a faith, a faith that there is no God..." Atheists profess all kinds of skeptical opinions regarding Deity. It seems that atheists who put their faith in science to deny God take a greater leap than religious people.
I did not intend to be offensive to you, personally. There are any number of definitions of atheism, and what any one atheist may perceive.. My definition for atheism is simply disbelief in any deity ---without getting hung up on semantics. That leads to a circular debate, ending up where we began, mostly ignoring the central issue. Deciding if there is the "possibility" of a God should perhaps be the first concern to resolve. If one determines God is not possible then there is no further need for discussion.
In the final analysis, it's all about faith. I, and 2billion other Christians have a firm belief in God. I will never be able to prove God to those who have already closed their minds to the possibility of His existence, and you will never be able to disprove God. That relieves the responsibility if any onus or burden of proof.
Atheists work very hard to convince themselves and others, on a seemingly consistent and active basis, that there is no God . I don't believe there is a talking rock but trying to prove that there is not one does not occupy one moment of my time or any of my intellectual or physical energies. It would never occur to me to wager a campaign of hate, name calling and insults against any one who may wish to believe there is a talking rock.
It also seems that atheists cannot simply speak/write about their disbelief, and the reasons they do not believe, specifically. They must include an attack on Christians, and dedicate most of the article/speech to how ignorant the Christian is for his/her faith.
In my comment, I said: "but there is no archaeological evidence that supports the stories themselves." I stand firmly behind that statement. Archaeologists cannot prove the stories of the bible. For example...an archaeologist could never prove, through digging, whether or not Jesus told a woman to go and sin no more, or what God said to Moses on the mountain. I added that Archaeologists digging and excavating have uncovered unmistakable evidence of the remnants of places, etc spoken of in the bible. I stand firmly behind that statement, as well.
I provided links to some of those. Admittedly those links were not actual archaeologists reports. They were the best samplings, from sources I considered reliable, from hundreds of articles I have read, all saying basically the same thing as shown in those links. I would not expect they would suffice for any who are predisposed to reject anything that might lend any support contrary to their belief that God doesn't exist.
I suppose with more research I could have located the specific archaeologists reports. I hoped any readers would only read and concentrate on the specific part of the link that concerned the main subject, archaeology. Perhaps that wasn't fair. Right now, time is not permitting extensive research which might be more effective...but then, I'm not really sure of that, either.
The stories in the Bible are indeed "unique." They are distinctly characteristic of stories told only in the Bible. The number of times they have been "re-told" has nothing to do with their original and sustaining uniqueness. Considering the Bible is the most read book, those stories will continue to be told and re-told and never lose their uniqueness.
The old testament prophecies of Jesus were written 300 to 500 years before his birth. I guess you're implying, in your comment about prophecy, that Jesus came with script in hand, and many hundreds of other people of those days were also characters with like script, in the play, and they all acted out according to the 500 year old script.
There are hundreds of other Bible prophecies, not concerning Jesus, which have been and are being fulfilled, including many prophecies about Israel and the Jews. Are all of these events that have occurred - and are occurring - which fulfill those prophecies, just being acted out by millions of people today, as actors on a stage, in a planned and rehearsed performance, according to some pre-written script? One that was written many hundreds to thousands of years before. Or are they people living their lives that happen to fulfill a prophecy?
"The stories in the Bible are indeed "unique." They are distinctly characteristic of stories told only in the Bible. "
No they are not Aimee. The Bible IS a retold story...the bible is a retelling of stories....stories that had been told long before the first books that became the Bible were written. The creation, the flood, the savior, the snake...all the stories that make up the Bible are copies of stories that were told long before the books of the Bible were written.
Just ONE example is the comparison of Krishna and Jesus...just the birth comparisons...but the parallel extends much further.
From "The Christ" bu John Remsberg
1. Both were miraculously conceived.
2. Both were divine incarnations.
3. Both were of royal descent.
4. Devatas or angels sang songs of praise at the birth of each.
5. Both were visited by neighboring shepherds.
6. In both cases the reigning monarch, fearing that he would be supplanted in his kingdom by the divine child, sought to destroy him.
7. Both were saved by friends who fled with them in the night to distant countries.
8. Foiled in their attempts to discover the babes both kings issued decrees that all the infants should be put to death.
Writing of Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones says: "In the Sanscrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country" <.i> (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).
I will offer you this....submit a story you feel is unique to the Bible...I will counter with a story that proceeded the Bible by many years...the story will be almost completely the same...the names and places will differ.
You said, "...This atheist does not profess to know that god does not exist...what I have said and what the term "atheist" means is that we have a lack of a belief in a god..."
That is different from any other definition of atheist I have heard. That is the reason I said earlier that each atheist has his/her own definition of their atheist status. Here are some differing definitions:
"But the Christian God does not exist. If he did, I think we humans would need a Devil to stand up for us, but he doesn't, so we don't."
The above statement is in the third paragraph from: "An atheist reads the Bible," by Bjorn Staerk here
From AOL dictionary, the definition of an atheist: "one who believes that there is no deity"
here
Webster's New Dictionary of the English language defines atheist as, "One who denies the existence of God."
Startled, I am. Absolutely startled that you would liken Jesus tp Krishna. Startled that you would declare the precise stories in the Bible having been told before. Unless, of course, you use the same criteria for the stories as you did in comparing Jesus with Krishna.
There are major differences which would disqualify Krishna, a mythical character, from ever being considered a likeness of Jesus. Even though there are paralells, I'm confident we could make paralells between any two characters we chose to, given a good motive.
