The bible makes you stupid

[DYNAGOD]

Evidently theres a new 25million dollar museum on creationalism  opening in Petersburgh, Ky. by a gentlemennamed Ken Ham...
this is the kind of things  he has to say..

Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures

[knuttz]

As a modern Christian I have a real problem with the literal translation of the bible that this person is trying to present.  I think people need to realize that the bible was written long ago for people who wouldn't understand concepts such as evolution.  I personally don't think the world was really created in seven days or that two of every type of animal could really fit on a boat.  While I do believe in many stories in the bible, I know that some are morality tales and should be taken as such.  I would also like to hope that the author of this post doesn't label all Christians as stupid... Just morons like this.

[monkeybomb]

I think Christians get labeled as stupid because these guys are the loudest.

[jbox]

Not that I aint all for a lynchin', but I'm surprised how many people assume that all the animals on Noah's ark were fully grown adults... 

[paigeoliver]

I am not a literalist, but I have no PROBLEM with that point of view. I do take a bit of issue with the fact that the UNBIASED article about it went out of their way to dig up a pro-gay bishop from one of the only pro-gay denominations on earth to try to make him seem like a loon. Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with anything in that article.

So basically what I saw there is them digging up a "man of god" who ignores clear scripture to attack one who is merely promoting a harmless misinterpretation.

If he (and other people) have to believe that some passages are literal in order to hold to their beliefs, then so be it. Better than simply ignoring the parts of your religion that aren't popular.

I personally believe that modern scientific ideas and the stories in Genesis are describing the EXACT SAME THINGS and EVENTS, and that the earliest parts of Genesis were written in a way that is still TRUE, but is easy for people from all times to understand.

[DrewKaree]

Not that I aint all for a lynchin', but I'm surprised how many people assume that all the animals on Noah's ark were fully grown adults... 

It's why many have to take so much time when answering "if a plane loses both its engines and crashes to the ground right on the border of two countries, in what place would you bury the survivors?"

Dynagod, I don't know about the guy's timeline, but the theory and science behind floodwaters forming the Grand Canyon are out there for you to read about.  Are you simply dismissing it out of hand because you don't believe it could be possible, or have you actually done the research and this ISN'T a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't find to be plausible?

[jbox]

Are you simply dismissing it out of hand because you don't believe it could be possible, or have you actually done the research and this ISN'T a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't find to be plausible?

Just out of curiosity, was that aimed at me?    Because I could have sworn I was the one saying that it's not *implausable* to build an ark once you ditch the assumption that the animals were adults. I know it's probably quicker for you to assume I disagree with you on every possible matter, but in this case every SF writer I read has no problems dreaming up colony ships containing every species of beetle in the library, and that's a lot of beetles. Now imagine a room full of eggs, that's a lot of eggs.

Just because I don't think the bible is literal, doesn't mean there isn't some truth to the matter. It's that kind of sloppy thinking that allows me to believe there was a great revolutionary dissident two thousand years ago, without having to get into a holy war over what his dying words were (for example). 

[jbox]

someone needs to put a match to this place before any young impressionable kids actually buy into this moronic viewpoint.

Which is what some people might call "Full Circle".     Some might say this is a good thing for kids, because it gives you the chance to talk to them about what different kinds of constructive arguments are, and when you should and should not challenge your axioms. It's never too early to teach your kids to think. 

[DrewKaree]

Just out of curiosity, was that aimed at me?    Because I could have sworn I was the one saying that it's not *implausable* to build an ark once you ditch the assumption that the animals were adults. I know it's probably quicker for you to assume I disagree with you on every possible matter

No, in trying to stop my own knee from jerking violently, I forgot one important word to separate my comments.  I've made the proper changes and offer my aplogies.

It IS quicker to assume you're wrong  disagree with me on everything, but you are the middle voice here and I appreciate the fact that you are making points I'd like to.  It sounds less insane and rant-y when you say it, so mebbe I should work my mojo through you

Please forgive me, for you knew not who I meant

[shmokes]

I am not a literalist...blah blah blah

Read:  When the bible makes claims that make believers appear foolish I simply say it doesn't mean what it explicitly says.  But when those damn homos are involved, well, there's no room for interpretation there.  Put them up against the wall!

