Tolerance versus Bigotry? Easy!!!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-27 04:23pm

Graeme Dice wrote:Why haven't you removed references to phlogiston from ancient science literature?

The Theory of Phlogiston was found to be invalid and was dismissed by the scientific community. That is how science works. If a theory doesn't match observation, then it is invalidated. No modern science book mentions phlogiston, except for mere historical purposes. Are you suggesting that we go out and find old science books that haven't been in print for over a hundred years, books that no one reads anymore, and take a black marker over all references of phlogiston? Exactly what substance were you smoking when you made that post?

This whole arguement of yours actually supports science. When scientist figured out that they were wrong, they changed their theories. Christianity never does that. We have now concluded that racism is wrong, yet it is still in the Bible. We have concluded that killing innocent men, women, and children is wrong, yet it is still in the Bible. We discovered that the earth is round, yet it is still in the Bible. We discovered the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, yet it is still in the Bible.

I'm not saying that literally every Bible should have the first page of Genesis torn out. If moderate Christians don't want to be associated with creationist, they should push to have the first part of Genesis declared not canon and removed from later prints. Do you get it now?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-08-27 04:33pm

Funny thing about all this 'tearing out Genesis'. I actually believe that Genesis is an invaluable part of the Bible.

No, not like that. Let me explain.

Creation-myths, religious myths and histories, etc., may not be true (okay, they're never true), but they *do* tell us a LOT about the people who made them up. In many cases, myths passed down are all we have of a culture, and socio-historians can use the myths to make sense of how people lived and acted all those years ago.

In the Bible's case, most of the first little bit, are *extremely* similar to a the Sumerian origin myths. In fact, Genesis reads like a parallel to Sumerian mythos. This makes sense, because Abraham was *from* Sumeria (a Martu), and when he wandered out to 'be a great nation', they would have passed down stories they'd heard in the area (like the creation myth, and the 'tower of babel', which could easily have been any of the striking metropolises of Babylon or Sumer, especially to the nomadic primivites called the Martu, who settled in the region and eventually were assimilated or moved on).

Anyway, by tying in those ancient myths to what we know of the ancient world, we can tell a lot about where a people comes from.

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » 2002-08-27 04:45pm

USAF Ace, unless you want to discuss this politely we're done here. You've proven my point already. Thank you

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-27 04:52pm

USAF Ace, unless you want to discuss this politely we're done here. You've proven my point already. Thank you

And exclent chance to add yet another example of Style over Substance
As its put

The Style over Substance fallacy is based upon the sadly common belief that the manner in which one makes his argument somehow affects the truth of that argument.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-27 04:54pm

Bryan wrote:USAF Ace, unless you want to discuss this politely we're done here. You've proven my point already. Thank you

Did I scare you? Are you pissing in your pants, running to mommy and daddy? Or do you just not have a rebuttal?

If you haven't already, you will learn very quickly that I and most of the others on this board don't tolerate scientific ignorance and stupidity in general. We don't tolerate it from creationist, UFOologist, rabid Trekkies, etc. Don't think your bullshit is exempt.

By the way, would you prefer "Village Idiot" or "Fundie Moron" as your new title?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-08-27 04:54pm

Bryan wrote:Religion plays a large role in the lives of billions of people on this planet. Billions. So if President Bush wishes to say Jesus is his hero or role model, what is wrong with this? If I recall America is supposed to be all about letting other express their opinions and thoughts freely.

Problem number 1: If billions of people jump off a building, that doesn't make it smart OR right (although number 1 billion would have a short fall and a soft landing). Ad populum - Appeal to popular opinion.

Problem 2: Bush can have a carrot as his hero. IF he started RUNNING THE COUNTRY ON THE ADVICE OF THE CARROT, you'd have him tossed away. But don't think he can run the country on the advice of Jesus, who whether you believe in him or not is two things: 1) dead. 2) claimed to be a moral authority, not a political one.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-27 05:02pm

Lagmonster wrote:But don't think he can run the country on the advice of Jesus

I can see it now:

The DPRK launches nuke tipped ICBMs at the U.S.

Cheney says: "Nuke the bastards back!"

Bush says: "We should turn the other cheek."

Cheney says: "Sir, we HAVE to launch a counter attack! That is their punishment for killing our citizens"

Bush says: "He who is without sin fires the first nuke."

