Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

Interestingly catholic doctrine does not support a literal reading of the bible which makes your choice sort of weird.

I mean your religion doesn't force you to turn your back on empirical proof yet you do.

Well... there are literalists and contextualists. Literalists would indeed support a literal reading of the bible (earth is 6000 years old) and this tends to yield a somewhat 'special' set of problems for those people. Contextualists look at the bible as allegory and derive meaning from it as a set of teachings. Most science oriented readers of the bible fall into the later category.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Well... there are literalists and contextualists. Literalists would indeed support a literal reading of the bible (earth is 6000 years old) and this tends to yield a somewhat 'special' set of problems for those people. Contextualists look at the bible as allegory and derive meaning from it as a set of teachings. Most science oriented readers of the bible fall into the later category.

Yes but specifically the catholic church posits contextualism as the correct way to read and interpret the Bible.

Ergo being a creationist or young earther is against catholic teachings.

 

[Air]

Yes but specifically the catholic church posits contextualism as the correct way to read and interpret the Bible.

Ergo being a creationist or young earther is against catholic teachings.

What's funnier was there have been many Catholic scholars from antiquity warning not to take the bible wholly literally (as fundamentalists do). Essentially warning about the dangers of fundamentalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

He has aged a lot

He has aged as much as you have since the last time you saw him.

 

[Bombadil]

So you're going to be Dr. and you think a magical man in the sky just plopped humans on to the earth?

Magical man in the sky is a very simplified definition of god.

 

[Monocle]

Magical man in the sky is a very simplified definition of god.

But of course that's basically what it boils down to if you strip away the faux-sophisticated theological language.

 

[Hitokage]

But of course that's basically what it boils down to if you strip away the faux-sophisticated theological language.

Not necessarily. God as a cosmic force isn't quite the same concept as a flying magic man.

 

[Bombadil]

But of course that's basically what it boils down to if you strip away the faux-sophisticated theological language.

Really? No.

I guess evolution is a lot like Poke'mon when you strip away the details.

 

[Monocle]

Not necessarily. God as a cosmic force isn't quite the same concept as a flying magic man.

True, but I assumed we were talking about the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God here, since this thread is about Creationism.

Really? No.

I guess evolution is a lot like Poke'mon when you strip away the details.

Actually, evolution is all about gradual change, so it's Pokemon that got it wrong.

 

[Bombadil]

True, but I assumed we were talking about the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God here, since this thread is about Creationism.


Actually, evolution is all about gradual change, so it's Pokemon that got it wrong.

Whooosh.

The Judeo-Christian conception of God is fragmented. You unify them all into a simple concept so you can criticize it. What's that called, when people that?

 

[KHarvey16]

The magical man in the sky can be so magical he can manifest himself in any number of ways. He is only limited by your own imagination, so don't presume to limit the magical man in the sky, ok?

 

[Bombadil]

The magical man in the sky can be so magical he can manifest himself in any number of ways. He is only limited by your own imagination, so don't presume to limit the magical man in the sky, ok?

More reductionism.

At least be an intelligent atheist, not some fool who babbles some shit I heard ten years ago. My god, how can South Park be so spot on with their material?

 

[mclaren777]

Right on. When did you change your mind?

I must have accidentally given some people the wrong impression.

 

[KHarvey16]

More reductionism.

At least be an intelligent atheist, not some fool who babbles some shit I heard ten years ago. My god, how can South Park be so spot on with their material?

What facet of any god ever conceived can I not cover with this magical man in the sky concept?

 

[Bombadil]

What facet of any god ever conceived can I not cover with this magical man in the sky concept?

You're asking me for advice on how to be more simple?

 

[KHarvey16]

You're asking me for advice on how to be more simple?

I'm asking you to demonstrate the claim you've made.

 

[Quazar]

Is Bill Nye dead? What's with facebook page RIP Bill Nye?

 

[JordanN]

Is Bill Nye dead? What's with facebook page RIP Bill Nye?

A quick google search says it's fake.

 

[Nameless]

Is Bill Nye dead? What's with facebook page RIP Bill Nye?

My guess is, he'll wish he was dead now that he's drawn the ire of the religious right. A shame we weren't created more tolerant to the truth.

 

[Cyan]

I must have accidentally given some people the wrong impression.

I think it was this post that gave me the impression that you believed evolution was bullshit:

I believe evolution is bullshit

 

[mclaren777]

I think it was this post that gave me the impression that you believed evolution was bullshit.

It's not a binary issue.

 

[jerry1594]

Always hated this show but cool.

