Bill Nye VS Ken Ham Debate: Creation Museum

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Gage, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    +1 Ham said it himself when asked if there was any evidence or possible scenarios where he would question his own views. "NO, there's NOT even a hypothetical situation where I would change my mind."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Mainstream???? What you mean these people!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,253
    These are the same vocal whackos who believe in creationism... Most Christians I know are relatively sane. (And I say that as an atheist who lives in the bible belt.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784

    "But if what you mean by “crazy” is “out of touch with reality”?

    Then it’s all equally crazy.

    All religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. All of them ultimately rely on faith — i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it — as the core foundation of their belief. All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.

    And by that definition, all religions are equally crazy.

    Some just hide their craziness better than others."


    http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/06/02/are-all-religions-equally-crazy/
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think that worked up until the Protestant Reformation, at which time the "priesthood of the common man" overthrew the idea that orthodox folks could do much to stem the tide of fundamentalism. It's this peculiar mutation on religion that is so insidious - it hugely amplifies the effects of self-validation that the orthodox religions perpetuated from antiquity.

    We often hear the vacuous apology "how could something so enduring as Christianity be wrong"? I mean: influenza is enduring. So is addiction. The illusion of cheating death is a strong enough opiate. But lately they have found that breaking and entering into the halls of science and academia, and making off with the glassware, is cheaper than springing for their own meth labs. And, yeah, what a rush.

    Ken Ham is a self-aggrandizing moron who no doubt insults the intelligence of the average orthodox Christian about as much as the rest of us. Entirely missing from his propaganda (which I can say with certainty after only tolerating it for a few minutes before I was gagging and had to click it off) -- entirely missing is the true basis of his rant. It has nothing to do with Christianity per se and everything to do with this ingratiating "priesthood of the common man". He could just as well be shamanist since he's purely thriving on the buzz of self-validation. Take all of that away, and if he had even an atom of conviction about the underpinnings of Christian teaching, he would have taken every penny he wasted promoting lies (that humans walked the Earth in the age of dinosaurs) and instead he would have spent it on charities attending to the needs the poor, the homeless, the sick and the imprisoned. The mainstreamers who already got that memo would tend to care less about creation myths and legends that preceded this commandment (which, I would note, was allegedly uttered by Jesus himself and bracketed by the threat of going to hell for failing to act. Speaking of the authority of the literally interpreted Bible, that is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    I don't think many of us would care that much about the effects of religion on culture, self-determination and the causes of social and academic progress if there were no fundies accosting us everytime it seems we are on the verge of making a little headway. In a perfect world, they would all be devoted to practicing what they were preaching -- out there living like Mother Teresa, tending to the ravages of humans upon humans -- while the rest of us would be unimpeded by their antics, unfettered by them to do our best to stem the ravages of nature upon humans, and the ravages of humans upon nature. It would be about as good a definition of "highest ethical conduct", across the board, as anyone could hope for.

    But until that kind of rapture settles upon us, I too would also like to the see the mainstream folks telling the fundies to get with the program. If there's one thing that wrankles all of us, it's a hypocrite. Oh look, another pearl from the Bible. We could go on enumerating the most flagrant un-Christian principles seen in Ham and his buddies -- but hey, they immunize themselves from all accountability through that "priesthood of the common man" and just cherry pick which is the literal verse du jour. Creation is an easy one, since they don't have to do any work, and they can entirely blame someone else (Adam & Eve / the Devil) for their own stupidity. It's a Ponzi scheme, only it pays better and it's not illegal. All of this, and tons more . . . just to insulate themselves from the fact that at some point we all die, and the lights go out on all of this nonsense.
     
  9. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    ^Good read.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,180
    You know, I really agree with this. I find it so frustrating that the "sensible" churches don't come out and stand up for the compatibility between science and Christianity, in spite of the assurances they are happy to give whenever the question arises. I have heard it said that their reticence about this is because they don't want to "shake the faith of simple people", i.e put off people who are not educated enough to realise you don't need to - indeed can't - can't take the Old Testament as literal. But in most Western countries I simply don't buy this. Damn it, in all the Church of England and Catholic schools in England, evolution is taught in science lessons without a murmur.