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 05:15pm

Bryan wrote: When you insult creationists you insult moderate Christians like myself.

Impossible. I know many moderate Christians and they all understand Evolution. Hell, I know moderate priests and they accept evolution.. What you need is to talk with more educated people instead of the usual bunch.

The point where their opinion may diverge from science is usually when science presently fails to provide a complete answer.

You can believe God created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur and no one will be able to refute (or confirm) that view, at least for the time being. Believing that is completely diferent than trying to go against hard facts with a book written thousands years ago and that NO moderate Christian takes literally. Again, considering creationism is like refutting gravity or claiming Earth to be plane.

Bryan wrote: If I recall America is supposed to be all about letting other express their opinions and thoughts freely. You don't have to accept them at all, I don't accept many opinions from many people.

Right.. Once again, everybody has the right to ignorance. Nobody has the right to impose that ignorance upon all the others. Accept your ignorance or do something about it.

Evolution is NOT an opinion.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 05:37pm

USAF Ace wrote:
Graeme Dice wrote:Why haven't you removed references to phlogiston from ancient science literature?
The Theory of Phlogiston was found to be invalid and was dismissed by the scientific community. That is how science works. If a theory doesn't match observation, then it is invalidated.

No shit sherlock. Care to state anything else that's blindingly obvious in your strawman arguments?

No modern science book mentions phlogiston, except for mere historical purposes.

Yet you support removing references to it for some reason.

Are you suggesting that we go out and find old science books that haven't been in print for over a hundred years, books that no one reads anymore, and take a black marker over all references of phlogiston?

No, but you for some reason, are suggesting that such a thing would be appropriate in this case.

Exactly what substance were you smoking when you made that post?

I now understand that you are too stupid to realize what it was i said, thanks for clearing that up.

This whole arguement of yours actually supports science. When scientist figured out that they were wrong, they changed their theories. Christianity never does that.

Outright lie. Ever heard of the reformation? Or are you one of those people who think that understanding catholicism means you understand all of Christianity?

We have now concluded that racism is wrong, yet it is still in the Bible.

Electrons don't orbit atoms, yet we teach children that they do.

We have concluded that killing innocent men, women, and children is wrong, yet it is still in the Bible.

Ahhh, so you actually support revisionist history, and changing works of literature to match what you think they should say.

We discovered that the earth is round, yet it is still in the Bible.

Prove this assertion that the Bible states the Earth to be flat.

We discovered the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, yet it is still in the Bible.

Prove this assertion that the Bible states the sun to revolve around the Earth.

I'm not saying that literally every Bible should have the first page of Genesis torn out. If moderate Christians don't want to be associated with creationist, they should push to have the first part of Genesis declared not canon and removed from later prints. Do you get it now.

You finally state your argument in terms that make it acceptable, instead of something little better than revisionist history.

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » 2002-08-27 06:15pm

USAF Ace wrote:
Bryan wrote:USAF Ace, unless you want to discuss this politely we're done here. You've proven my point already. Thank you
Did I scare you? Are you pissing in your pants, running to mommy and daddy? Or do you just not have a rebuttal?

If you haven't already, you will learn very quickly that I and most of the others on this board don't tolerate scientific ignorance and stupidity in general. We don't tolerate it from creationist, UFOologist, rabid Trekkies, etc. Don't think your bullshit is exempt.

By the way, would you prefer "Village Idiot" or "Fundie Moron" as your new title?

USAF, how am I supposed to debate insults? With insults? I don't work like that. If I get pushed too far I'll insult people, but I'm pretty easy going.

I'm also in a magnet program, one of the best in the world (its run by the Swiss so.

) I am by no means stupid.

I'm not a fundamentalist nor am I a "Villiage Idiot". You're upset I wont debate your insults. I don't want to flame ANYBODY and I'll stick to that. I have a long standing policy that many know of that I will not debate someone who insults me.

If you want to discuss something why not do it nicely?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-27 06:48pm

Bryan wrote:USAF, how am I supposed to debate insults? With insults?

You called people hyocritical and bigoted for attacking creationism. Anyone who defends creationism is a fucking moron.

I don't work like that. If I get pushed too far I'll insult people, but I'm pretty easy going.

You're sure on the wrong board.