Read Genesis.  It is pretty clear about how long ago ol' Adam was kickin' it in Eden.  It was about 4000 years B.C.

By the way, did Noah have to take all the microbes, too?  How big do you suppose the animal have to be to qualify for admission to the ark?  Tapeworms?  How about Herpes or Genital Warts?  I can only think of one way he could have brought them on the boat, considering the available technology, heh.  Now, how about dogs?  Did he just need two dogs, or did he need two german shepherds, two border collies, etc.  Penguins and Polar Bears probably presented a problem, I'd guess.  I mean, even if he was just transporting eggs, he'd have a tough time getting far enough North to pick up penguin eggs, and don't ask me how he got close enough to a couple of polar bear cubs without getting mauled by their mommy.  Hey...did you know that to this day the number of unknown species of animal living in the Amazon jungle is estimated in the hundreds of thousands or maybe millions?  Noah had his work cut out for him.  Hell, look at bees.  Do you think a yellow jacket will mate with a honeybee?  An army ant with a fire ant?  A black widow with a daddy long legs (actually daddy long legs aren't even spiders -- and are not poisonous).

Allow yourself a little latitude, god people.  If you can concede on the age of the earth being a bit more than 6,000 years old, you can certainly give a little ground on the equally absurd idea that Noah put two of everything, excluding sea creatures, though he must have taken freshwater fish (or vice versa), on a boat for any length of time without so much as a petri dish.  Eggs need incubators, you know...  Animals need food.  What were the cows grazing on, or did he just ultrasound a couple of pregnant cows to make sure he got a girl and a boy and do a quick surgery to get at the uterus and then wrapped the little tykes in a blanket for the journey?

[paigeoliver]

The age of the earth to literalists is based soley on adding up ages in geneologies. The early books of the bible (like ALL ancient manuscripts) have problems with numbers (first off), and Jesus (or possibly Paul) said something about Geneologies being unimportant.

The bible having problems with numbers doesn't hurt my faith one bit. When it says 30,000 men went out to battle, do I think that there were exactly 30,000? Nope, but I do think that meant there were a WHOLE BUNCH of them.

The 6,000 age of the earth is based off of adding up numbers from all over the bible. Essentially it is an interpretation, not pulled from one part of scripture, but from all over the place. I am not of the belief that it adds up to the beginnings of the earth, but it COULD darn well add up to the fall from Eden.  You can string me up for it, but I believe that the story of Adam and Eve was about a whole bunch of people, before changing focus to a single family. Read it in Hebrew (or English with the knowledge that Adam and Man are the same word, and that word can be read as plural or singular), and note the implication that there were already whole generations of people in the garden (Genesis 3:16).

In many cases the church has doggedly held onto translation errors for centuries after they were known. Most bibles still say that Moses parted the "Red Sea", when the original text says "Yam Suph" which is sea of Reeds, or "Reed Sea", a different (much smaller) swampy body of water.

Sections on homosexuality are extremely clear. Read them in english, read them in the original languages, they are REALLY clear. The only way around them is to say that Paul's teachings, the law, and the story of Sodom were all false.

And also really, everyone harps on about homosexuality, when we view sex outside of marriage the same way. The people having sex outside of marriage outnumber the homosexuals 10 to 1.
Lying is the same thing, and that gets almost every one.
Idolatry is the same thing (getting a lot more people than you think, cough, sports, cough, arcade games, cough).
All sin separates man from God and has the same result. The sin of homosexual relations is no better nor worse than lying, lusting, stealing, or any other sin.

I know a married woman whom I feel a (quite natural) desire to sleep with. I have even had a few dreams about her. Does that mean it is not sinful to follow through on those desires? After all, they are NATURAL?

I don't see homosexuals as any different than I am. They have sinful sexual desires, and SO DO I!