 

[Bombadil]

I'm asking you to demonstrate the claim you've made.

I don't need to provide evidence about why you shouldn't simplify concepts so you can ridicule them more easily.

There are many of forms of anti-intellectualism, it seems.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't need to provide evidence about why you shouldn't simplify concepts so you can ridicule them more easily.

There are many of forms of anti-intellectualism, it seems.

But it's so easy, right? All you need to do is come up with a single facet not covered by the magical man in the sky concept to show it is reductionist.

You can't do it, and it's ok to say so.

 

[Bombadil]

But it's so easy, right? All you need to do is come up with a single facet not covered by the magical man in the sky concept to show it is reductionist.

You can't do it, and it's ok to say so.

I just figured out how to use the ignore list.

 

[KHarvey16]

I just figured out how to use the ignore list.

You're just being childish. You can't even explain or give any kind of meaning behind your insistence on calling it reductionist. What is it missing? Instead of citing a single example you run behind the ignore list.

 

[jdogmoney]

I think it was this post that gave me the impression that you believed evolution was bullshit:

This is one of the best posts I've seen on GAF recently. Perfectly executed.

 

[Pollux]

Whatever. Im Catholic and believe in creationism instead of the other.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would like to have a word with you.

 

[danwarb]

You're just being childish. You can't even explain or give any kind of meaning behind your insistence on calling it reductionist. What is it missing? Instead of citing a single example you run behind the ignore list.

It's a very touchy subject for some.

 

[squidyj]

I just figured out how to use the ignore list.

Yeah, that seems to be how most creationists deal with arguments about evolution.

 

[EulaCapra]

Hehe. He was practically biting his tongue not to call Creationist parents idiots.

Also, this was another suggested video.

 

[commedieu]

I just figured out how to use the ignore list.

lol. One doesn't just simply ignore Kharvey... I tried once, but eh, grew to love him. Plus seeing an entire thread full of people quoting "You've ignored this member" just pisses you off more because you know hes saying something annoying!!!!

I think the problem I have with the argument that people generalize Christians, is taht Christians don't do a good job condemning the asinine beliefs of others that enjoy the fruits of being labeled christian. Be it political funding, donations to the church, or just living and socializing with people that have like morals.

I always see that in these threads, "But we all aren't like that!" First, no one claims every single christian denies carbon dating.. But the attitude is that the Christian Leaders of the world, the vocal majority, cast doubt on evolution.. This isn't just a simple case of stereotyping, its a large beleif that is shared by many people, and government officials. Its not just some innocent group of old women talking amongst themselves. The people that speak about this, are the people who want creationism to be taught in school. The only people you really see combating this, in large numbers, aren't Christians who believe in science. They stand by silently and let people from the left fight their case for them, if thats what they believe. But this attitude needs to evolve. As a self-described Christian, you can't just keep claiming people are incorrectly generalizing because they dont know about some guy, in a tunnel, under a bridge, that thinks otherwise. You know?

I had the same problem with the Muslim community, who has made strides to separate themselves from Terrorisim in america. They were so sick of everyone claiming they were terrorists, being afraid of them, thinking they all want to push the jews into the sea! They've been working on it. Just the other day I was at Magic Mountain(Six Flags theme park) And they had a muslim day. The muslims all wore shirts that said "Want to know about islam? Ask me!" Or something, I was stoned so I can't exactly remember what it said. But it was nice to see them separating themselves from the insane versions of themselves. This is what christians aren't doing, so until then, you're going to have to see what the generalizations are. They aren't people just lumping all christians in together, its that the christians who believe in science aren't putting out enough education.

All of the PR from the christian world is very deep into magic/faith and miracles. And these things do separate christians, as a whole, from the rest of the modern world, that don't share this view due to science. I know every christian doesn't believe the world is flat, or a few thousand years old. But there are certainly a lot out there that do, that do vote, that do try to hinder the rights of women based only on their religious beliefs. These are the people that are actually affecting others lives, based on their religion. That is absolutely not what this country was founded on. Your freedom to practice religion doesn't hinder others freedoms. These things are seen today, as dated and archaic thinking. I personally see similarities in the way the Taliban wants to rule their land, and the way that the vocal majority of christians in politics, want to rule their land. Muslims spoke out against the taliban, and made sure that people could hear it.

Yeah, that seems to be how most creationists deal with arguments about evolution.

