Welcome to Slashdot Space X The Almighty Buck Science VA
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
6/19
apache
6/27 (2)
askslashdot
6/21
books
6/25
bsd
6/27 (2)
developers
6/27
features
6/27
interviews
1/9
radio
6/28 (3)
science
6/26
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'Early Man: The Cause of Mass Extinction?' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 480 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2, Troll)
by Jon Erikson (eriksonj@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:25AM EST (#41)
(User #198204 Info)

It is the scientific theory that prehistoric people moving for the first time into new geographical areas during their spread around the world invariably hunted large animals into extinction.

The scientific theory? Already we can see the hubris of the professional scientist at work here, portraying one of several such "theories" as the only game in town. Well, I'm sorry to say it here on such a liberal hive of scientism, but there's another game in town, and one which has more proof behind it than a few elephant tusks dug out of the ground.

There were no mammoths! Nor dinosaurs, nor any of these so-called "extinct species" that have been placed in the ground by God Almighty. It's all a myth concoted by the liberal agitators intent on supressing the humanist notions that the Bible teaches us, that people can better themselves without prostrating themselves before the holy god of the State.

Don't belive me? Well, there's evidence! Yes, despite what the liberals would tell you, there is plenty of evidence that the Lord created the world not that long ago. For instance, radio halos in grantie can only be explained by instantaneous creation. And the thousands of skeletons and chariots found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba - with no boats! - perfectly matches the Bible's story, as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years.

No, we owe nothing to these pseudo-scintific theories that exist only to allow the liberals to continue their pogrom against those that see beyond their hateful lies. Do yourself a favor, and get down to a church on Sunday to find out what real truth is.

Jon Erikson, Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<More links at Anthropology in the News by YellowBook (Score:5) | Interesting and Relevant Book By Daniel Quinn... by Lizard_King (Score:4) >>
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=3, Troll=10, Insightful=5, Interesting=3, Informative=4, Funny=6, Overrated=2, Total=33.
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:37AM EST (#55)
It was only a matter of time before a subject like this brought out the antichristian wackos...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2)
by lovebyte (lovebyte2000@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:39AM EST (#58)
(User #81275 Info)
When I am writing this reply, the post from Erikson has got (Score:5, Informative). Who are the stupid cavemen moderating this up? WE LIVE IN THE 21st CENTURY! We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al. Creationism is a myth! There is not one scientific fact in creationism. Not one.

I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    See? (Score:3, Troll)
    by Jon Erikson (eriksonj@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:43AM EST (#69)
    (User #198204 Info)

    We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al.

    And how do we "know" indeed? Yes, that's right, because you've been told so! And who by? The liberals in charge of "educating" our young, that have made it impossible to have decent Christian teachings taught in schools because it would let people see the lies they have wrought throughout our society!

    Creationism is a myth! There is not one scientific fact in creationism. Not one.

    See how you've been indoctrinated into hate? That is the legacy of the liberal - hatred of their fellow man and a love of the State. See here for why Creationism is scientifically proven, and that currently cosmology is nothing more than a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity.

    Jon Erikson, Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:See? (Score:0)
      by TikkaMassala on Thursday June 14, @07:49AM EST (#78)
      (User #411282 Info)
      And how do you know about god creating the world? you read it in a book. Who's gullible now?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Well then answer this... (Score:2)
      by CausticPuppy on Thursday June 14, @08:02AM EST (#107)
      (User #82139 Info) http://j.bruce.home.mindspring.com
      Surely you're just a troll but I'll bite anyway...

      If God went through the trouble of instantaneously creating the universe, evidently "with age" as many have said, in order to make it appear to be billions of years old and be consistent with scientific observations, then why did He gloss over such details like the radio halos in granite or whatever? If you're gonna create the universe With Age, do it right, and don't skimp on the details! Either 1) God isn't perfect, or 2) God intentionally "missed" certain things for some reason.


      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:See? (Score:2)
      by lovebyte (lovebyte2000@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @08:03AM EST (#110)
      (User #81275 Info)
      I have been taught and have taught science. Yes sir. As a scientist I try to demonstrate theories with facts. I teach facts and not myths. I tell my students to be critical and not to believe at face value what they are told (even by me) or what they read (even from Darwin). Then they decide by themselves. Is that too liberal for you? You would prefer them to be brain-washed from an early age with the bible or whatever other book. That's your prerogative. That's not what I do.

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Troll Food (Score:1)
      by Jaysyn (Jaysyn_0@THINKyahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @08:46AM EST (#169)
      (User #203771 Info)
      "a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity."

      about time, considering you sheep have been purging other religions for thousands of years... God died in the 80's, get over it

      Jaysyn


      "Politicians are cheaper when bought in bulk"
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:See? (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @12:18PM EST (#304)
      Anyone who uses the phrase 'Scientifically proven' immediately belies the fact that they know nothing of science and don't understand what proof means. Must be a consultant in advertising.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Just like cinema (Score:1)
      by HerbieStone on Friday June 15, @07:53AM EST (#441)
      (User #64244 Info) http://i.am/madmike
      That discussion reminds one I had when I and my girlfriend were going to the theater to watch a movie.

      We couldn't decide which movieto watch. I for myself like to go to the IMDB and read the reviews to get an idea. She told me that film critcs are biased by peopels personal likings, that some might have been paied by the studios to give good critics and all that. There was no point argueing her. She was right. But then I asked her what she was relying upon to choose her film. Then she told me that she like to see the pictures shown infront of the cinemas and that she tries to get an idea looking the trailers...

      So I guess there are many points for not believing sciences. They had been wrong before and they will make mistakes in the future. But what are the arguments for creationalism? I'd like to hear some of them.

      -- Wannabe Karma Whore, and proud of it.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:See? (Score:1)
      by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Saturday June 16, @01:10AM EST (#461)
      (User #410350 Info)
      Nobody wants to hear this, troll.

      And how do we "know" indeed? Yes, that's right, because you've been told so! And who by? The liberals in charge of "educating" our young, that have made it impossible to have decent Christian teachings taught in schools because it would let people see the lies they have wrought throughout our society!

      Liberals educating the young, teaching them free thought and open mindedness, as opposed to Bible-wielding fiery-tongued preachers "educating" them, turning them into more mindless, clueless people such as yourself? I choose the former. Thought of the latter is absolutely revolting.

      See here for why Creationism is scientifically proven, and that currently cosmology is nothing more than a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity.

      "Scientifically proven"? Give me a break. Scientology is a religion, not a science.

      Time and time again, Creationists attack rational thought with their verbal slander and hateful accusations. Are you a religion, or a hate-mongering group of insecure assholes? I leave the choice to you.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:46AM EST (#72)
    I did my best, but could only mod it once. Send the post from whence it came!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
    by Misfit on Thursday June 14, @07:50AM EST (#81)
    (User #1071 Info)
    "We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al".

    Yeah, I know about the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and Batman, but that doesn't mean they're real, (maybe Batman). I won't argue Dinos, I have no reason to believe they didn't exist, but evolution and the big-bang are only theories; theories that are in a constant state of flux.

    I don't personally believe in either. I just can't grasp the idea that we're all happy little coincidences brought on by an exploding grapefruit sized ball of energy.

    Misfit
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
    by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @11:16AM EST (#281)
    (User #201713 Info)

    i believe in dinos, sure. but akin to what misfit said, i don't believe evolution & the big bang...


    (1) they calculated the chances of the big bang and all to be like 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000... i personally think those odds to be utterly ridiculous AND impossible

    (2) WHICH theory of evolutionn do you believe? you do know there are over 100 of them right?