    Of course, the fundies would fulminate about "popery", "the Antichrist", and all that tedious ballocks, but at least it would then make clear where the dividing line between common sense and nuttiness is to be drawn.
     
  11. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Mother Teresa was a bitch, who lobbied against the legality of abortion, contraception, and even divorce. She believed that you got closer to God through suffering. She got off on the suffering.

    Do your homework.
     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The Pope would probably say that scientific evidence favoured evolution as being factual.
    What a Christian cannot do is to accept that we are a matter of chance.
    That is atheism.
    The Pope, being a Catholic, would have to assert the dogma of creation.

    Without the concept of God as father, there is no Christianity.
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  14. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    923
    Ehm... I'm a Catholic. Virgin means "unmarried woman" in its latin etymology. The Catholic church has lasted so long because it has been able to reconcile evidenced information with fact passed down traditionally. Atheism has long been known to even many atheists as an ideology not against faith. Jesus himself threw over tables in his Jewish temple. The thought of being without God is just as much a choice to question faith as the Catholic church permits. The word God can be ascribed to nature, chance, and even ascribed to a conscious deterministic creator. I wince just as much as the next who sees the word misused in the face of evidence. Almost as much as I wince when hatred to the word is applied solely against good moral religious text. Wince when parable is confused with fact or legend, and again when an atheist uses common evidence to discredit a conscious being. The purpose of faith is to live life for facts that are not evidenced or theorized. The purpose of atheism is to stand on ones own feet and marvel at nature. Not return the discredit from a fanatic by becoming a fanatic. Those two extremes do our nature no justice, no peace, no glory. And we ourselves pay the consequence of exasperation and despair.

    yeah that sounds pretty.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Hey Trooper, I see you read Mommie (Theresa) Dearest. The only retort that comes to mind is "it hurts so good" but only at the risk of being counterproductive. Yeah, I couldn't think of any other well-known humanitarian to get the point across. You would think, with billions of religious people out there proclaiming the virtues of compassion, that there might be at least one or two among them who made role model status.

    The question which I would put to all Christians who would argue that humans walked among the dinosaurs is this: if they arrive at that conclusion by beginning as their highest principle that the Bible is to be construed literally, then they have to take it all literally. This means that they have to take literally the commandment from Jesus that whatever they do not do to abate the misery of all people around them, is an offense against their God which will lead their eternal damnation. Contrast that "literal truth" with Ken Ham's logic, such as this rather bizarre attack on philanthropy:

    "So can Ted Turner earn his way into heaven? The truth is that no matter how many billions of dollars Ted Turner (or any one for that matter) gives away, no matter how many animals he saves, and no matter what great things he does for people and this planet – none of this can get him to heaven,"

    And he goes on railing about "accepting Jesus" etc. as the get-out-of-jail card which trumps charity. It's this moronic mean streak that runs through the fundies which sets them apart from the orthodox folks gmilam mentioned, esp. the ones who cringe at the thought of a museum dedicated to proving that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

    Stupidity and meanness. That's the central theme behind all of it, even when it's dressed up to look like the perpetuation of what might otherwise be some relatively innocuous children's fable.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You lost me. Was Ham extolling the virtues of virginity? (What brought that to mind?)

    By that I'm left to assume you mean it survived the 19th c and thereafter, when the creation myth came into conflict with overwhelming evidence. Prior to that there was maybe only one ripple on that front, which was the debunking of the geocentric universe by the likes of Galileo, Kepler and Newton.

    In fact it's the absence of an ideology that's taken hold of others. It's a freedom from that.

