Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

Slavery in those times was not exclusive to race, but social status. Many people sold themselves to services in exchange for goods. Especially the poor. Why would it not make sense to address it?

You're criticisms are exclusive to the progress of humanity in the time-frame in which the book was written. This applies to the sun and earth argument, as well.

Knowledge is knowledge and your choice to critique through a literal interpretation of the Bible is as foolish as the religious zealots who do the same.

Yet, you still have a book wherein the all-perfect and all-moral God allows for slavery, rape, genocide, and outright misanthropy. The argument that these incidents are relative to the time they were thought about does not change the fact that such deities are narcissictic despots.

One cannot avoid the fact that the deity itself is unworthy of any devotion.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This might be a good time for this. I'm not a creationist, and I'm not really an evolutionist either, mostly because I haven't done enough research. Is there irrefutable proof of either theory? GAF always laughs when people say they don't believe in evolution, but no one ever seems to point us in a direction that explains why they think that way.

The idea that organisms change over several generations? That's an undisputed fact.

The specific on how and why are constantly being refined. That's the theory of evolution, but methods such as natural selection and genetic drift are almost certain.

 

[Kinitari]

I suppose in your world, if you believe that you either take the entire book literally, or metaphorically.

Hrm, I have yet to stumble across a bible with writers notes outlining what is and what is not a metaphor. Is there like, a guideline I need to follow when I read it? Maybe a code word? Every Psalm which first line ends with a 's' is a metaphor maybe.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Did I say it did?

:lol :lol :lol

Pretty much, given that you were rebutting the point that the bible supports slavery, which I brought up because you said that the bible was more trustworthy than some random internet dude.

Stop moving the goalposts, please.

 

[soul creator]

Who decides what's metaphor and what's literal?

if you're in a discussion with a nonbeliever who is using it show how religious claims are obviously false - metaphor

if you're in a discussion with fellow believers - literal

 

[jett]

The term 'evolutionist' is fucking hilarious. :lol

Only in America!

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Yet, you still have a book wherein the all-perfect and all-moral God allows for slavery, rape, genocide, and outright misanthropy. The argument that these incidents are relative to the time they were thought about does not change the fact that such deities are narcissictic despots.

One cannot avoid the fact that the deity itself is unworthy of any devotion.

The world changes a lot in 200 years, regarding faith, social relations, knowledge, etc.

Hell, I think some aspects of the Constitution are outdated but the principles are the same.

 

[demon]

I suppose in your world, if you believe that you either take the entire book literally, or metaphorically.

Or in your world, where you conveniently take some sections literally to support your faith and others figuratively when they become too antiquated to believe without coming off as totally crazypants?

 

[Kinitari]

The world changes a lot in 200 years, regarding faith, social relations, knowledge, etc.

Hell, I think some aspects of the Constitution are outdated but the principles are the same.

If only God knew how dumb the shit in the bible would make him look in 2000 years.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Pretty much, given that you were rebutting the point that the bible supports slavery, which I brought up because you said that the bible was more trustworthy than some random internet dude.

Stop moving the goalposts, please.

I'm saying I can see why it was addressed as a daily part of life. A part that one wouldn't even consider foreign at all.

And I said it's more trustworthy than a guy saying that universe was created by a purple beaver 5472 years ago.

But if it's not to GAF, then my mistake.

Or in your world, where you conveniently take some sections literally to support your faith and others figuratively when they become too antiquated to believe without coming off as totally crazypants?

My faith?

Have we met?

Ohhhh, I forgot where I was. Where battling absolutes and bigotry regarding religions makes me religious myself. Apologies.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I'm saying I can see why it was addressed as a daily part of life. A part that one wouldn't even consider foreign at all.

It is not merely addressed. It is explicitly condoned!

Random internet guy wins over the bible pretty much every day.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm saying I can see why it was addressed as a daily part of life. A part that one wouldn't even consider foreign at all.

And I said it's more trustworthy than a guy saying that universe was created by a purple beaver 5472 years ago.

But if it's not to GAF, then my mistake.



My faith?

Have we met?

Ohhhh, I forgot where I was. Where battling absolutes and bigotry regarding religions makes me religious myself. Apologies.