    (3) as far as the "et al" type stuff... billions of years, come on, they use carbon & uranium dating IN A LAB setting, you can't use that process for something that has existed IN NATURE for however many 100's or 1000's of years, because you have ***NO*** means of observation over all those years

    (4) there was a FOSSILIZED cowboy boot found in Texas (i believe it was in TX)... and unless "scientific" theories say cowboys existed billions of years ago, hrmm, guess that blows that theory

    (5) scientists have talked about the different ages of layers of soil on the earth (almost like rings on a tree show its age), yet for the billions of years they estimate, they can't seem to explain why LARGE sections of lands (we're talking many acres) in Texas have 3 such layers INVERTED as though someone removed them, flipped them, and put them back. Accident or design? (i think you could guess my vote


    So while you don't have to believe Creationism, those of us who do, aren't duped by the masses of religious zealots into believing it, we make every effort to consider *ALL* the evidence and come to our own conclusions.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
      by WolfWithoutAClause on Thursday June 14, @01:04PM EST (#320)
      (User #162946 Info)
      Science is the worlds biggest jigsaw puzzle. We've connected up hundreds of thousands of pieces, some of the sky and quite a lot of the bits of the earth, and it's like you're sitting there going: you've made these 6 mistakes! It doesn't fit!

      Jigsaw puzzles don't fall on a few mistakes (if these are mistakes), jigsaw puzzles have their own internal consistency, and so does nature.

      Take one "Origin of the species" and come back in the morning. Hopefully your religion will have cleared up by then. On the web at a browser near you.

      "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadters law." - Hofstadter's Law
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
        by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @07:02PM EST (#395)
        (User #201713 Info)
        yes science is a puzzle, which man is always trying to piece together. but i'm not saying "these scientific FACTS don't fit", i'm saying "these scientific THEORIES don't fit"... I want true, verified science, not Darwin angered over religion deciding to try and anger religious officials, with a *FEW* observations (few as in even 200 years of observations each and every day is still few in the grand scheme of things, let alone the lesser number of years Darwin spent on it). And considering big bang is a NEW totally unverified concept (and don't tell me THEORIES are true & verified, they're not) too, I'll gladly take creationism with an innumerable number of evidences all around.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2)
          by WolfWithoutAClause on Thursday June 14, @08:17PM EST (#412)
          (User #162946 Info)
          No. You are saying these pieces don't fit, THEREFORE these theories don't fit. But you're missing the other 100,000 pieces that DO fit.

          Unfortunately for you. Darwin is true, verified science. We can read the genome well enough to see the entire family tree of life. Everything is interrelated. You and every other person shares 50% of their genes with bananas, and that's because we have a common ancestor. There is no reasonable doubt that Darwinian evolution has happened. In your language evolution is a fact. Hard, hard evidence.

          Another example. Wheat. Wheat is a mutation. We know this, because it's very recent and the mutation has been studied. A random mutation. Actually wheat is almost sterile. You have to winnow it to allow it to propogate. So it stuck for one reason and one reason only. A person walking past spotted it, and manually propogated it. Random mutation plus selection. Unnatural selection in that case...

          Oh BTW. Theories. You've been had. Totally suckered. Formally, 'theory' is the scientific name for any law, concept or set of laws or concepts. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with doubt or absense of trust. I can equally claim that you have a theory of God; you would call it 'belief'. And we'd mean exactly the same thing, (actually there's a lot more evidence for scientific theories!)

          e.g. Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is substantiated thousands of times per day in cyclotrons all around the world. Even GPS (a navigation system used by aircraft, cars ships and boats) is off by literally miles without corrections that can only be derived using the theory. There is no doubt but that this theory is true; its a law and a fact. As certain as water flowing down hill.

          Like evolution. Genes don't lie.

          "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadters law." - Hofstadter's Law
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
            by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @09:08PM EST (#414)
            (User #201713 Info)

            So because we share similar genomes and DNA with certain species & such, Darwin is true and we have a common ancestor? Or is it that we have a common DESIGNER? If you were God (not that any of us are, but just suppose for a second), would it make more sense to design things with common links or have all life and matter be made of totally different atoms, molecules, DNA, genomes, etc, etc? Darwin has not been proven, rather it has gained momentum among so-called scientists who gain power and prestige from it

            As far as theories go... not really. Theories are hypothesis with insufficient evidence to be laws... What do I mean? Theories have a few pieces of 'evidence' that support it, but not SUFFICIENT 'evidence' for it to be a law. It may be considered law by some, but that doesn't make it law. A truth table for boolean AND is what I would call a law... You take FALSE AND FALSE and you always get FALSE, you take TRUE AND FALSE you still get FALSE, you take TRUE AND TRUE you get TRUE, and that's it. Darwinism: you take observations of

            And one last item, why do you seem to believe the Bible and science are mutally exclusive? There are biological, geographical, astronomical facts stated in the Bible long before any scientists of the past millenia ever discovered them. And there's nothing to show that Ancient Egyptians or other ancient cultures had such knowledge, so where did this information come from? Certainly not the scientific process among peoples of the time


            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
              by sansoo on Thursday June 14, @10:35PM EST (#417)
              (User #227144 Info)
              Which facts, unknown to the Egyptians, are these? I grew up reading the bible. Rabbits chewing their cud? It didn't rain until the great flood? Sorry, I read that book several times over, and I'm with Darwin. Tell you what; you don't read your science in church literature & I won't look for your denomination's doctrine in biology texts.
              We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2)
              by WolfWithoutAClause on Friday June 15, @09:23AM EST (#446)
              (User #162946 Info)
              >Theories are hypothesis with insufficient evidence to be laws... What do I mean?
              >Theories have a few pieces of 'evidence' that support it, but not SUFFICIENT 'evidence' for it to be a law."

              I'm glad your such an expert on the technical use of scientific language. Tell me, how many scientific papers have you actually read lately? Do you have any scientific qualifications? Or do you write dictionaries? Are you a lexicographer by profession? Who the hell are you to tell the scientific community what a word they use in a technical sense means?

              'Cos I got news for you buddy- that ain't what a theory is. Thank you for playing.

              "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadters law." - Hofstadter's Law
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
              by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Saturday June 16, @01:47AM EST (#464)
              (User #410350 Info)
              So because we share similar genomes and DNA with certain species & such, Darwin is true and we have a common ancestor? Or is it that we have a common DESIGNER? If you were God (not that any of us are, but just suppose for a second), would it make more sense to design things with common links or have all life and matter be made of totally different atoms, molecules, DNA, genomes, etc, etc? Darwin has not been proven, rather it has gained momentum among so-called scientists who gain power and prestige from it

              Don't hide behind that bullshit rhetoric. Every time we, believers in science, attempt to discredit some idiotic idea or design that "God" is responsible for, you immediately jump behind the "uhh... well it's all part of God's plan, it doesn't HAVE to make sense!" stuff. Now, you're utilizing the best tool that religions have at their disposal -- hypocrisy -- to attempt to throw doubt on our well-thought-out ideas. Nice try, but you've been caught.

              As far as theories go... not really. Theories are hypothesis with insufficient evidence to be laws... What do I mean? Theories have a few pieces of 'evidence' that support it, but not SUFFICIENT 'evidence' for it to be a law.

              You can get off your box now, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. See my above post to learn the difference between a theory and a law, then come back when you have a clue.

              It may be considered law by some, but that doesn't make it law. A truth table for boolean AND is what I would call a law... You take FALSE AND FALSE and you always get FALSE, you take TRUE AND FALSE you still get FALSE, you take TRUE AND TRUE you get TRUE, and that's it.

              What?

              And one last item, why do you seem to believe the Bible and science are mutally exclusive? There are biological, geographical, astronomical facts stated in the Bible long before any scientists of the past millenia ever discovered them. And there's nothing to show that Ancient Egyptians or other ancient cultures had such knowledge, so where did this information come from? Certainly not the scientific process among peoples of the time

              You're trying to pass off an assertion as a fact, and it's not going to work. First, give specific examples what you're talking about ("biological, geographical, astronomical facts stated in the Bible" that "scientists of the past millenia" couldn't have known).

              After that, then you can ask rhetorical questions that are impossible to answer.

              In defense of the ancient peoples of any time period, they knew a lot more than your local church's preacher has brainwashed you into believing.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
            by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Saturday June 16, @01:36AM EST (#463)
            (User #410350 Info)
            Although we believe in the same cause, I feel obligated to point out something here.

            A scientific theory is NOT law, and it is NOT fact.

            In science, a theory is an idea that has withstood the test of time and has not yet been disproven. You can NOT prove a theory. Never. EVER. You can only disprove it by experimentation.