See, shit like this. On one hand, its right. The loudest christian speaking about creationism can not have any sort of modern conversation about it, take guff because of the history of the subject, and then educate. On the other hand, its just bullying someone with a different belief, but that belief is against the laws of science, and science has always corrected religion, its never been the other way around.

 

[jaxword]

You're just being childish. You can't even explain or give any kind of meaning behind your insistence on calling it reductionist. What is it missing? Instead of citing a single example you run behind the ignore list.

Felt like this was a good post to be quoted.

 

[Bombadil]

Yeah, that seems to be how most creationists deal with arguments about evolution.

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

I am no creationist and never was one.

I just respect intelligence rather than reductionism. I despise any person who simplifies a concept they never agreed with just so they can say the same stupid shit that comes out of Reddit's underbelly.

I know KHarvey from previous threads and previous posts. I refuse to engage in a stupid debate, where every thing I contribute will be warped by reductionism.

There is no civility in it.

 

[squidyj]

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

I am no creationist and never was one.

I just respect intelligence rather than reductionism. I despise any person who simplifies a concept they never agreed with just so they can say the same stupid shit that comes out of Reddit's underbelly.

I know KHarvey from previous threads and previous posts. I refuse to engage in a stupid debate, where every thing I contribute will be warped by reductionism.

There is no civility in it.

So... you still can't come up with anything? But hey, congrats on setting up your moral highground for evacuation from the discussion on this subject.

I think there was a guy who said "make it as simple as you can but no simpler" if it's reductionism that's going on then there are elements being excluded, as KHarvey said, in that summation of the idea. If there are such elements and they are important to the arguments of creationism or intelligent design then they should be apparent to someone who so respects intelligence as yourself.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

I am no creationist and never was one.

I just respect intelligence rather than reductionism. I despise any person who simplifies a concept they never agreed with just so they can say the same stupid shit that comes out of Reddit's underbelly.

I know KHarvey from previous threads and previous posts. I refuse to engage in a stupid debate, where every thing I contribute will be warped by reductionism.

There is no civility in it.

Explaining how he was being reductionist and oversimplifying might be more effective than hitching up your pants, crossing your arms, and huffily declaring him beneath your majestic complex dignity.

 

[commedieu]

Explaining how he was being reductionist and oversimplifying might be more effective than hitching up your pants, crossing your arms, and huffily declaring him beneath your majestic complex dignity.

...man..

 

[mlbriggs]

I just figured out how to use the ignore list.

I'll ask it again, in KHarvey16's stead:

"All you need to do is come up with a single facet not covered by the magical man in the sky concept to show it is reductionist."

Surely your viewpoint on this is worth defending and explaining...

 

[Karma Kramer]

Bill Hicks said it a bit funnier : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z5vuMvTg4E

 

[Magni]

Going for a Ph.D. Thank you. =)

I'm amazed by the fact that in the 21st century, in the developed world, you can make it pst a Bachelor's and not even have a basic understanding of biology. Though it looks as though you do not have a basic understanding of your own religion, you should read a bit more Chris..

Yeah I do believe in God and He created the Earth and yes I am going for my Dr. degree.
Does it make sense to any of you? Probably not. Do I care? Nope.
It makes sense to me. I can believe in God and become a Dr in something. Its working out well for me (straight As) and a good job.

I accept what other people believe in, but when people thrash religion around and not be accepting on other people's beliefs is when I throw the glove. Its not nice and its trying to force people not believe in something. However, I find it equally as annoying when people shove their beliefs into other's throats.

There is a difference between accepting someone's beliefs and accepting someone's craziness, especially when that said person is then passing on the craziness to their offspring (original point of the thread).

I'm just wondering: what do you know of evolution? Have you ever studied it? Do you seriously believe the entire scientific community and the overwhelming majority of the developed world (thank Zeus the US isn't the only developed country!) have it wrong?

And how much of a creationist are you? When do you think God created the Earth? Do you think dinosaurs ever existed? If so, did they coexist with humans? When did they die out?

 

[timmy]

I'd be more comfortable if elementary science textbooks replaced sections on gravity with "Intelligent Falling," which could explain to students that all matter exerts a force on other objects, while also stressing that the universe was created by God.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Does believing evolution or creationism really matter in life?

 

[dark_chris]

I'm amazed by the fact that in the 21st century, in the developed world, you can make it pst a Bachelor's and not even have a basic understanding of biology. Though it looks as though you do not have a basic understanding of your own religion, you should read a bit more Chris..



There is a difference between accepting someone's beliefs and accepting someone's craziness, especially when that said person is then passing on the craziness to their offspring (original point of the thread).