I'm also in a magnet program, one of the best in the world (its run by the Swiss so.) I am by no means stupid.

Yet you subscribe to creationism. And to think that all this time I had high regard for Switzerland. Boy was I wrong.

nor am I a "Villiage Idiot".

You're just like Darkstar, run away from arguements

You're upset I wont debate your insults.

No, I just have little tolerance for bullshit and those who peddle and/or defend it.

Oh Yes, and Graeme Dice, I would normally insult you after your last post of noise and garbage, but you are making yourself look more like an idiot every time you type something. I pose the question again, this time to you: Do you prefer "Fundie Moron" or a "Village Idiot"?

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 07:32pm

USAF Ace wrote:Oh Yes, and Graeme Dice, I would normally insult you after your last post of noise and garbage, but you are making yourself look more like an idiot every time you type something.

I'm glad you subscribe to the style over substance fallacy.

I pose the question again, this time to you: Do you prefer "Fundie Moron" or a "Village Idiot"?

Fuck you asshole. I challenge you to find a single example of me acting as a fundamentalist, or supporting creationism anywhere on the entire internet.

Here's a hint dumbshit. You won't find it.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong that Christianity has never changed. I'm also still waiting for you to provide the verses that state that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth.

I'm not the one who has the problem backing up my statements.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 07:38pm

Graeme Dice wrote: Electrons don't orbit atoms, yet we teach children that they do.

Err.. Actually..
Electrons are part of the atoms. No one teaches that to children.. I hope..

Well son, as you can see this is very simple. There are several levels of energy surrounding the nucleus made of neutrons and protons and the passage of the electron from a level to the other is caused by changes in energy and.. hee..
Hell, wait for high school. Just pretend they orbit around the nucleus. It's a reasonable aproximation and you're just five.

Graeme Dice wrote: Prove this assertion that the Bible states the Earth to be flat.
Prove this assertion that the Bible states the sun to revolve around the Earth.

The Church thought it was like that for two thousand years. It took a dramatic shift in power from the church to society for them to admit defeat. But maybe they have always read the Bible wrong. The Truth was always there. Stupid of them.
"and he could see the four corners of the Earth"

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 07:47pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Graeme Dice wrote: Electrons don't orbit atoms, yet we teach children that they do.
Err.. Actually..
Electrons are part of the atoms. No one teaches that to children.. I hope..

What I stated was that electrons don't orbit atoms. The particle model of an electron which orbits an atom is only able to satisfactorily explain single atoms that have been ionized to he point where they have only a single electron orbiting them. We tell children that they do because it is simpler to understand, even though it is false.

Graeme Dice wrote: Prove this assertion that the Bible states the Earth to be flat.
Prove this assertion that the Bible states the sun to revolve around the Earth.

The Church thought it was like that for two thousand years.[/quote]
Since when does Catholic doctrine equal the text of the Bible?

It took a dramatic shift in power from the church to society for them to admit defeat. But maybe they have always read the Bible wrong. The Truth was always there. Stupid of them.
"and he could see the four corners of the Earth"

That is a figure of speech, meaning as far as possible, nothing more.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 08:11pm

Graeme Dice wrote: What I stated was that electrons don't orbit atoms. The particle model of an electron which orbits an atom is only able to satisfactorily explain single atoms that have been ionized to he point where they have only a single electron orbiting them. We tell children that they do because it is simpler to understand, even though it is false.

I meant electrons do NOT orbit atoms. They orbit a nucleus made of protons and neutrons (both composed of quarks) and the all system is called an atom. The electron is a elementary particle OF the atom. And, though children will probally not understand quantic levels, a high school senior surely will. We also tell small children their presents come from Santa Claus.

Graeme Dice wrote: Since when does Catholic doctrine equal the text of the Bible?

Well, it was pretty much their biggest source of information, and they passed hundred years studying them. They should defend some of the conclusions they reached. And they reached wrong conclusions in all scientic assertions. Wouldn't it be nice if a passage read
"The secret of life is contained in a double helix with a codified message written in quaternary language"

Graeme Dice wrote: That is a figure of speech, meaning as far as possible, nothing more.

It's in the Bible. And there's not a warning
"ATTENTION- figure of speech - Do not take literally". Small wonder the poor priests who studied it got confused

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 08:25pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I meant electrons do NOT orbit atoms. They orbit a nucleus made of protons and neutrons (both composed of quarks) and the all system is called an atom. The electron is a elementary particle OF the atom.