            A law is an observation of an occurence, such as the law of gravity. The law states that gravity occurs, but does not seek to explain why. There are innumerable THEORIES of gravity that seek to explain why.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2)
              by WolfWithoutAClause on Sunday June 17, @07:29PM EST (#471)
              (User #162946 Info)
              >A law is an observation of an occurence, such as the law of gravity. The law states that gravity occurs, but does not seek to explain why. There are innumerable THEORIES of gravity that seek to explain why.

              Negatory. Newton's law of gravitation in fact is a theory. It is a theory that nature agrees with the law. In fact it has since been discovered that nature doesn't follow Newton's law, and does follow Einstein's general theory. Newton's law of gravity in fact has been disproven.

              Unsurprisingly, modern physics now uses 'law' and 'theory' interchangeably.

              >A scientific theory is NOT law, and it is NOT fact.

              I have a theory. My theory is that I won't see anything in the cup in my hand when I look next. Gee, my cup really was empty. My theory is proven. So it is possible to prove some theories which can be explored via exhaustive search; or atleast come up with extremely persuasive evidence that amounts to turning the theory into a fact.

              I know where you are coming from. But taking your argument to a reasonable conclusion, you are saying that there is no such thing as a fact ever.
              So what is a fact in a scientific sense? It's the simplest theory that has good evidence to support it, and no known disproof.

              By that standard, Newton's law isn't a fact, but Einstein's General Theory of relativity is.

              >In science, a theory is an idea that has withstood the test of time and has not yet been disproven. You can NOT prove a theory. Never. EVER. You can only disprove it by experimentation.

              An interesting scientific theory. Can you prove it?

              "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadters law." - Hofstadter's Law
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
              by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Sunday June 17, @11:48PM EST (#472)
              (User #410350 Info)
              I stand corrected :)
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
      by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Saturday June 16, @01:30AM EST (#462)
      (User #410350 Info)
      1) they calculated the chances of the big bang and all to be like 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000... i personally think those odds to be utterly ridiculous AND impossible

      In defense of the often-attacked Big Bang theory:

      We're here, aren't we? Please tell me who "they" is and exactly how they "calculated" those enormous odds. The fact is, something happened for us to be here, we don't know exactly what, but we can guess.

      Many people attack science by comparing it to religion. This is very unfair, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Science can never provide more than an educated guess; it doesn't claim to know everything, and never has. If you have difficulty accepting that science will never provide all the answers, then perhaps you should choose religion instead.

      Side note: one chance in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000 is still a chance.

      (2) WHICH theory of evolutionn do you believe? you do know there are over 100 of them right?

      Which theory of creation do you believe? You do know there are over 100 of them, right?

      (3) as far as the "et al" type stuff... billions of years, come on, they use carbon & uranium dating IN A LAB setting, you can't use that process for something that has existed IN NATURE for however many 100's or 1000's of years, because you have ***NO*** means of observation over all those years

      What the hell are you talking about? Certainly this "process" can be used in a lab setting. What do you propose, that they do it outside on the grass? I don't see what you're driving at here.

      (4) there was a FOSSILIZED cowboy boot found in Texas (i believe it was in TX)... and unless "scientific" theories say cowboys existed billions of years ago, hrmm, guess that blows that theory

      So what is your belief on this issue? That "God created the heavens and the Earth, and oh yeah a cowboy boot to boot"?
      First of all, present your sources before making such a claim, so that we can evaluate it and decide for ourselves whether it's total bullshit or not. When you've done this, THEN we can argue over whether or not a) this story is valid and if so, then b) how it happened, whether by divine intervention or a simple process of science.

      (5) scientists have talked about the different ages of layers of soil on the earth (almost like rings on a tree show its age), yet for the billions of years they estimate, they can't seem to explain why LARGE sections of lands (we're talking many acres) in Texas have 3 such layers INVERTED as though someone removed them, flipped them, and put them back. Accident or design? (i think you could guess my vote

      I would once again ask you for your source, but as this is almost a direct quote from the Scientology website, I have no problems guessing.

      What galls me is when people are confronted with a mystery, and instead of logically examining the problem and trying to discover what's going on, they immediately jump to the conclusion that it was a "miracle", caused by the "hand of God". It galls me further when they presume to attack US for looking at the situation reasonably and logically.

      Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1, Funny)
by adalger on Thursday June 14, @07:39AM EST (#61)
(User #458844 Info)

Somewhere, there's a rock that misses the warmth of you underneath it.


-- Robert Bunn, gun-toting neo-Nazi anarchist redneck freak
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What a load of crap. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:39AM EST (#63)
Just my opinion.

-j
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:1, Flamebait)
by Sahir on Thursday June 14, @07:47AM EST (#75)
(User #325352 Info)
The scientific theory? Already we can see the hubris of the professional scientist at work here, portraying one of several such "theories" as the only game in town.

As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.

Let me give you a hint: Science works. I don't need proof of that. Religion is a mind-controlling device invented by a certain Jewish huckster named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. 2000 years! No other pyramid scam has lasted so long. Allow me to congratulate all christians for such longevity (but don't become complacent: Amway is catching up).

There is *no* proof for any facet of creationism. Not one. The myth of the "great flood" has been widely debunked by scientists, so much that only right-wing nutjobs, on a high-holy rollarcoaster for JEEZUS could possilby believe them. Not too mention this "god" fellow, who has apparently only spoken to a few desert-wandering lunatics who overdosed on locusts and wild honey. Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon? Maybe because there is no god, and every educated person knows it. Rationalism is the only hope for mankind, and the only rational approach is to reject religion and accept evolution and the big bang for what they are: the truth, shown by science.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Jesus freaks? Another liberal crawls forth (Score:4, Interesting)
    by Jon Erikson (eriksonj@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:56AM EST (#99)
    (User #198204 Info)

    As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.

    Of course we do. Whenever nonsense like this is released from another liberal brainwashing centre, then it is the duty of all concerned Christians to fight back, to show to people that the Truth of history is already out there in bookshops, churches and missions across the world!

    For any truly rational person, persuing wild theories about hairy elephants and "giant lizards" is a waste of time and energy, and playing directly into the hands of the anti-humanist liberals.

    Let me give you a hint: Science works. I don't need proof of that.

    See how you have been brainwashed! You attack me for not having proof (despite it sitting here on my desk at work!) and then go on and claim science doesn't need any. How hypocritical of you! But then again, the Bible does warn about the hypocrites. Thankfully, they will receive their just reward.

    Religion is a mind-controlling device invented by a certain Jewish huckster named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. 2000 years!

    If you believe that, you are even more profoundly ignorant than I had thought.

    There is *no* proof for any facet of creationism. Not one.

    As I said before, radio halos found in granite, the decay rate of planetary magentic fields, the amount of interplanetary dust and many more. But you obviously haven't taken the time to find out these things, sure in your smug liberal ideology.

    Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon?

    Why should be have to? All the evidence is already there!

    Jon Erikson, Senior consultant, NPO Technologies

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Moderators on crack... (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @08:47AM EST (#171)
      This should be moderated "FUNNY", not "Interesting".
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Jesus freaks? Another liberal crawls forth (Score:1)
      by Derek Pomery on Thursday June 14, @08:58AM EST (#185)
      (User #2028 Info)
      Polonium halos?
      1, 2
      "Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
      1, 2, 3
      Interplanetary dust?
      1, 2, 3, 4

      And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

      All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
      I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","64706f6d657279406375632e6564750a"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Jesus freaks? Another liberal crawls forth (Score:1)
      by shiftless (shiftless -AT- runbox -D0T- com) on Saturday June 16, @02:00AM EST (#465)
      (User #410350 Info)
      Of course we do. Whenever nonsense like this is released from another liberal brainwashing centre, then it is the duty of all concerned Christians to fight back, to show to people that the Truth of history is already out there in bookshops, churches and missions across the world!

      Or is it really that you itch every time you see your antique ideals, born of fear and ignorance, being slammed and shown for the lies and nonsense that they are?

      For any truly rational person, persuing wild theories about hairy elephants and "giant lizards" is a waste of time and energy, and playing directly into the hands of the anti-humanist liberals.

      Get your nose out of your precious bible, and take a look around. "hairy elephants and 'giant lizards'" aren't "[w]ild theories", they're fossilized evidence available for anyone to see in the fossil record.