I didn't know calling religions dumb made you a bigot... do I know what a bigot is? I should probably look it up or something.

 

[Atrus]

The world changes a lot in 200 years, regarding faith, social relations, knowledge, etc.

Hell, I think some aspects of the Constitution are outdated but the principles are the same.

You avoid the issue. The central character of these holy books, the absolute virtue by whom people are taught to obey beyond all else, is an immoral actor.

The world does change, and in the course of history, humanity was able to establish standards far beyond the conception of these infantile gods.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

It is not merely addressed. It is explicitly condoned!

Slavery in the United States went uncontested for a while.

"Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owner"

Copy-pasted but I'm lazy.

I should probably look it up or something.

It wasn't regarding you, but be my guest.

You avoid the issue. The central character of these holy books, the absolute virtue by whom people are taught to obey beyond all else, is an immoral actor.

You mean the people who think God is a dude with a huge white beard hovering in the clouds counting wishes? Those who think the Earth is 6,000 years old? The ones taught to believe without question? I'm not referring to them.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Slavery in the United States went uncontested for a while.

Yeah, then things changed.

Meanwhile, the bible still supports slavery!

 

[Kinitari]

Slavery in the United States went uncontested for a while.

"Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owner"

Copy-pasted but I'm lazy.



It wasn't regarding you, but be my guest.



You mean the people who think God is a dude with a huge white beard hovering in the clouds counting wishes? Those who think the Earth is 6,000 years old? The ones taught to believe without question? I'm not referring to them.

1. Maybe I just am not getting you, how is condoning Slavery in the Bible okay (this book is the moral compass for a lot of people)?

2. Who was being a bigot in this thread for example?

3. I am pretty sure it's standard practice for everyone from the die hard creationists to the cafeteria catholics to hold God as the supreme being above all to obey.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

It's crazy how there is absolutely no gray area in beliefs for you guys.

Yeah, then things changed.

Meanwhile, the bible still supports slavery!

Actually, loving thy neighbor, etc. and many other points contradict the notion of slavery.

It stating how to care for them relates to the times as I said earlier.

1. Maybe I just am not getting you, how is condoning Slavery in the Bible okay (this book is the moral compass for a lot of people)?

2. Who was being a bigot in this thread for example?

3. I am pretty sure it's standard practice for everyone from the die hard creationists to the cafeteria catholics to hold God as the supreme being above all to obey.

You're probably not getting me, but I fail at expressing myself through text a bit so it's probably my fault.

1.) It's not okay.
2.) There are quite a few posts that display an irrational animosity towards all religious people in this thread.
3.) There's a difference between obeying and following, imo.

Originally this whole conversation escalated to this point because for some reason you held the Bible on some pedestal, stating it had more merit then the ideals of some random dude on the internet. Getting back to that original point, why do you think this is the case?

As I stated, if you believe that a purple beaver creating the universe has more merit than the bible and many of the ideals presented in it, then we disagree.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, then things changed.

Meanwhile, the bible still supports slavery!

And evolution supports eugenics and the Holocaust amirite

 

[Kinitari]

It's crazy how there is absolutely no gray area in beliefs for you guys.



Actually, loving thy neighbor, etc. and many other points contradict the notion of slavery.

It stating how to care for them relates to the times as I said earlier.

I don't even understand what you are trying to defend anymore. People here are saying the bible is obvious full of inconsistencies and morally bankrupt ideals. I am sure that you could extract some nuggets of wisdom out of that clusterfuck, but why even bother? After a certain point you are no longer following what the Bible is telling you, and simply using your own personal compass and conveniently wrapping the bible around it.

Originally this whole conversation escalated to this point because for some reason you held the Bible on some pedestal, stating it had more merit then the ideals of some random dude on the internet. Getting back to that original point, why do you think this is the case?

 

[Atrus]

You mean the people who think God is a dude with a huge white beard hovering in the clouds counting wishes? Those who think the Earth is 6,000 years old? The ones taught to believe without question? I'm not referring to them.

You think that only a minority believe that God is real or is the omnopotent and infallible father-figure of the universe who grants the only avenue to ever-lasting life? The billions who prostrate themselves in reverence to this figure as a literal truth argues against it.