    This appears to tell us that, if such a man existed, he belonged to a fringe sect which was at odds with the main groups operating in Jerusalem. The subtext has to do with figuring out which sect fomented the war with Rome, since, without that crucial event in their history, there would have been no crucifixion, no martyr, and nothing to hang Christianity on, and little purpose to the story. I would propose that the Gospels are something akin to the diary of Anne Frank, some attempt at documenting the atrocities of the Romans, perhaps even meant as a play, perhaps meant to be done in imitation of Plato's rendering of Socrates. Who know? It could have arisen out of any of a thousand causes. But not because of magic. There simply is no such thing.

    Ken Ham would break a blood vessel over that. I'd love to see the debate in which the deterministic creator decides to invent random processes, just to fool the the feeble minds of the creatures inhabiting only one tiny speck of dust in an immense sea of colossal physical structures. Evidently God has no sense of scale . . . among other things. But randomness can't exactly be created, just as consciousness can not exist without a properly functioning and awake brain.

    There's a pretty big disconnect from conventional usage of the word "evidence" when it comes to religion. After all, all religion boils down to a few essential ingredients: superstition, myth, legend and fable. The rest pretty much covers evidence.

    I think most of the venom is reserved for the worst offenders.

    The Bible is parabolic in more ways than one.

    Atheists would not even concern themselves with this if the worst offenders were not chronically injecting themselves and their meanness and stupidity into the public arena.

    You are referring to the aspects of life that can't be crystallized by physics. I would point out that they are treated amply in other sciences. Biology, for example, goes a long way towards explaining some of the nature of the uncanny experiences that give religious folks the idea that "there must be more". Similarly, Ken Ham's Flintstone Museum of Natural History can be reduced to pretty simple biological cause for the defense mechanism. Give the man some meds, or a lobotomy, and all of that is cured.

    I haven't thought of it as a purpose, but as a default condition. While there is much to marvel at, there is also a need to preserve one's own sense of valid logic as a matter of preserving one's sanity.

    Fundamentalism, and its rape and pillage of science and public policy, is the only sign of exasperation and despair that I've noticed.

    I don't think anyone is paying for the consequences of atheism, if that's your meaning. Besides, setting the world views aside for the moment, it's the simple quest for knowledge that Ken Ham attacks which has lifted the world out of immense burdens of exasperation and despair you mention. From antiquity until the late Victorian era, when knowledge finally restored us some hope, there came a break in the clouds of indoctrination, bringing some relief from the true causes of our suffering, esp. through the application of new-found knowledge about practical things. And indeed that's been the trend ever since, even if it came painfully slowly, and during eras of inordinate upheaval and atrocity. (Speaking in general about world events from the Industrial Age until present day.)
     
  17. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    923
    Example of a word that has been ill defined through translation. Any good linguistic analyst recognizes the certainty of slight deviations between text.

    The pope is considered divine even to this day. "Seeing without seeing" has made some blind.
    Yeah and Hitlers father was Jewish. I suppose being taught one thing in school and another on sunday with your family is not an ideal way of life.

    I am interested in more on your thoughts of Plato's rendering of Socrates. Havent heard much aboit it. Didn't Socrates defend a murderer?

    Your in one. Three options exist. One is that God has placed us here to have power over something in his likeness. Two God is testing our ability to gain his moral. Three God has placed us here in deterministic fashion to test his own process of how he was created.


    Buddhism has very little of that. Its basic concepts would still follow today's most scientific ventures.

    Neitzsche thought of it as purpose and used it quite well to fight his brain degenerating from syphilis. Nicely stated btw. I accept your correction.

    Bad atheism and bad religion are unanimous. "Seeing without seeing" though necessary to higher thought leaves many blind with many blind followings.

    ill give points for redefining my version of atheism, but not for "the worst offenders". The worst offenders are the ones who encourage the debates on either side. May include the worst offenders.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I have no idea why you brought this random thought up in the first place.

    You said Catholicism has endured the ages. My answer was that it did so by putting down countless heresies. I'm unable to connect that train of thought to what you're saying here.