      See how you have been brainwashed! You attack me for not having proof (despite it sitting here on my desk at work!) and then go on and claim science doesn't need any. How hypocritical of you! But then again, the Bible does warn about the hypocrites. Thankfully, they will receive their just reward.

      Science is observation, not proof. Anyone who knows science knows that theories are not provable., only disprovable. The hypocrites I see are the Christians walking around claiming they know everything because they own a copy of a book written by an unknown group of men, an unknown time ago, for unknown reasons. You know what they call that in the practice of law? An unreliable witness.

      As I said before, radio halos found in granite, the decay rate of planetary magentic fields, the amount of interplanetary dust and many more. But you obviously haven't taken the time to find out these things, sure in your smug liberal ideology.

      All this information available for the Scientology website. How convenient.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Christianity != Religion (Score:1)
    by Pennywise on Thursday June 14, @07:59AM EST (#103)
    (User #92193 Info)
    Religion is a mind-controlling device invented by a certain Jewish huckster named Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago.

    Just a nitpick. Religion is much older than 2000 years. You said it yourself, Jesus was Jewish. There were many other faiths all over the world thousands of years before that. Perhaps you meant Christianity??

    "The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:1)
    by GeckoX (dave_dave10@hotmail.com) on Thursday June 14, @08:21AM EST (#134)
    (User #259575 Info)
    You're definately on the right track, but Jesus didn't create Religion. Religion existed quite a while before that (Um, budhism maybe?).
    Actually, it is strongly believed that Jesus was an actual person whom existed, though whether he even remotely resembled (in action, not appearance) the Jesus described today is concidered extremely unlikely.

    No, rather our friends the Romans turned Christianity into a tool of control that has lasted to this day. Christianity came first, the Romans took it, destroyed all workings of it, created 'The Bible', and gave it back to the christians whom falsely believe to this day that they are following the one and only truth. If they'd only realize that their precious bible was the first truly massively successful use of propeganda in known history.


    Douhhhhh....did I say that?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:2)
      by Hadean (hadean(AT)canada.com) on Thursday June 14, @09:34AM EST (#216)
      (User #32319 Info)
      >Actually, it is strongly believed that Jesus was
      >an actual person whom existed, though whether he
      >even remotely resembled (in action, not
      >appearance) the Jesus described today is
      >concidered extremely unlikely.

      All I can think of is: "He has given us... a shoe!" - Fanatics, "Life of Brian" (Monty Python)
      -- "Between thought and expression lies a lifetime." - Lou Reed
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Great flood. (Score:2, Interesting)
    by juuri (porovaara@yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @08:50AM EST (#177)
    (User #7678 Info) http://www.nsa.org/
    Since it seems popular to forget that every "great tale" had some basis in fact most people never bother to check into what could have led to a so-called great flood.

    Which is a shame, because when the world, for all intents and purposes, consisted of the cities of Mesopotamia (Ur, Kish, Lagash, Eridu, Nippur...) there was indeed a great flood when both the Tigris and Euphrates spilled over covering some if not all of the major cities of the time. Since this would have covered most of the cities and the only records we have of large city based civilizations of the time come from these cities...

    ... there was a great flood.

    --- I do not moderate.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Great flood. (Score:1)
      by johnos on Thursday June 14, @07:13PM EST (#398)
      (User #109351 Info)
      another interesting theory about this story is that it was based on the rise of the sea after the last ice age. In some places, this would not have been gradual, but sudden. For example, places where there were natural dams of sand dunes and such.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Yer giving him too much credit (Score:1)
    by Unknown Poltroon (george42@Usspama.net) on Thursday June 14, @09:02AM EST (#189)
    (User #31628 Info)
    Jesus didnt invent religion, he just made it profitable, annoying, and dangerous.
    Ok, the cats dead, for sure. I looked in the box, and found out that Dr. Schrodenger had killed it with a hammer.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:5, Insightful)
    by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Thursday June 14, @09:07AM EST (#198)
    (User #107150 Info)

    As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.

    ...the only rational approach is to reject religion and accept evolution and the big bang for what they are: the truth, shown by science.

    Accepting evolution and the big bang as truth doesn't require rejecting religion. It doesn't even require rejecting fundamentalist Christian religion.

    I've never really understood all the hoopla about this subject. There was a time, roughly the 1950s, when most of the U.S. professed to Christianity and nearly all of the U.S. was enraptured by science. If there's such a big conflict between science and creationism and evolution, wouldn't you think it would have been a big topic of debate back then? Yeah, the discussion flared up occasionally then and before (Scopes, anyone?), but most people just seemed to go along with one foot in each camp.

    Or did they?

    When I was a wee child, I was taught that science had most of the answers precisely because it was helping us understand the wonderful universe God had made. I was taught that God created everything in 7 days. And I was also reminded that the concept of time is pretty elastic. God probably doesn't view it like we do. Remember your Bible: "A day is like unto a thousand years."

    So when I first asked about the conflict between "7 days" and "creation and evolution takes a bazillion years," I got a simple answer. To wit: "Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor. In this case, of course God created the world in 7 days - 7 of His days. From our point of view, 7 of His days looks like a mighty long time. Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots furiously engaged in competitive but highly transient mental masturbation." That always seemed reasonable to me.

    God created everything in 7 days. The big bang and evolution are probably some of the tools he used to accomplish that task. Between those two statements, there is no conflict.

    Is that so hard to accept?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
      by jotaeleemeese on Thursday June 14, @09:53AM EST (#236)
      (User #303437 Info)
      God created everything in 7 days. The big bang and evolution are probably some of the tools he used to accomplish that task. Between those two statements, there is no conflict.

      The problem is that both evolution and big bang can exist quite happily without a god. Both of them are pretty good theories of how the universe works that don't require of a superior being to try to explain how things happen.

      That is why religious extremists can't stomach these and other similar theories, in spite of the evidence screaming in their faces.
      --------------------------

      Erutangis ym si siht, sey.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @12:15PM EST (#301)
        Interesting...care to explain how something comes from nothing? The greatest philosophers and scientists of all time are anxiously awaiting your insight...
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          then where did God come from? (Score:1)
          by cpeterso on Thursday June 14, @01:34PM EST (#331)
          (User #19082 Info)

          If the universe is not allowed to be created "out of nothing", then where did God come from? Is God allowed to be created "out of nothing"? Oh, he always existed? Then why can't the universe have always existed? There is some thought that the Big Bang was not an isolated event and that the universe expands and contracts cyclically.

          Opt-out of X10's annoying pop-under ads

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
          by jotaeleemeese on Monday June 18, @11:03AM EST (#474)
          (User #303437 Info)
          I did not say something comes from nothing, I just said that some theories that explain how the universe works don't need a god at all. Some scientists are already working at ways to probe the irrelevance of a god (Stephen Hawkings) in the Universe as we know it.

          At the smallest amount of time before the big-bang lets concede that a god decided to create the Universe (what reasons an all powerfull, perfect being all of the sudden needed to create a Universe is something I let to the reader as homework)

          After that moment we don't need of any god to explain a good deal of many things, the more we learn about nature, the less we seem to need a god to explain anything. The more we study and scrutinize, the more a god seems like a pretty dumb assumption. We know that if you let a pen drop on Earth, it will drop, and no god will ever stop that. That is the whole point: natural processes are mindless, and many are predictable and measurable: no god needed.

          That scares fundementalist religious people. They could be out of work if the trend continues because it is becoming more and more evident to more and more people that there is no god out there playing with us as little chess pieces gorging itself in our shortcommings. This is daunting: is then there no purpose to our existence? Perhaps no, and I say, so what? Can't you remember before you were alive? Well you will feel the same when the time comes. It did not hurt.

          I am sure many philosophers and scientists have already written something like this in a better and coherent manner, I am no so stupid to claim the idea has no ocurred first to any other midly intelligent person.

          --------------------------

          Erutangis ym si siht, sey.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
        by dynamo_mikey on Thursday June 14, @05:17PM EST (#382)
        (User #218256 Info)
        Well, not exactly. What started the Big Bang? How did everything begin? What, or who is the unmoved-mover? The uncaused-cause?