Crap, I was using atom and nucleus interchangeably there for some reason.

[And, though children will probally not understand quantic levels, a high school senior surely will. We also tell small children their presents come from Santa Claus.

Believe me, there are plenty of high-school students who would be incapable of

Graeme Dice wrote:Well, it was pretty much their biggest source of information, and they passed hundred years studying them. They should defend some of the conclusions they reached. And they reached wrong conclusions in all scientic assertions. Wouldn't it be nice if a passage read
"The secret of life is contained in a double helix with a codified message written in quaternary language"

Yes, it would be very nice if such a thing was in there. The people who wrote the thing though wouldn't have even known what a helix was though, so it's not likely that it would have shown up.

Graeme Dice wrote:It's in the Bible. And there's not a warning
"ATTENTION- figure of speech - Do not take literally". Small wonder the poor priests who studied it got confused

It still doesn't state that the world is flat though, just that he could see the four corners of it. This is also open to interpretation on what is meant by world, New world and old world and all that sort of thing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-27 08:45pm

Bryan wrote:After reading some threads here the atheists here are quite intolerant of Creationism and Christians in general, which is either hypocritical or a mild form of bigotry.

How is it "intolerant" to identify gaping logical holes in creationism or serious ethical problems with the Bible? We aren't making blanket generalizations; we are making specific criticisms, which we can back up with logic and facts.

I always hear that atheists get the shit end of the stick for their beliefs, yet is that an excuse to give Christians a shitty time? And ridiculing some basic beliefs becuase you don't happen to agree with them?

No, we ridicule them because they are intrinsically ridiculous, and we can provide detailed explanations of what is logically, ethically, or factually wrong with them. It is Christian fundamentalists who ridicule anything they don't happen to agree with.

I find atheism to be wrong, but I don't go out and insult everything about it.

Of course not, because you'll get your ass handed to you by any competent debater.

I mrley say it is wrong in my *opinion* and leave it at that.

That's because your opinion is all you have. We have more, and you're just jealous.

I have no need to go and insult them up the ying yang like some atheists insult Christians here.

No one's insulting all Christians as a group. However, we do insult people who come here and make ignorant, bigoted, or just plain stupid statements.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-27 08:49pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
USAF Ace wrote:When you insult creationist, you are insulting creationist. If the moderates don't want to be seen as scientiffically ignorant, they would move to have the first part of Genesis removed form the Bible. I don't see them doing that. Do you?
Why haven't you removed references to phlogiston from ancient science literature?

Because those books are no longer considered science literature. They are now considered historical literature, and you will not see them being used as reference texts in any legitimate science faculty in the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is still employed as a source of ethics despite its horrendous pre-medieval values. That would be akin to retaining Aristotle's teachings about innate deceleration in a modern science textbook (for any purpose other than pointing out how wrong they are).

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 08:51pm

Graeme Dice wrote: Believe me, there are plenty of high-school students who would be incapable of

True enough. But at least they have to pretend and be good at copying if they're planning to finish school. If they can graduate without achieving that knowledge shame on them and shame on the teachers.

Graeme Dice wrote: Yes, it would be very nice if such a thing was in there. The people who wrote the thing though wouldn't have even known what a helix was though, so it's not likely that it would have shown up.

They didn't have to understand. It is the divine word, dictated by God. They only had to write it down. If not helix, then folded strings.

Graeme Dice wrote: It still doesn't state that the world is flat though, just that he could see the four corners of it. This is also open to interpretation on what is meant by world, New world and old world and all that sort of thing.

Err.. Again, poor priests. I defy everybody to see four corners in a round world. Climb the Himalaias, fly a jet. You'll never see four corners. No wonder they got confused and thought Earth was plane. Shame on them. And it is a fallacy to adapt a text to fit known facts.
A real theory must predict unknown ones, and the Bible fails to do than on all accounts.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 09:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:Because those books are no longer considered science literature. They are now considered historical literature, and you will not see them being used as reference texts in any legitimate science faculty in the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is still employed as a source of ethics despite its horrendous pre-medieval values. That would be akin to retaining Aristotle's teachings about innate deceleration in a modern science textbook (for any purpose other than pointing out how wrong they are).