[jbox]

It IS quicker to assume you're wrong  disagree with me on everything, but you are the middle voice here and I appreciate the fact that you are making points I'd like to.  It sounds less insane and rant-y when you say it, so mebbe I should work my mojo through you

Ahh, the thrill of the chase, who is hunting whom? I love this part the most - the part where *both* of us think the other guy just accepted the thin end.

[allroy1975]

I think I saw someone from Monty Python quoted on this board once and they said something like....why don't people outgrow god.  it's just like santa and the toothfairy, but we grow out of those. 

He sees you when you're sleeping he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake!  errr..  godness sake.  it's funny because I hear a lot of parents tell their kids around Xmas time that if they're not good they'll tell Santa not to bring them any gifts (as if santa needed to hear it from them...obviously he knows and sees all...like the great and powerful OZ!) but the rest of the year you never hear them saying "if you're not good I'm gonna call god and you'll spend the rest of eternity burning in the firey pits of hell!" 

ahhh...idle threats.  or is it idol threats? 

Allroy

[paigeoliver]

but the rest of the year you never hear them saying "if you're not good I'm gonna call god and you'll spend the rest of eternity burning in the firey pits of hell!" 

ahhh...idle threats.  or is it idol threats? 

Allroy

For some reason this reminded me of the little boy in my childrens church class that I teach, who was quite sure that he gets to go to heaven an BE God after he dies, not meet him, not be with him, BE him.

[Bones]

Age has given me tolerance but not lack of enthusiasm for such subjects.

It is clear to me that if the bible claimed that the Earth was flat, there would be people regardless of fact or common sense that would believe and argue this perception despite the alarming evidence to the contrary. It is also not impossible for me to speculate that they would find arguable evidence to support their flat Earth claim.

So what harm would there be in believing and arguing the Earth was flat? I think the answer is none apart from the possibility that their incorrect belief may influence others.

The harm in this scenario? Well clearly the Earth is not flat but somebody who was raised and educated that the Earth was flat and spent their entire life believing such a fact would be unable to intelligently accept new evidence presented to them even for consideration. Evidence that may enrich their lives or open a door of discovery or wonder.

I don't believe the title of this thread to be correct. But.... I do believe that the bible can remove a persons ability to accept reasonable arguments and evidence and in doing this it produces a type of "deception cloak".

Again, I do feel I have become tolerant in age but when facts are no longer able to be considered due to such a "deception cloak", I feel this is rather sad. It is not that the atheist or anti-bible theories are not agreed with, but the fact that they can no longer be considered in a rational or logical manner.







"Deception cloak" is a TM of the Bones Incorporation and may not be reproduced without written concent from a Bones Incorporated representative.

[paigeoliver]

Actually, other than being thought of as a loony, I can't actually see how believing in a flat earth would negatively effect ones life either?

[Bones]

Actually, other than being thought of as a loony, I can't actually see how believing in a flat earth would negatively effect ones life either?

I agree with what you say to some extent.

But would you want your children to believe such a perverse incorrect fact or would you want them to embrace the round Earth theory and in the process understand the seasons or magnetism or the environment etc etc etc....

When reasonable facts are ignored or no longer considered people stop learning and this in my opinion is what makes our species and our life special.

[Spaced Invader]

There will always be those who cling blindly to what they are taught...in church, in school, and on television...they cling without question, without investigation, and without thought. These people are sheep...nothing wrong with sheep...I enjoy a little mutton now and then. But not everyone with a belief system is a sheep.

There are those who do question, investigate, and even think. And if after all that effort they can still walk away with a belief structure that has room for a creator...then I applaud them...at least they have made up their own minds. If however. they loose their faith in their search for the truth...they will also be met with my admiration...they too have made up their own mind.

Faith isn't the enemy of reason...untested faith is.

But save room for the sheep...the world needs sheep. Besides I'm working on a little religion/cult of my own (L. Ron Hubbard has always been my role model)...memberships now being accepted. 