 

[Kinitari]

And evolution supports eugenics and the Holocaust amirite

The earlier[53][54][55][56][57] Covenant Code instructs that if a thief is caught after sunrise, and is unable to make restitution for the theft, then the thief should be enslaved.[58] The Book of Kings instructs that the children of a deceased debtor may be forced into slavery to pay off outstanding debts.[59][60]; similarly it is evident from the Book of Isaiah[61] that, in the Kingdom of Judah, (living) debtors could be forced to sell their children into slavery in order to pay the creditors[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Enslavement

This is a little more explicit then that.

 

[Locke562]

Actually, loving thy neighbor, etc. and many other points contradict the notion of slavery.

It stating how to care for them relates to the times as I said earlier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, loving thy neighbor only applied to fellow Jews. As did most old testament laws. It was okay to keep slaves of tribes or religions.

 

[Fio]

What will be his next book, "2 + 2 = 4" ?

Today, writing a book about "the definitive proof of evolution" just seems to be a way to profit off his rabid fanbase of "atheism-warriors", a kind that is, honestly, as annoying as the religious zealots they abhor so much.

 

[Mumei]

What will be his next book, "2 + 2 = 4" ?

Today, writing a book about "the definitive proof of evolution" just seems to be a way to profit off his rabid fanbase of "atheism-warriors", a kind that is, honestly, as annoying as the religious zealots they abhor so much.

I've never really gotten this equivalency. I mean, I can see how both might annoy you due to general unpleasantness and shrillness, but the portrayal seems to set up this idea that this isn't a situation where one side is repeatedly lying, out of either simple ignorance themselves or out of a desire to keep other people ignorant, and the other side is largely telling the truth (in terms of "leadership" - comparing leaders of religious organizations and people who at least hold themselves up as representatives of a sort of pro-scientific perspective / secular humanistic-y perspective like, say, Dawkins or even someone like PZ Myers).

Maybe I'm crazy, but the ones who are lying I find more annoying than the ones who are a bit shrill in exposing their lies.

 

[PoliceCop]

And evolution supports eugenics and the Holocaust amirite

There's nothing wrong with the concept of eugenics. Good genes tend to breed good genes. How "good genes" was defined by certain people was the problem.

 

[Furcas]

There's nothing wrong with the concept of eugenics. Good genes tend to breed good genes. How "good genes" was defined by certain people was the problem.

Your first two sentences are obviously true to anyone with an ounce of good sense, and the last one isn't false, but the main problem with the application of eugenics was the measures taken to stop the individuals with undesirable traits from reproducing.

 

[Snaku]

Actually, loving thy neighbor, etc. and many other points contradict the notion of slavery.

Slaves aren't neighbors, they're something you borrow from your neighbor. Like salt, or a ladder.

 

[Nocebo]

That doesn't prove God either, it could be through sheer random circumstance that this universe is the one that formed, or that there could be no other chance and this is the one that had to form simply because it did, but again, even knowing it is wrong to think so, I can't help but think it's peculiar too.

But how do you know how small the chance is that the universe formed the way it did. What if there were / are countless more version of the universe? The same as with the formation of earth, there are billions of stars and what not. And billions of years. You can say it's like winning the lottery. However I see it as winning the lottery while you're holding all the tickets in the lottery. If it's possible it'll happen.

 

[KimiNewt]

Dawkins no Gould, I have most of his books but they really IMO kinda of blow, Ward and Gould are vastly more intelligent than dawkin's.

I've only read a collection of Gould's essays ("The Richness of Life") and I must say that writing-wise I enjoyed Dawkins' books much more. I also don't go along with most of Gould's opinions I think, and he's not around to defend them anymore.
At any rate, I doubt I'll be picking up this book. The Blind Watchmaker for example was a nice read but taught me nothing new so I highly doubt this would. I don't like the writing enough to not mind being taught the theory all over again for the tenth time, and this time like a first grader (which is seemingly what some people need, since schools didn't bother teaching or for whatever other reason).

 

[slidewinder]

That's not evolution, that's domestication and breeding.