        I don't know either...I'm just saying there is an agument within science for a super natural being or "god." I liked the guys origonal post, but I still think the bible's a lot of bunk :)

        dynamo

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
      by the bluebrain (chris@bluebrain.noCannedMeatPlease.com) on Thursday June 14, @11:32AM EST (#287)
      (User #443451 Info)

        Is that so hard to accept?

      Why - yes.

      Can I invoke Godwin's law on /. ?

      (remove spam from email to email)
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
      by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @11:38AM EST (#289)
      (User #201713 Info)

      The Hebrew word for 'day' in Gensis there is pronounced "yowm" and means a LITERAL 24 HOUR DAY


      I would ask you to recall from English class, what a simile is... a comparison using 'like' or 'as'. The Bible says "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Pet. 3:8)... note: "*AS* a 1000 years".


      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:2)
        by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Thursday June 14, @01:50PM EST (#337)
        (User #107150 Info)

        The Hebrew word for 'day' in Gensis...means a LITERAL 24 HOUR DAY...

        ...a simile is... a comparison using 'like' or 'as'. The Bible says "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" ... note: "*AS* a 1000 years".

        Thanks for the correction on the phrasing. The memory isn't what it used to be and I don't have a Bible close at hand.

        As for the literal Hebrew...you make a very good point. On the other hand, I have serious trouble wrapping my mind around lots of big, important concepts like the big bang and the long stretches of time in the history of the world. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the original author simply didn't have a handy word for such epochs.

        I consider your point just literalism taken to an excess degree. We know that a week, on our calendar, isn't the amount of time that creation took. From that I draw the conclusion that the days in Genesis aren't literal 24 hour days. And if the last transcriber of that book in Hebrew used a word that is at odds with that conclusion, it'll be up to God to either punish me for my impertinence or congratulate me for using the brain He gave me.

        I'm betting on the latter.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
          by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @07:13PM EST (#397)
          (User #201713 Info)

          1st question: Would you agree with me that God is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent (everywhere simultaneously) ?

          2nd question: If you agree to the 1st question, couldn't God have made 100% certain that the exact words He wanted in the Bible were there and that language supported such concepts? and if not, why is He not and what scripture supports this claim?

          If you support these questions, it becomes easy to see that He wanted the word "yohm" because it would express a literal day and therefore one week (minus the one day He rested from His labors) for creation of the universe.

          And further, if God is all powerful, how could it be impossible for Him to create the universe in 6 days? If He created billions or trillions (or more?) of stars, made man from dust, fortold over 300 prophecies of Jesus and all of them were fulfilled, is it infeasible that He can do exactly what the wording says He did? Or is what the Bible records of God inaccurate and therefore false, and the very God we believe in doesn't exist, or at least isn't the God the Bible records. The Bible is one cohesive work, you pull out one thread it collapses. But since there are Christian Evidences and not one PROVEN contradiction in the Bible in 1000's of years, I lean towards the exact record given.


          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:2)
            by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Friday June 15, @07:33AM EST (#438)
            (User #107150 Info)
            I admire your faith, but I separate the notion of faith in God from faith in every single bit of physical evidence on earth of His power. The evidence here is strong, but my perceptions of it are necessarily, humanly flawed. That, and the fact that anything on this earth is subject to corruption by the forces of evil, leads me to discount the physical world (though I certainly do not discard it) in favor of the supernatural, believing that that is the essence of faith.

            Reasonable? Or, in your view, just wishy-washy?
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Everyone ... most people ... myself, certainly ... (Score:2, Insightful)
      by legLess (sanslegsathotmaildotcom) on Thursday June 14, @11:41AM EST (#293)
      (User #127550 Info)
      "Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor."
      I went to an evangelical Christian high school, so I've heard this more times than I can count. Hint: it's bullshit, because every Christian you ask will have different ideas about "obviously intended."

      Obvious to whom? Under what circumstances? I knew people who would argue literally to the death that those were 7 24-hour days, just like days are now. Such arguments are pointless, because the Christian has his world-view, his sense of self, wrapped up in the argument: once he admits that some of the Bible might not be true, doubt creeps in. "Did Elijah the prophet really have control over bears? Did he really use that control to kill 42 little kids who were mocking him? Was that very nice? Aren't we supposed to turn the other cheek?" [2 Kings 2:23-24]

      The Bible is not internally consistent, and you'd look like a raving lunatic to claim so. Thus your point of view: "Um ... some of it's true, and some of it's ... kind of true, in a, uh, metaphorical way." Humans have a nearly incredibly capacity for self-deception and rationalization, and nowhere is this better demonstrated than Bible-worship: millions of people believing without question the handed down myths and legends of a little tribe of people, translated and sanitized hundreds of years ago by a king with an agenda by monks who didn't know the language.

      The Bible is a great book, but so is The Lord of the Rings. It doesn't make sense to get science, or a template for your life, from either of them.

      question: is control controlled by its need to control?
      answer: yes
      -- william s. burroughs
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Everyone ... most people ... myself, certainly (Score:2)
        by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Thursday June 14, @01:31PM EST (#330)
        (User #107150 Info)

        "Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor."

        ...it's bullshit, because every Christian you ask will have different ideas about "obviously intended."

        Obvious to whom? Under what circumstances?

        Obvious to me under my circumstances. And that statement is applicable only to me. You see, I choose to interpret on my own, pray about what confuses me, and have faith that God knows that my understandings will be flawed but my heart is in the right place.

        Other folks choose to take other paths. Some need a big, centralized church with lots of fancy robed teachers to interpret for them. Some choose to follow a single charismatic voice. Others find other ways. More power to 'em. God gave 'em free will; they can use it as they wish.

        I knew people who would argue literally to the death that those were 7 24-hour days, just like days are now.

        Yep. I know those same people. And I look at 'em kinda funny, too. I admire their faith, but that particular viewpoint is one I choose not to share.

        ...the Christian...once he admits that some of the Bible might not be true, doubt creeps in."

        Speaking for myself only, of course, I've never experienced doubt creeping in. It usually charges in at a full and noisy gallop. Daily.

        I don't believe God expects us to be perfect and have perfect confidence. I think He would call people who think they've attained that level of enlightenment "total assholes" or some such. (I trust He could come up with a better description, though.) After all, not even His son escaped doubt. I think He just expects us to try. And usually fail. And then to deal with it.

        Did Elijah the prophet really have control over bears? Did he really use that control to kill 42 little kids who were mocking him? Was that very nice? Aren't we supposed to turn the other cheek?

        I dunno. I suppose some day God will clue me in. Till then, such things will bother me.

        The Bible is not internally consistent, and you'd look like a raving lunatic to claim so.

        Well, God knows I don't want to look like a raving lunatic. :-)

        Humans have a nearly incredibly capacity for self-deception and rationalization...

        Yep. Sure do.

        and nowhere is this better demonstrated than Bible-worship: millions of people believing without question the handed down myths and legends of a little tribe of people, translated and sanitized hundreds of years ago by a king with an agenda by monks who didn't know the language.

        Bible worship? Nah. We're supposed to worship God.

        You bring up an excellent point, though, about the corruption of the scriptures. There are multiple editions being published all the time. They don't agree. So, obviously, not all Bibles can be, as a famous TV preacher used to like to say, "the inerrant word of God." I don't have a problem with that. "The Bible," meaning the inspired word of God, is without error. Having said that, though, I must immediately follow up with that fact that I doubt there's ever been a copy of the thing assembled. People have done their best to put together the fragments of those writings and the books we have today are a pretty good approximation. They get the basics right. But I've never been one to argue that, in precise detail, everything written in the most recently published book with "The Bible" embossed on the front is exactly what was originally written. Or even intended.

        Maybe I just come from a long line of doubters. My grandfather, an uneducated itinerant hard-shell Baptist evangelist in depression-era rural Mississippi, taught himself both Greek and Hebrew so that he could read and study more and older ver

        Read the rest of this comment...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Everyone ... most people ... myself, certainly (Score:1)
        by Rinikusu (sessary@NOSPAMaol.com) on Thursday June 14, @06:27PM EST (#389)
        (User #28164 Info) http://www.people.memphis.edu/~sessary
        Thou art God!