[DYNAGOD]

I have no problem in anyone believing what they want to believe, but its when you present it as fact that i have a problem with it. To me, the word museum means
a place where scientific fact is explained and its related evidence displayed. i do not consider a museum to be the correct place for the pushing of an extremist religious agenda.
museums are for all, and a church is only for those who beleive in that particular faith , to combine the two leads to the inevitable exclusion of others and blurs the lines between scientific fact and religious faith..

another thing i love is how these people vehemontly(sp?) deny science in the face of fact and utterly refuse to even hear it, but as soon as they get cancer or some other life threatening disease you dont hear them turning down the leading edge medical treatments that those sciences developed..

[fredster]

the word museum means
a place where scientific fact is explained and its related evidence displayed.

Nah.  A "Museum" is a historic showplace.  Otherwise, the museum dedicated to the UFO crash in Roswell wouldn't be there.

another thing i love is how these people vehemontly(sp?) deny science in the face of fact and utterly refuse to even hear it,

  That's thier choice too.  Not all of them stop believing when there is a problem either.  There will always be those people who hold on to an idea or a philosophy so tightly that they will not budge for facts.  It happens in all religions and all societies.

There are even people so extreme that they fly airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up for thier beliefs.

[ChadTower]

how can people with so much money be so utterly and unquestionably stupid?

This from a man who likes to yell that BUSH WON.  Is there a better example?

[fredster]

someone needs to put a match to this place before any young impressionable kids actually buy into this moronic viewpoint

I just noticed that.  Wow, that's tolerance for ya!  They did that in the 30's with books they didn't like in Germany.

[jbox]

P(theta) > 0.999999... 

"I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't deal with is therefore your own problem." - Trillian

[ChadTower]

They did that in the 17th century with people they didn't like in Massachusetts.

[DYNAGOD]

how can people with so much money be so utterly and unquestionably stupid?

This from a man who likes to yell that BUSH WON.  Is there a better example?

you got me confused with someone else

and theres a huge difference between putting a match to building as opposed to burning people alive at the stake, its this kind of extremism that makes your views so hard to swallow. and certianly im not being serious..

[ChadTower]

you got me confused with someone else

Oh, yeah, DrewKaree, sorry about that.

I still hold Bush up as the prime example of how someone with that much money can be that stupid.

[Teknique]

I have no problem in anyone believing what they want to believe, but its when you present it as fact that i have a problem with it. To me, the word museum means
a place where scientific fact is explained and its related evidence displayed. i do not consider a museum to be the correct place for the pushing of an extremist religious agenda.
museums are for all, and a church is only for those who beleive in that particular faith , to combine the two leads to the inevitable exclusion of others and blurs the lines between scientific fact and religious faith..

another thing i love is how these people vehemontly(sp?) deny science in the face of fact and utterly refuse to even hear it, but as soon as they get cancer or some other life threatening disease you dont hear them turning down the leading edge medical treatments that those sciences developed..

the Smithsonian Natural History museum presents the evolution theory as hard fact.  While evolution itself may be the best plausible scenario for the history of human kind, the idea that it is presented as an undisputed "fact" (in which minor details seem to change from year to year)is something to be wary of also.  Its easy to call Christians 'closed minded' people, but everyone needs to have an open mind when even our top scientific minds say they are not sure how we came to be.   

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

I defend this guys right to do what he wants.  This is a competition in a way, and can be viewed as such.  Who will win science or religion?  Either way, it serves to bring out the facts and the truth through this active form of competition.

MC

[Stingray]

It is clear to me that if the bible claimed that the Earth was flat, there would be people regardless of fact or common sense that would believe and argue this perception despite the alarming evidence to the contrary. It is also not impossible for me to speculate that they would find arguable evidence to support their flat Earth claim.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm



As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever nutty thing they want. I'm fine with it as long as they don't try to impose it on me. Personally, I believe I'll have a beer.

-S

[Zakk]

You guys are arguing religion again? Phht, I'm with Stingray.  Anyone who wants to get out of an argument that can't be won come join us for a beer

[Stingray]

You guys are arguing religion again? Phht, I'm with Stingray.  Anyone who wants to get out of an argument that can't be won come join us for a beer

Off to start a new thread.

edit:  http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,37211.0.html

-S

[Dartful Dodger]

The bible makes you stupid

...

and certianly im not being serious..