Of course that's evolution; it's evolution by human-directed selection.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Are we talking about the book anymore?

Anyway, I think I'll grab it as I haven't really dipped into science since high school and this will be a nice refresher. I do find Dawkins to be a bit of a twat, however.

 

[speculawyer]

Expelled is a must see. As long as you have the Expelled Exposed custom subtitles.

I must know more.

 

[mrkgoo]

My man, you and I and billions before us ponder the same thing. The difference between us and our forefathers is now we have a much greater understanding and a model of reason and logic to help us find the answer.

I'm going to paraphrase what Neil deGrasse Tyson said. - What separates us from our closest relative the chimps is only 1 percent in our genetic makeup. Yet that 1 percent difference gives us the ability to make art, music, and technology. Maybe, just maybe, we aren't intuitive enough to understand string theory. But if there was a specie out in the galaxy that was just 1 percent different than us in the same direction that we are different to the chimps, than the origin of the universe and the meaning of life would come easy for them. Just 1 percent. Their children would write symphonies and post them on the fridge door. Our smartest man would appear as a child to them. Much like the smartest chimp appears like a human child to us.

Just 1 percent. I am jealous as fuck.

I never like the use of percentages when it comes to genetic difference. It's like using percentages for the human population as a whole. When you're talking billions, single percentages are actually huge differences (not to mention adding subjective qualifiers like 'just' and 'only' in front of them).

The 2% genetic difference between humans and Chimps is by DNA sequence. A DNA sequence that is over 3.4 billion long. 3.4 billion. That 3,400,000,000. That means 1% is 34,000,000 differences. On average, a single gene is 3,000. That's theoretically 34,000 genes worth of difference, right? Well, the human genome is comprised of approximately 20-25,000 genes. Yup, our coding genes only make up around 1% of our total DNA (closer to 1.5%).

So the 2% difference in Chimps? They could technically have completely different coding regions. Of course, they don't, but I'm just trying to describe how percentages are nearly meaningless to quantify changes in DNA.

Thinking about genetic sequence alone as differences is literally thinking in one-dimension. Certain genes are turned on, turned off, at different times, the products of genes are further modified in different ways ... there are nearly countless ways that the sequence alone doesn't tell the full story.

 

[LivingEarth]

Yeah, then things changed.

Meanwhile, the bible still supports slavery!

I need to find those facepalm pics. Insert some random ignorant statement to blame the Bible. Oh wait... I think you need to pull out what the KKK uses to go after black people.

My point? You can make a case for anything if you are ignorant enough and blind enough.

I think education in science is great, but some of you all should drop your biases and your hate and really study the bible and not just read it.

There is far too much hate for religion and blaming the Bible and religion for everything is just not rational behavior.

I get that some of you guys don't believe in God, fine. However, that is not a license to go out and act like a total douchebag. Rational people know that yes there are some problems with religion in the world just as there are racist scientists that say that black people are less intelligent. However, you have to seperate things and not everything is bad or evil. You have to have to live a life with moderation and tollerance.

 

[krioto]

I wish you people would stay on topic - the bible and whether or not Dawkins is an arsehole have no place in an evolutionary discussion.

I like sprinkles.

 

[Nocebo]

I'm going to get this book. It's sure to help me better articulate my position when some random religious guy comes up to me again trying to convince me to join his fantasy story book club where they only ever read one book.

 

[Chinner]

death to america?

 

[KevinCow]

Is there any point to this book, or books like it? People who agree with it don't need it, and people who don't agree with it won't read it.

 

[Nocebo]

Is there any point to this book, or books like it? People who agree with it don't need it, and people who don't agree with it won't read it.

What about people that want to eductate themselves when they don't know everything. Maybe people are interested in the theory but haven't read much, this book seems like a good over view of the various sciences that add evidence to the theory of evolution.

 

[Dabookerman]

I need to find those facepalm pics. Insert some random ignorant statement to blame the Bible. Oh wait... I think you need to pull out what the KKK uses to go after black people.

My point? You can make a case for anything if you are ignorant enough and blind enough.

I think education in science is great, but some of you all should drop your biases and your hate and really study the bible and not just read it.