        If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Well said... (Score:1)
      by festers on Thursday June 14, @12:26PM EST (#309)
      (User #106163 Info)
      it's depressing how many of these "intelligent, open-minded geeks" show themselves to be nothing more than brainwashed bigots when it comes to discussing religion. People have been intelligently debating God and science issues for ages, and it's not about to stop because some /.er has it all figured out and dismissed it.


      --------
      Awww, $20. I wanted a peanut.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (Score:1)
      by cpeterso on Thursday June 14, @01:44PM EST (#335)
      (User #19082 Info)
      Please read Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

      "Everything in the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"] except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor [Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses)]. In this case, of course God created the world in 7 days - 7 of His days [Special pleading (typically referring to god's will)]. From our point of view, 7 of His days looks like a mighty long time. Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument] furiously engaged in competitive but highly transient mental masturbation."

      Opt-out of X10's annoying pop-under ads

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (Score:1)
        by Blitter (net.concentric@pjmelody) on Thursday June 14, @02:18PM EST (#347)
        (User #15795 Info)
        Please read Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

        Hmm, appeal to authority. ;)

        Still, a good page nonetheless, Sagan is certainly missed. I also note Sagan included "Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)" as one of his common fallacies of logic. Nonetheless, ad hominem attacks on theists seem rampant on /.

        This post only slightly tongue in cheek.


        If religion stops your mind from thinking, you aren't doing it right.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (Score:2)
        by benenglish (nospam.please@evenifyoufindme.com) on Thursday June 14, @02:22PM EST (#349)
        (User #107150 Info)

        I love that link! I had never seen all that stuff in one place before. I'll definitely be going back to that page in the future. Thank you big time.

        The way you applied the baloney detector to my post, though, was a tad less useful. You sort of hit around some of my arguments, but I don't see any real center-punched home runs. To wit:

        the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"]

        Bzzzzt. Close, but no cigar.

        The argument from authority requires that I say "I'm an authority so you should believe me." That's not what I did. I said the Bible was authoritative. In the context of an intellectual rasslin' match, that's the equivalent of quoting an encyclopedia. It's not a perfect argument, but overcoming it requires that you undermine the authority of the source of the quote. That's a tough row to hoe with an encyclopedia. With the Bible, it sort of depends on your frame of reference. In any case, this particular baloney detector doesn't apply.

        except where ... [Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses)].

        Nope, again. Exercising judgement always requires observational selection. And judgement must always come into play when deciding what data to include when making a decision. Is this authority more to be trusted or that one? Is the data I'm seeing valid or has something screwed up this set of experiments? If yes, do I throw out these results or do something else?

        "Observational selection" is a valid counterattack to an argument only where you can show that any stated criteria for exercising judgement are not being properly or consistently applied. I stated my criteria. I believe I'm adhering to it. Show me otherwise if you want to successfully classify my statements as "bad" observational selection.

        His days [Special pleading (typically referring to god's will)].

        Ya got me. Of course, I don't consider pointing out that God is different from man to be a terribly intellectually dishonest thing to do...but YMMV. :-)

        self-important idiots [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument]

        Oooo, no! Unlike the previous darts you threw, in this case you missed your target by a mile. An ad hominem attack requires that there be someone who is attacked. The quote above didn't attack any immediately identifiable person or group. It only referred to a simple bit of good advice - one that I hope everyone takes to heart - namely, that there are some people in this world you just shouldn't listen to. People who claim to have all the answers to Biblical mysteries. Self-important jerks. Microsoft PR guys. Chat room denizens who message you claiming to be 16 year old cheerleaders who just wanna talk to an older guy. You get the idea. :-)

        Now, if you'd called it a straw man argument, you might have had a point. :-)

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit (Score:1)
          by cpeterso on Thursday June 14, @07:31PM EST (#402)
          (User #19082 Info)


          the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"]
            The argument from authority requires that I say "I'm an authority so you should believe me."


          This statement is implied when your Bible study teacher pronounces that the Bible is "literally true". Without proof, the reader is supposed to accept the word of the Bible study teacher and the Bible as undeniable, authoritative fact.


          "Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor "
            "Observational selection" is a valid counterattack to an argument only where you can show that any stated criteria for exercising judgement are not being properly or consistently applied. I stated my criteria. I believe I'm adhering to it.


          In the above, your Bible study teacher is using Observational Selection to state the everything in the Bible is fact, except for those details that are not facts. Who chooses which details are facts and which are "metaphors"? If I disproved any particular Bible detail, your Bible study teacher would choose to selectively relabel that "literal truth" an "obvious metaphor". Would this Bible study teacher accept the disproof of any non-metaphoric Bible without claiming (in retrospect) that it was actually a metaphor?


          "Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots " [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument]
            An ad hominem attack requires that there be someone who is attacked. The quote above didn't attack any immediately identifiable person or group.


          I disagree. Someone is clearly being attack: followers of "literalism and legalism". The Bible study teacher is clearly attacking anyone that disagrees with his slippery metaphoric interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible study teacher is not attacking those "self-important idiots" and is instead claiming that there are some people that "you just shouldn't listen to" (as you state), then he is instructing his students to ignore logic and turn a deaf ear to anyone that might offer a new analysis of his argument. Instead of using the scientific method to reason for themselves, his students are asked to return to the warm bosom of the unquestionable Bible.


          Now, if you'd called it a straw man argument, you might have had a point.

          Actually, a straw man argument would be when the disprover restates the other person's argument in a overly simplified, easily disproved way. So I don't think the Bible study teacher's original argument was a straw man.


          btw, thanks for taking the time to respond clearly and intelligently to some random post on Slashdot. :-) It's been fun. You should definitely check out Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark . It's full of fun arguments and counter-arguments that I think you might enjoy.

          peace,
          chris

          Opt-out of X10's annoying pop-under ads

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I am not brainwashed. Just tolerant. (Score:1)
      by Popocatepetl (dkm_holdings@hNoOtSmPaAiMl.com) on Saturday June 16, @10:02AM EST (#467)
      (User #267000 Info)

      I totally agree. In fact, I think it is pretentious for anyone to believe that the universe just *is*.

      Why is the sky such a fabulous blue? Why does every tree resemble a unique artistic masterpiece of unequaled beauty? This stuff just happens...right. Just remember that nothing people have devised matches the awesome magnificence of the universe.


      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The REAL story of creation (Score:1, Funny)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @09:17AM EST (#203)

    (begin shamelessly stolen content)

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And Satan said, "It doesn't get any better than this." And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit," and God saw that it was good. And Satan said, "There goes the neighborhood." And God said, "Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." And so God created Man in his own image; male and female created He them. And God looked upon Man and Woman and saw that they were lean and fit. And Satan said, "I know how I can get back into this game." And God populated the earth with broccoli and cauliflower and spinach, green and yellow vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would=live long and health lives. And Satan created McDonald's. And McDonald's brought forth the 99-cent double cheeseburger. And Satan said to Man, "You want fries with that?" And Man said, "Supersize them." And Man gained 5 pounds. And God created the healthful yogurt, that Woman might keep her figure that Man found so fair. And Satan brought forth chocolate. And Woman gained 5 pounds. And God said, "Try my crispy fresh salad." And Satan brought forth Ben & Jerry's. And Woman gained 10 pounds. And God said, "I have sent thee heart-healthy vegetables and olive oil with which to cook them." And Satan brought forth chicken-fried steak so big it needed its own platter. And Man gained 10 pounds and his bad cholesterol went through the roof. And God brought forth running shoes and Man resolved to lose those extra pounds. And Satan brought forth cable TV with remote control so Man would not have to toil to change channels between ESPN and ESPN2. And Man gained another 20 pounds. And God said, "You are running up the score, Satan." And God brought forth the potato, a vegetable naturally low in fat and brimming with nutrition. And Satan peeled off the healthful skin and sliced the starchy center into chips and deep-fried them. And he created sour cream dip also. And Man clutched his remote control and ate the potato chips swaddled in cholesterol. And Satan saw and said, "It is good." And Man went into cardiac arrest. And God sighed and created quadruple bypass surgery. And Satan created HMOs.