1. Krishna was not born of a virgin.
2. Krishna's mother, Devaki, had 7 sons.
3. Mary conceived Jesus through the action of God the Holy Spirit.
4. Vasudeva is the father of Krishna, Balarama and Subhadra. His wives are Rohini and Devaki.
5. Krishna is a Hinduism and Indian mythology character, said to be an eighth reincarnation of the god, Vishnu. Krishna is a myth thought to be a an Indian god.
6. His mother, Devaki, had a stepbrother named Kamsa. Kamsa killed Devaki's first six sons because he had been told one of her sons would kill him.
7. One of her sons, Krishna DID kill Kamsa.
8. Krishna's parents exchanged him for the daughter of a herdsman, and mythology says she turned into a hawk.
9. Legend says Krishna may have had as many as 16,000 wives.
10. Hindus' say that whether there actually was a mythical Krishna is not important to them.
here
Even now, all it would take to create a likeness theory questioning the existence of, or lack of belief that the story of George Washington as our first president, is a relentless presenting of made-up facts surrounding him, their sources and their purpose. More interesting ... how will he be perceived 2.000 years from now should any group be motivated to defile him?
Just for fun ... I find the Biblical story of Queen Esther to be unique.
"Slim,
You said, "...This atheist does not profess to know that god does not exist...what I have said and what the term "atheist" means is that we have a lack of a belief in a god..."
That is different from any other definition of atheist I have heard. That is the reason I said earlier that each atheist has his/her own definition of their atheist status."
Look at the word itself.."atheist" ...atheist originated in two Greek roots: “A” which means “without” or “not” and “Theos” which means “deity".
It is am impossibility, logically to either prove or DISPROVE the existence of a god.
"There are major differences which would disqualify Krishna, a mythical character, from ever being considered a likeness of Jesus"
No...I said that Jesus can be considered to be a likeness of Krishna. The latter precedes the former in history. Additionally...there is no proof that Jesus was NOT a mythical character...which is one point of my argument. The parallels are considerable as Krishna's and Jesus' stories are compared. Are you insisting that every detail be identical before the comparison can be considered worthy of investigation?
A couple of your counters...
1. Krishna was not born of a virgin.
No of course he wasn't...that is impossible. But the story of Krishna SAYS he was born to a virgin. ...same as the story of Jesus. Some say the myth of Krishna describes Krishna as the eighth child of Devaski...others that Devaski was a virgin at the time of Krishna's birth...."In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." *
"Mary conceived Jesus through the action of God the Holy Spirit."
We do not know that Jesus ever lived...
"Hindus' say that whether there actually was a mythical Krishna is not important to them.
There cannot be an "actual mythical" anybody. It is either or...actual or mythical. But...some Christians say that it does not matter to them whether the story of Jesus is real or not (myth or fact)...it's the message that counts. But this is not what we are debating.
"Even now, all it would take to create a likeness theory questioning the existence of, or lack of belief that the story of George Washington as our first president, is a relentless presenting of made-up facts surrounding him, their sources and their purpose. More interesting ... how will he be perceived 2.000 years from now should any group be motivated to defile him?"
This has nothing to do with our conversation...you have introduced a straw man argument....a misdirection.
"Just for fun ... I find the Biblical story of Queen Esther to be unique."
I'm glad you used the term "unique"...it makes things simpler for me....because unique Esther's story is not.
First...but not pertinent to the comparison I will make between the story of Esther and the Babylonian goddess Ishtar....is the point that the story of Esther contains specifics contradictory to known (recorded) history.
The dates of the story of Esther do not fit the time frame of the existence of the known kings (Persian) having a Jewish wife. **
The division of the empire into 127 provinces contrasts strangely with the twenty historical Persian satrapies.**
There are many more contradictions to history in the Book of Esther. See the article **
"There are many elements within the story that leads one to conclude that the origin of the story was not from history but from an ancient Persian folktale.
* The very name Esther is a derivative of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. In fact, the Aramaic version of the goddess’ name was Esther. Even her original Hebrew name, Hadassah (Esther 2:7), is closely related to the Babylonian word for “bride”.
* The name Mordecai itself is not Hebrew and seems like a derivative of Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonians. In Babylonian mythology, Marduk and Ishtar are cousins, just like Mordecai and Esther in the story.
* Even the name of King Xerxes’ original wife Vashti, mentioned in the Book (Esther 1:11-2:1) was not a historical figure. The real wife of Xerxes during the earlier years of his reign, according to the Greek historian Herodotus, was Amestris, the daughter of a Persian general. The name Vashti came from, you got it, Babylonian mythology. Vashti was the name of an Elamite Goddess.
* Even the name of the chief villain of the story, Haman, the prime minister in Xerxes’ court (Esther 3:1), is fictional. There is no historical reference to any ministers in Xerxes’ court with such a name. Furthermore, the name of the chief male Elamite god is Hamman.
The considerations above are revealing-apart for king Xerxes, the names of all the other major characters from the book of Esther can be shown to be derived from Babylonian mythology." ***
And so...the story of Queen Esther is NOT unique. I can't prove that the Story of Esther is a myth...but the evidence strongly supports the assertion that not only is the story not unique...it is very likely that the story is remake or a retelling of a Persian folktale.
Just for fun...do you want to do this again? I'm not being snide...I really enjoy this kind of exchange and I enjoy the challenge as a personal motivation or incentive to investigate the history of the Bible....it is very interesting.
* http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm
**http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=483&letter=E
***http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ruth.html#esther