...

I have no problem in anyone believing what they want to believe, but its when you present it as fact that i have a problem with it.

I have a problem with people believing in something they don't think is fact.

[RetroBorg]

I pity you Christrians and feel sorry for you Atheists as thou has found enlightment through the one true religion and that religion is Jedi.

Bring on the Sith!



http://www.gonmad.co.uk/jedicensus/

[JB]

the Smithsonian Natural History museum presents the evolution theory as hard fact.  While evolution itself may be the best plausible scenario for the history of human kind, the idea that it is presented as an undisputed "fact" (in which minor details seem to change from year to year)is something to be wary of also. 

Failure: Presents scientific theory as equivalent to popular theory.

A hypothesis is roughly equivalent to the popular definition of theory. It's just an educated guess.

For a hypothesis to advance to a theory, it has to have supporting evidence.

For a theory to advance to a law, it is supposed to be guaranteed true. Which in practice is impossible, as there's always the possibility of new evidence coming to light that blows a major hole in the theory.
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml


Modern scientists are very hesitant to upgrade theories to laws, due to little things like the Newton's law of gravity turning out to be not-really laws. In point of fact, the theory of general relativity offers a far more accurate rendition than Newton's law did, but it's also a far larger pain to work with, so Newton's "law" continues to be used as it is "good enough" for most situations. And we can't upgrade general relativity to law, because we KNOW it's broken, as is the competing theory of quantum mechanics. We just aren't sure how to fix either one(which woudl leave us with a merged general relativity/quantum mechanics theory).


Anyways, after a few major embarassments with long-established laws turning out to be wrong, they just quit upgrading theories.

Evolution, however, is one of the stronger theories around. It has been observed in action several times.
Among the more notable: We've seen moth populations shift colors from light to dark during the industrial revolution, as well as new species of weeds appear that are specially adapted to an environment that only appears in the cracks of parking lots.

And as we learn more about biology, we learn more about how it works(note that the actual theory of evolution doesn't specify the mechanism by which species evolve, just that they do).

The modern theory of evolution also has 2 forms. One generates new species, the other just shifts the traits within an existing species. And apparently there's debate about whether the 2 are related or not.

[DYNAGOD]

on a related note, anyone watch BullSh*t on showtime last night?
they did a great job of proving how much of a sham most religious figures are.

ghandi was evidently a pedophile who had an addiction to performing colonics on young girls.
and mother theresa was the queen of suffering causing possibly millions to die horrible deaths while she spent millions of donated funds intented to feed and help the poor to build nuneries to further her regime of suffering.
She even ran death houses, where terminally ill people were forced to sit on 2" high aluminum hamocks for 23 hours a day while being refused medical care, and also disallowed from family visiting them..
most religious icons are BS.

good stuff

[Bones]

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

I really don't know what to say to that. It must obviously be tongue in cheek....

[SirPeale]

ghandi was evidently a pedophile who had an addiction to performing colonics on young girls.

Hadn't heard that one.

and mother theresa was the queen of suffering causing possibly millions to die horrible deaths while she spent millions of donated funds intented to feed and help the poor to build nuneries to further her regime of suffering.
She even ran death houses, where terminally ill people were forced to sit on 2" high aluminum hamocks for 23 hours a day while being refused medical care, and also disallowed from family visiting them..

Now *that* I've heard before.  There are also a lot of other nasty things about Mother Theresa (though I forget what they were).

[ChadTower]

Now *that* I've heard before.

[Stingray]

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

I really don't know what to say to that. It must obviously be tongue in cheek....

Yeah, but you have to admit that it's pretty funny.

-S

[Spaced Invader]

--snip--

These people are sheep...nothing wrong with sheep...I enjoy a little mutton now and then. But not everyone with a belief system is a sheep.

This is the best, because I didn

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I seriously doubt that the bible makes you stupid, but I do know that a lot of stupid people take the bible way too seriously.



mrC