    All I said was "atheism is the absence of an ideology that's taken hold of others. It's a freedom from that." I can't even begin to figure out how that relates to Hitler. You seem to be posting a lot of spontaneous unconnected ideas.

    Plato renders him as the suicidal martyr unfairly punished for preaching virtue. It's this model upon which the legend of Jesus appears to be based. Even his last moments with his disciples, and the significance of the "cup of passion" (in this case poison) foreshadows the Last Supper.

    One what? And why the cryptic speech?

    That's not an option for an atheist. And it makes no sense anyway. It's worse than just anthropomorphizing. It presents God with a weakness - some kind of ill-defined angst or need for attention.

    That's just a fabrication.

    That simply makes no sense.

    Buddhists simply have little cause to reject science for failing to comport with its ideas of creation. On the other hand they would have little or no use for science. Besides, they're also steeped in superstition, myth, legend and fable. They're just not mean and stupid like Tea Party fundamentalists. They have no axe to grind for having been invalidated by science.

    That's unclear. Perhaps you meant "synonymous". In any case, I have no idea what "good" or "bad" atheism means. A person is either possessed by superstition or not.

    It's unclear what you mean here, but atheism has no "followers". It's the absence of following something which blinds people.

    There is nothing offensive about debate until one of he parties starts foaming at the mouth the way Bill Ham does. In any case, this has nothing to do with atheism, which simply puts the whole stupidity of such argument in perspective. God was invented by people of antiquity to explain phenomena for which they had no science. That sort of clinches the creation argument, wouldn't you say?
     
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Well, polls say that he won. Even in Christian leaning periodicals. Nye is an experienced advocate of science. He won handily. And I'm not engaging in selection bias. I watch MANY debates, especially those with Lane Craig and Craig has beaten Hitchens handily (despite me agreeing with Hitch).

    Nye wins and handily.

    ~String
     
  20. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I actually agree with her. She compromised her "principles" ages before she passed. Now her supporters are engaging in post facto adjustment of her actions the way many worshippers do of other "heroes".

    ~String
     
  21. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    923
    Ken Ham rejected the notion of different meanings behind translation to gain fundamentalist fanatics.

    The pope is almost like an Egyptian ruler. The difference being he answers to God and to his people. He is supposed to be our closest tie to God, some in fact took the notion closer to God as meaning further away from his people.

    No I mentioned his father. Buddhists believe all ideas are connected.
    Perhaps you mean anecdotal not foreshadowing. In that case I guess you would be right if you knew the reason Plato said this was because they both stood for a good man who had committed murder and were both condemned for it.

    Connections are like puzzles. If it is not immediately taken at face value another connection is necessary.

    Catholic atheist. I studied Neitzsche who most consider atheist or nihilist out of his cryptic demeanor.

    So the intent of Gods words is to explain someone else's moral? Then why would an atheist have morals? It sure would help to deny ones own feelings without morals.
    Why study science if not to define our origin? Doesn't mean we have to conform to a particular thought.

    Fable as fable and not absolute truth. A religion whos history is not hindered by science or ego. I would count everyone else as the worst offenders you mention.

    I would say they question or they don't. Then they become unanimous.

    That would be the absence of leadership. Eg. " Blind leading the blind." And we come back to "seeing without seeing" which is akin to imagining. Good leadership is imagination above truth.

    No. God was conceived along side the number zero as Brahman. Before the number zero people had no use to imagine what was not there. Long before people believing in myth had the figure to equate logic in one side of their mind to imagination and curiosity in the other.

    Although I do like the Norse idea of Yggdrasil and how the universe does look like a tree when followed back to creation.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Good example of a Catholic who's too embarrassed to defend Catholic theology.
     
  23. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    923
    Wow. Someone is paying attention. Its not a bad community to grow up in. We were taught all the church's faults and schisms. More than I can say for other churches.
     

Share This Page