    (begin shamelessly stolen content)


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:3, Insightful)
    by GoofyBoy on Thursday June 14, @09:38AM EST (#219)
    (User #44399 Info)

    You can make your point without insulting people's beliefs.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    YHBT. YHL. HAND. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @09:42AM EST (#222)
    As usual, wheneve the issue of ancient history (where ancient mean "before last Friday"), the flaming Jesus freaks emerge from their self-flagellating to inflict their disgusting morals and creation myths on rational people.

    Sorry - you obviously haven't been here long enough to know that "Jon Erikson" of Natalie POrtman Technologies is a well known and widely emulated troll personality. Check out his other posts, and be slower to bite the next time!

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:1)
    by ChannelX on Thursday June 14, @09:57AM EST (#239)
    (User #89676 Info)
    Sahir- Maybe before spouting off about Christianity and making yourself look like an idiot why not do some research on the subject? After all it is something that always has a lot of research happening about its various periods. Oh...and heres another hint: religion existed long before Jesus. One other question: have you actually *read* the Bible to have any idea what it really says?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:1)
    by athlon02 on Thursday June 14, @11:38AM EST (#290)
    (User #201713 Info)

    Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon?


    2 Tim. 3:16-17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


    The reason He doesn't open His mouth to anyone thru miracles, revelations, prophecies, etc, etc is that He has already done so. I've personally never seen a person raised from the dead, however, John 11 already showed that, and if I have proof that the Bible is true (which I do, things call Christian Evidences), then I don't need to see someone raised from the dead.


    the truth, shown by science.


    I think we will both agree (or at least should), that science is NEVER in error. However, THEORIES and HYPOTHESIS can be and many times ARE wrong. Also, no one started believing the scriptures 2000 years ago, they started to believe it about 6000 to 10,000 years ago.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:1)
    by waynem77 (waynem@tiac.net) on Thursday June 14, @01:35PM EST (#332)
    (User #83902 Info)
    Maybe because there is no god, and every educated person knows it.

    Like Don Knuth and Larry Wall?


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Brainwashed Xitians spouting off (AGAIN) (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @03:46PM EST (#366)
    Rationalism is the only hope for mankind, and the only rational approach is to reject religion and accept evolution and the big bang for what they are: the truth, shown by science.

    And so what scientific proof do you have that the Big Bang actually took place? No one was there to witness it. I am a Christian. I believe the scientific method is a solid way to discover more about our world. Your Big Bang Theory, however, is not a scientific fact. All you have is a theory, hypothesis, and conclusion. No expirementation! Don't claim it as fact without showing me how I can replicate the expirement! I am sorry that Jon Ericson spouts off like he does and gives Christians everywhere a bad name. But you give evolutionists a bad name by claiming scientific fact on something that is still a theory. Please simmer down and think it through next time you go a-flamin'. Also, I post anonymously so as not to damage my user id and it's high karma so that I can be heard when I have something important, logical, and well-though out to say in normal discussion.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Get your facts straight (Score:2)
    by oneiros27 on Thursday June 21, @02:17PM EST (#479)
    (User #46144 Info) http://www.annoying.org/
    If you're going to claim something as being false, just remember that everything can be faked, so fo everything that you can prove, someone else can disprove it.

    The great flood? Real. Was it world wide? No. Was it everything in the scope of the writer's known world? Most likely.

    [Imagine if in 1993 that we didn't have today's communication network, and we lived in the Mississippi flood plain.... if you weren't in a boat, everything you've ever seen in your life might have easily been wiped off the earth].

    Moses may not have parted the tides, but based on data to estimate the time [when there's a total solar eclipse over the area which coincides with a major locust year], there were abnormalities, combined with low tide, which could have resulted in the river being significantly low.

    Science has proved that almost every item _could_ have happened. That does not mean that these things were an act of a higher power [unless you consider physics to be a higher power], but it strongly suggests that these things happened, as it's just a freaky coincidence otherwise.

    People who are can't figure out why something happened tend to make up something. That's how almost all religions start. When people can't explain a 'miracle' that they've obviously seen with their own eyes, they're willing to believe in higher powers.

    That's not to say that there aren't things that have gotten blown out of proportion over the years. [Is the 'loaves and fishes' story about a guy who took a knife and cut everything into smaller pieces, only people doubled the number of servings with each retelling?]

    Now, that's not to say that there isn't use for religion. Personally, I'm going to go with what Rufus said in Dogma, that it's better to have ideas that beliefs, as you can change ideas. However, religion can have a major calming effect on populations where there would be no reason to go on living otherwise. [The whole 'God works in mysterious ways' argument] Religion is infinately more effective in controling a population than government is, as to someone who believes, hell is a much scarier place than prison will ever be, even if they take the TVs away.

    Religion seems to be one of the few institutions that still instills a sense of morality on people these days, and it's a major thing which many people are simply not being taught these days, as their parents divorced, and they're both working to make ends meet, and so no one's home to watch the kids, so they decide to take a few guns and shoot up their school....
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @07:50AM EST (#82)
Dude, chill out a bit with the trolls. If you keep posting them this frequently from the same account, even the dim shashbots are going to figure you out.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Don't think too hard... (Score:1)
by copponex (dean@supernothing.com) on Thursday June 14, @07:52AM EST (#89)
(User #13876 Info)
...or you might become a heretic. Hmmm... evidence? Can you show me a photograph of the chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea? How about Noah's Ark that has been found so many times, they haven't even bothered to bring back evidence? The fact is, there is no hard evidence of anything supernatural caught on a photograph, video, or audio recording. It's amazing how all of these miracles ceased when humanity gained the ability to prove their experiences beyond a written testimony.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
by ShoeHead on Thursday June 14, @07:52AM EST (#90)
(User #40158 Info)
3: Flamebait, and rightfully so. There is nothing in the bible that excludes evolution, early man, or dinosaurs.

Go and talk to your local pastor; even if you think it would be embarassing (it won't be) there are probably hundreds of possible churches nearby. He'll have the answers.
Silence.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
wtf?? (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @08:08AM EST (#115)
this guy gets a +4?

For instance, radio halos in grantie can only be explained by instantaneous creation.

If you understood what you were talking about you would realize that our current inability to explain any phenomena is not sufficient justification to attribute it to instantaneous creation. Instantaneous creation is not a defined method proven to have certain identifiable characteristics that will allow us to attribute certain actions to it. You could just as well attribute radio halos in (I assume you meant) granite to be the artifact of alien technology. You say the lord put fossils in the ground to test us? I say aliens put religion on earth to fsck our society and technology up.

And the thousands of skeletons and chariots found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba - with no boats! - perfectly matches the Bible's story, as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years.

The plausibility of any part of the bible in no way verifies the accuracy of any other passages. The possibility that an event similar to the bible's story (on Moses I believe you're referring to) actually occurred have nothing to do with the events referred to in Genesis. The bible was also rewritten and revised by a roman emperor (exactly which one has slipped my mind).

Do yourself a favor, and get down to a church on Sunday to find out what real truth is.

Thank goodness none of the scientists and explorers with revolutionary theories ever listened to that one. Theocracy (the establishment of the church) and the teachings of the bible are completely seperate entities. If scientists were to believe the church, we would have no electricity, basically the entire world would live in starvation due to insufficient agricultural technology, sick people would be "cured" by bleeding, and we would still believe the world to be flat.

I "hope to god" you were only joking and the guy that modded your post "interesting" was high on crack and well on the way to OD

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @08:08AM EST (#116)
Your proofs are started from a position of "belief", whereas much of science is based from a position of "question".

Thats where Christian ideaology falls down. Why does God exist? Because he does. Not a very satisfactory answer, really.

Yes, there are similar problems with cutting-edge science, but it mostly ends up with "we think *this* is the reason".

BTW, if you think you know what The Big Bang means, you didn't understand it...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by e_lehman on Thursday June 14, @08:09AM EST (#117)
(User #143896 Info)

Mod this troll ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN. He also denies American slavery and claims that native americans are a myth in another post in this article. Both posts are modded to 5 right now. What the hell?! Man, if he just rounds it out with some holocaust denial and a tasteful few Hitler quotations, the whole moderation system will probably just wet itself with enthusiasm.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
by GeckoX (dave_dave10@hotmail.com) on Thursday June 14, @08:11AM EST (#120)
(User #259575 Info)
Moded to 5 as Funny?
Now that's funny.
Douhhhhh....did I say that?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Let's see. . .are we talking the same God . . . (Score:1)
by Salgak1 (salgak@earthling.net) on Thursday June 14, @08:17AM EST (#131)
(User #20136 Info)
. . .who commanded us not to bear false witness, and who by your theory, placed false evidence throughout the Universe ??