Such pointing out can easily be done without removing whole passages, and leaving them in can make it far easier to do so as all the information is contained in one place. I would support a heavily annotated version, similar to high-school Shakespeare texts long before I would remove whole sections.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-27 09:06pm

Err.. Again, poor priests. I defy everybody to see four corners in a round world. Climb the Himalaias, fly a jet. You'll never see four corners. No wonder they got confused and thought Earth was plane. Shame on them. And it is a fallacy to adapt a text to fit known facts.

Ahh so the All-Powerful All knowing God could not even Spell-Check the book or notice the Priests did not get it

This is on of those no win situations Colonel, Either God never noticed the fact the priest could not get it right or God got it wrong...(Unless you could think of a third option.. C prehaps?)

(And I think he wanted it that way does not work parictulary well as he was supposed to Enlighten his followers and similar statments are abound through-out the bible, And to tell us he is doing this on purpose then you Get, C-Gods a Liarer)

*Edit Follow Up to Gaeme

I would support a heavily annotated version, similar to high-school Shakespeare texts long before I would remove whole sections.

Just a quick question what high schools are you refering to? The Local ones here don't annotate anything and my own, we used the full books, Or do you mean those small garbage *Litarary Texts which contain just a chapter or two of this or that?

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 09:11pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:True enough. But at least they have to pretend and be good at copying if they're planning to finish school. If they can graduate without achieving that knowledge shame on them and shame on the teachers.

Neither physics nor chemistry are required classes in many areas of Canada. They don't learn about quanta because they don't have to take any classes that deal with it.

Graeme Dice wrote:They didn't have to understand. It is the divine word, dictated by God. They only had to write it down. If not helix, then folded strings.

It still would have been beyond the comprehension of early writers, and they would be very unlikely to write such a thing down.

Err.. Again, poor priests. I defy everybody to see four corners in a round world. Climb the Himalaias, fly a jet. You'll never see four corners.

The known world did have limits at that time, and if you climbed high enough, you would have seen them.

No wonder they got confused and thought Earth was plane. Shame on them. And it is a fallacy to adapt a text to fit known facts.

Then it must also be a fallacy to base any argument on a translated version of a text, because that is also an adaptation, and we can no longer argue.

Or, they could have decided that the world was flat, then looked for confirmation in the Bible, and decided that that verse stated so.

A real theory must predict unknown ones, and the Bible fails to do than on all accounts.

Who said anything about it being a theory? It is most definetly not a theory, and anyone who thinks so is being irrational. I was asking USAF Ace to prove his assertion that the Bible stated that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 09:16pm

There is a D

There may be or not a God, but the bible was written by people and is NEVER to be taken literally. And the ones who considerer it that way are simple minded morons.

I defy them to find a priest where I live who will support that ludicrous claim (well, maybe they would get lucky, priests have the right to be morons too).

But, wait.. yet they cannot be convinced. In Lalaland there are no rules.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-08-27 09:19pm

This is on of those no win situations Colonel, Either God never noticed the fact the priest could not get it right or God got it wrong...(Unless you could think of a third option.. C prehaps?)

C. God didn't actually write the books, people did.

Just a quick question what high schools are you refering to? The Local ones here don't annotate anything and my own, we used the full books, Or do you mean those small garbage *Litarary Texts which contain just a chapter or two of this or that?

No, I am referring to texts where the original play is on the right hand page, and explanations for what is occurring, and the meanings of phrases and words are on the left hand side of the pages. Thus you make the book twice as long, but it contains a lot more information.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 09:31pm

Graeme Dice wrote: C. God didn't actually write the books, people did.

Correct answer.

Graeme Dice wrote: Neither physics nor chemistry are required classes in many areas of Canada. They don't learn about quanta because they don't have to take any classes that deal with it.

Huh.. I suppose they still get a good education. In Portugal those classes are compulsory for access to all science and engineering Universities.

Graeme Dice wrote: It still would have been beyond the comprehension of early writers, and they would be very unlikely to write such a thing down.

They would if they were told.

Graeme Dice wrote: I was asking USAF Ace to prove his assertion that the Bible stated that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

And I pity the poor bastards who spent lifes studying the Bible only to reach that conclusion.
Shame on them, they should have read between the lines.