There is far too much hate for religion and blaming the Bible and religion for everything is just not rational behavior.

I get that some of you guys don't believe in God, fine. However, that is not a license to go out and act like a total douchebag. Rational people know that yes there are some problems with religion in the world just as there are racist scientists that say that black people are less intelligent. However, you have to seperate things and not everything is bad or evil. You have to have to live a life with moderation and tollerance.

You're asking people to respect a piece of fiction that was written 2000+ years ago.
Studying the Holy Book, or the book full of Holes is a pointless waste of time as it had authors with no grasp of story telling and suspense and comedy. No comedy at all.

 

[Nocebo]

You're asking people to respect a piece of fiction that was written 2000+ years ago.
Studying the Holy Book, or the book full of Holes is a pointless waste of time as it had authors with no grasp of story telling and suspense and comedy. No comedy at all.

Not everyone can be as good a writer as J.K. Rowling.

 

[Dabookerman]

Not everyone can be as good a writer as J.K. Rowling.

"But my Lord, we cannot build an ark this big", Noah said in a matter-of-factly way.

 

[iapetus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, loving thy neighbor only applied to fellow Jews.

You are wrong. Does the parable of the Good Samaritan ring any bells? Loving thy neighbour was more of a New Testament thing than Old Testament anyway, wasn't it? No coveting his ass in the OT, but loving him in the more hippy-oriented NT.

Yet, you still have a book wherein the all-perfect and all-moral God allows for slavery, rape, genocide, and outright misanthropy. The argument that these incidents are relative to the time they were thought about does not change the fact that such deities are narcissictic despots.

One fundamental difference between an atheist view of these things and a religious one is how significant such things are. When you see someone's life on earth as the be all and end all, things are very different to when you see them as an utter irrelevance compared to an eternal afterlife.

 

[Salazar]

One fundamental difference between an atheist view of these things and a religious one is how significant such things are. When you see someone's life on earth as the be all and end all, things are very different to when you see them as an utter irrelevance compared to an eternal afterlife.

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/in-the-midst-of-death.php

Don't miss this. Great essay by a terrific writer.

Also, don't miss this week's In Our Time.

 

[mr afghan jones]

In a way it is a shame that this book had to have Dawkins as its author.

The people who most need to read about and understand evolution better are highly unlikely to want to pay good money to read something with Dawkins' name on it.

 

[Falch]

Reading Mayr's What Evolution Is at the moment, but I'll be sure to pick this up soon afterwards.

 

[Woodsy]

I dunno. I think it's possible that some form of intelligence may have been responsible for the universe. I mean, for everything to be in such perfect balance seems like one prrrrrretty fluky and perfect accident. I don't for a second believe that a Biblical God created the universe, but that it is possible an intelligence was responsible for laying out the formula for life to exist. I mean, if almost any chemical formula was off by a digit, we could cease to exist. Seems pretty fortuitous, don't you think?

EDIT: And I realize I'm now talking about the creation of the universe, and not evolution, which are two separate topics.

The simplest explanation is that evolution in and of itself is its own balance - it's doesn't require anything to be preset or to really follow any specified natural order. It is not so much a balance as it is an ever changing balance and no matter how large a chance happens (e.g. we nuke the planet) whatever survives will find it's own balance and/or everything will die off and we'll turn into Mars (assuming no life there) which is simply the end point for evolution at that time.

 

[John Dunbar]

In a way it is a shame that this book had to have Dawkins as its author.

The people who most need to read about and understand evolution better are highly unlikely to want to pay good money to read something with Dawkins' name on it.

If it had been written by someone other than Dawkins most people wouldn't have even heard of it.

 

[dinazimmerman]

I like you and your level-headed responses. You sound like a humanities student.

Thanks, but I'm a first semester econ student. Don't tell anyone, though. :lol

 

[iapetus]

I wish you people would stay on topic - the bible and whether or not Dawkins is an arsehole have no place in an evolutionary discussion.

I like sprinkles.

Whether Dawkins is an arsehole has plenty of relevance to a discussion of his new book. I preferred the ones he wrote when he was being less of an arsehole, and would hope (probably in vain) that this returns to that style.