Kind of shows the inconsistency in YOUR worldview, friend, unless you posit that God is a hypocrite....

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
by muonman on Thursday June 14, @08:30AM EST (#147)
(User #162064 Info)
Jon Erikson, you are a master troll, and I, for one, salute you. Some swine seem not to have recognized or appreciated your pearls, however.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
More liberal mythology, My Ass! (Score:1)
by MadMorf (madmax@outback.oz) on Thursday June 14, @08:38AM EST (#155)
(User #118601 Info)
Oh Jeez... :)

Of all days to not be a moderator...

Get over it and yourself.

You Christians don't even agree amongst yourselves, so how in blazes could you expect anyone else to agree with you?

Yep, moderate this as Flamebait...


The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
MOD DOWN! Re:Early man? ... liberal mythology (Score:1, Offtopic)
by WolfWithoutAClause on Thursday June 14, @08:45AM EST (#168)
(User #162946 Info)
Whilst it can be seen as amusing. This guy actually believes this stuff. He's a last fridayist. He doesn't deserve to be moderated up.

Check out his other postings, including the one about his wife's menstruation being a sin...

What a loon.

In this case I would be intrigued to know what he thinks about the frozen woolly mammoths that have been found in the Russian tundra... actually no, on second thoughts, I don't care.
"Everything takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadters law." - Hofstadter's Law
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:2, Insightful)
by Maveryk on Thursday June 14, @09:03AM EST (#192)
(User #201991 Info)

"as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years."

Hyperbole doesn't make an argument any stronger. The bible often makes reference to events that did take place, but there is absolutely no proof that its explanations for such events are correct. If I happen to scribble on a scrap of paper that nuclear waste is a product of the tears of god, and this scrap of paper one day gains some theological praise, it's still a falsity. Chariots at the bottom of Aquaba? sometimes floods DO occur, and we ARE discussing a gulf, and not some tiny inland sea that could only flood by miracle.

Of course, the real fun comes in asking for proof of your claims. While I don't consider Google of Yahoo the be-all and end-all of research sources, typing in "grantie halos" turns up a sole link to an outdated ezboard posting. Maybe them rascally liberals are up to their evil ways again, huh?

By the way, which church do you refer to? While I'm obviously not of sound faith, I do frequently attend church, as I have since early childhood, and can't recall me local pastor ever speaking out so violently against those views that don't directly concur with his own. You speak of "hateful lies," but I don't think that lies are the sources of hate in this case. My understanding has always been that most branches of Christianity will at least attempt to prove their points reasonably, without going out of their way to insult and condemn those that may only present minor contradiction.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
who the fuck keeps moderating this shithead up? (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @09:20AM EST (#204)
really! fuckin whack-job.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Funny man makes me laugh. (Score:1)
by NickFusion on Thursday June 14, @09:33AM EST (#214)
(User #456530 Info) http://chromecow.electrondreams.com
Actually, God created the world just over 15 minutes ago.

Imagine having to make up all those "old" Slashdot posts.

Mighty indeed.


What were you expecting?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @09:42AM EST (#223)
"....people can better themselves without prostrating themselves before the holy god of the State. "

By prostrating themselves to another God (Isn't the cross a Graven Idol?)

"...continue their pogrom against those that see beyond their hateful lies."

OK, WHAT hateful lies?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
by spankfish (hardy_ben._.at._.yahoo.com) on Thursday June 14, @10:51AM EST (#270)
(User #167192 Info) http://www.benhardy.com
This looks suspiciously like an attempt to disprove the validity of the fields of archaeology with (guess what) more archaeology.

--
let marrow bone and cleaver choose, while making feet for children's shoes - Tom Waits
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @10:57AM EST (#273)
As the parent post indicates...

ability to use computers != intelligence

Myths like those in the bible were very important for our own, human, evolution. In modern times we've outgrown the Bible in the same way we've outgrown the chariot. Actually, learning to drive a chariot is probably an interesting hobby. Unlike reading the bible....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @12:34PM EST (#311)
There were no mammoths! Nor dinosaurs, nor any of these so-called "extinct species" that have been placed in the ground by God Almighty That just makes me sad. What a truly persistent cult christianity is. But I suppose it gives paranoid people a chance to meet, and a way to vent without doing too much immediate harm. By the way, can anyone please explain what became of the people who were born and died B.C.? Were they doomed to hell without the 'benefit' of a human/deity sacrafice to pay for their sins? or are they, like the dinosaurs, a hoax? ...madness
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:1)
by kelddath (mangobanana AT deja.com) on Friday June 15, @05:49AM EST (#436)
(User #243252 Info)
Cretinist Alert! Cretinist Alert!

You sir, are nowt but an ignorant fool - the modern day equivalent of a flat-earther.

The rest of you, ignore this nonsence. See http://www.talkorigins.org for lots of info debunking creationist lies such as the above...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Early man? Mammoths? More liberal mythology (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20, @04:13PM EST (#478)
Heresy

he sewed his eyes shut because he was afraid to see
he tries to tell me what i put inside of me
he's got the answers to ease my curiosity
he dreamed a god up and called it christianity

your god is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell i will see you there

he flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
he made a virus that would kill off all the swine
his perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
demands devotion atrocities done in his name

your god is dead and no one cares
drowning in his own hypocrisy
and if there is a hell i will see you there

burning with your god in humility
will you die for this?

Text: Tent Reznor
(from the album The Downward Spiral)

Read and consider, for God's sake. (Pun intended)

Dear Mr. Erikson, don't get too offended, but you do interpret the bible way, way too literally. As many others of you, imo extremists, you have twisted your religion, or any religion for that matter, religions that once sprung up from the natural belief in a higher being, into some mindcontrolling-all-answers-in-one-lifestyle that's preventing you to see further. To me, that's a clear sign of a weak mind, although, that does not mean that it can't be helped.

I am not denying God. In fact, evidences of God's existence are everywhere, around us, inside us, US. Life is a miracle, and I find it hard to believe that it just "happened". Well, actually, I do deny God, the God that lives inside the mind of most people I've heard of, both believers and non-believers, the God that is a mushy little fella sitting on a cloud all day, speaking wisdom and occasionally executing miracles. This God must be the result of some ancient poet's metaphors, he wrote while trying to describe Life, that the masses picked up and made their Truth, in the lack of anything else to believe in.

The God I'm speaking of (first, I would not like to call it God, because it's too closely connected to "the mushy little fella", but let's do that anyway), is the answer to The Question. "He" is the depth that we and our science does not reach into.
Atleast I live for finding The Answer, so denying "God" would be like denying my very existence.

Science. As you have to define God, you have to define science. Science is not a religion, therefor you don't believe in science. "Science" is the great library of fundamental knowledge that generations of geniuses built up to serve man. It's not something mystic, to believe in or not to believe in, it's plain logic; an action leads to a result, let's draw conclusions and see if these conclusions apply in general, and they did, that is science. Ofcourse we don't KNOW, but it's the most LIKELY thing. Therefor, since science tells us, the most likely thing is the Big Bang theory, not that Da Man took a brake in his wisdom bawling, to create life. Science and all its theories (including the Big Bang theory), has absolutely NOTHING to do with The Answer, it just scratches the tip of the iceberg, only finding out stuff to make our dailylife easier for us.

Although, it sure is an interesting theory that we've all been brainwashed regarding our past (heck, I don't remember what I did a year ago at this time, I've been brainwashed!), but then, all such theories are interesting...

Conclusion:
No, "God" did not create the world some years ago, "He" didn't create it at all, "He" IS the world. While discussing "God", science and the Big Bang theory is completely irrelevant, it's two different subjects.

Gosh I'm tired
Regards / Kristofer Molander
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  Better late than never. -- Titus Livius (Livy)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]