I'm just wondering: what do you know of evolution? Have you ever studied it? Do you seriously believe the entire scientific community and the overwhelming majority of the developed world (thank Zeus the US isn't the only developed country!) have it wrong?

And how much of a creationist are you? When do you think God created the Earth? Do you think dinosaurs ever existed? If so, did they coexist with humans? When did they die out?

You may call it crazy but meh. Thats all I can really say about it.
i know a bit of both sides, although recently, i've been studying my religion (growing up I was into it and all, then I didn't do much but recently, now I've been getting back into religion.) Somethings strike me and somethings don't. Ill be honest here too and say I didn't really study biology much (I've only done physics and a bit of geology). I dont believe the community is wrong about somethings.
I know for sure that the Earth wasnt created 6-7000 years ago. Dinosaurs existed. Well, they could of died out by a meteor strike from long ago or a volcanic activity that caused ash and dust to cover the planet.

 

[dark_chris]

Does believing evolution or creationism really matter in life?

it matters if we'll evolve into Super Monkeys. =p

 

[soul creator]

my secret favorite part of these threads is the "even the Catholic Church accepts/understands evolution!" part.

I didn't know souls, special creation, and other divine "tweaks" were part of evolutionary theory.

 

[el retorno]

Does believing evolution or creationism really matter in life?

It matters for a public in a democracy that elects people, yes.

 

[Green Mamba]

Does believing evolution or creationism really matter in life?

Does believing the Earth is flat or round really matter in life?

 

[JordanN]

Does believing evolution or creationism really matter in life?

If you want to major in a biology field, knowing evolution is vital.

Creationism on the other hand, has no worthwhile place in life.

 

[Magni]

You may call it crazy but meh. Thats all I can really say about it.
i know a bit of both sides, although recently, i've been studying my religion (growing up I was into it and all, then I didn't do much but recently, now I've been getting back into religion.) Somethings strike me and somethings don't. Ill be honest here too and say I didn't really study biology much (I've only done physics and a bit of geology). I dont believe the community is wrong about somethings.
I know for sure that the Earth wasnt created 6-7000 years ago. Dinosaurs existed. Well, they could of died out by a meteor strike from long ago or a volcanic activity that caused ash and dust to cover the planet.

Okay thanks for replying. At least you're not completely crazy, there is hope! What do you think about the Catholic Church's stance on evolution?

Oh, and could have! not could of sorry for the grammar nazi OT but that one is among the worst haha

 

[Bombadil]

I'll ask it again, in KHarvey16's stead:

"All you need to do is come up with a single facet not covered by the magical man in the sky concept to show it is reductionist."

Surely your viewpoint on this is worth defending and explaining...

It is not my viewpoint. Here's some off the top of my head.

- God as an intelligent being that did not evolve as other life does in the universe.

- God as a being that exists outside of the universe, and is not bound by laws of the universe.

- God as a catalyst for the universe's inception.

- God as a set of rules and properties that characterize basic elements of matter and energy.


Does this all easily reduce to the magic man in the sky? What is magic, anyway?

If god is a term used to describe an entity that occupies all space and exists everywhere, does the term god easily reduce down to a magic man in the sky?

Does KHarvey come across as an intelligent person for regurgitating the same shit spoken over and over again as if it's dictated from some pamphlet? He strikes me as the type of person who would speak out against that, what with all the posts made against religion. Yet, it seems people just easily fall back into a single-minded group and become cognitive misers.

If someone told you they believed in a god, and your initial imagining of the god that they believe in is essentially a magic man in the sky, then is that person a misguided fool, or are you the misguided fool? Because you conceived of it that way.

Once you start guessing what kind of god people believe in, then you start concluding their motives for believing, and all that shit you've been told about prejudice being wrong goes out the window because you're right and being a dick is okay when you're right.


Magic
Man
Sky

Three terms that are arguably more specific than god.

Magic? What is magic? The ability to make something happen without effort? A string of words or chants that causes things to change form?
Man? Human, human-like? Male? Does every concept of god fall under this category?
Sky? Like, the atmosphere resting above our heads? Does every person who claims to believe in god believe that god is sitting on a cloud, rubbing his beard in disapproval?

Obviously not.

Therefore, it is without question that defining a complex idea - that appears in a variety of permutations across the globe, with varying purposes, forms, stories, rules, etc - into three words is a reductionist statement. And when that statement is used in a snarky dismissive manner, one can already deduce that the person making the statement is no longer interested in an intelligent discourse.

Which is why I choose not to continue the debate.