Bill Nye VS Ken Hamm (Creation Museum)

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

It's like you are 12 years old. There is probably nothing that is more of a cliche that the ideas and assholes thing.

Whatever you say, man.  But am I wrong?

[BikerDude]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

--Albert Einstein

This clarifies Einstein's religious beliefs.

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even na?ve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[12][13][14]

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

--Albert Einstein

This clarifies Einstein's religious beliefs.

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even na?ve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[12][13][14]

Opinions are like buttholes, Professor Einstein.  Am I wrong?

[Shagbeard]

Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time.

You are talking (in terms of the temporal) about the difference between the messenger, and the message, yes, Shagbeard?  Do I take your meaning here?

I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet. I am saying I see science give some great insight and balance. Zen Koan - How do you find truth? Well how do you realize truth? [Neither can be answered with out the other.]

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet.

Nor do I believe in a 6000 year old planet.  And I do not believe that the Earth was created in six literal 24-hour cycles.  And I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, either, nor a literal burning-lake-of-fire Chick Tract version of hell.

[BikerDude]

Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?

I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?

[BikerDude]

Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time.

You are talking (in terms of the temporal) about the difference between the messenger, and the message, yes, Shagbeard?  Do I take your meaning here?

I am saying that the organization whether it is Catholic, Church of England, and so forth can make and paint whatever they want, it does not mean everyone in it see eye to eye on every point. I am saying I am one that does not believe in 6000 year old planet. I am saying I see science give some great insight and balance. Zen Koan - How do you find truth? Well how do you realize truth? [Neither can be answered with out the other.]

But then the truth is that they are not really "in it".
Those churches do not allow for that sort of choice. They can go to church and self apply the label but as far as those churches are concerned unless you buy the whole bucket of shit you just aren't a member.

[Shagbeard]

Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?

I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?

What you are talking of now is the many counsels that keep adding this and that. I dont care of that, only the original free thinking first. I could care less for all the dogma and counsels, it was never needed. So if they want to ever zero in on me and go at it, well whatever, that is on them. They can go keep adding stuff, does not mean I see it valid. Do you see every law and regulation in the States and Federal as valid and/or agree and see eye to eye with? Truth is you and everyone else does not, so does this make non American? (Same can be applied where ever they live)

[BikerDude]

Hey, Biker Dude, I am not talking about the organization but the individuals that dont always take everything they say as absolute truth. I dont care what the organization wants to say all the time. It is called my personal opinions and beliefs, something everyone has. Or are you going to give me shit over that too?

I understand that but the point is that the more salient point is precisely what the organization says.
It would be like someone rejecting 99% of the Nazi platform and still calling themselves a Nazi.
In any meaningful sense their personal beliefs mean nothing in tangible terms that have a real effect on the actual world.
The sum total beliefs of the church taken as a whole shape the behavior of the masses.
Also it should be noted that as far as the church or Vatican go the individual does not have the choice to accept and reject as they see fit. It's a one size fits all thing. So basically if a person just shed a ton of stuff that is unsustainable to their moral compass and common sense then why in God's name would they cling to some tiny subset of beliefs that are left over?
Doesn't the absolute storm of preposterous and evil nonsense that comes along with religion color he entire message?

What you are talking of now is the many counsels that keep adding this and that. I dont care of that, only the original free thinking first. I could care less for all the dogma and counsels, it was never needed. So if they want to ever zero in on me and go at it, well whatever, that is on them. They can go keep adding stuff, does not mean I see it valid. Do you see every law and regulation in the States and Federal as valid and/or agree and see eye to eye with? Truth is you and everyone else does not, so does this make non American? (Same can be applied where ever they live)

No I'm talking about the outright evil in the bible that has been there all along. A lot of it.
If America had laws that I found truly evil then yes I would either insist that they be changed or I could not "be an American".
In the context of religion a person has a choice to go to church and watch the priest raise the bible above his head and recite the Nicene creed or not to. The bible to me is simply overflowing with vile beliefs. They are in there and have never been removed. The book spells out a world view that people buy or not.
Again would a person calling themselves a Neo Nazi be able to call themselves a good person if they didn't believe in killing Jews. Of course not. You just can't ignore the evil baggage.
I've shown this video before but it is IMO a good illustration of the "problem".
The fact is that Dr. Craig in the video is stating the actual beliefs of the church where the slaughter of the Canaanites are concerned. The story of the destruction of the  Canaanites is in the bible exactly to illustrate the morality of wholesale slaughter as an expression of "God's will". The fact is that there is a great deal of evil implicit in the very core of christian belief. The average armchair catholic in my experience has never even read the bible. And they don't actually support any actual beliefs. It is culture not belief. Most have very little idea of what the actual beliefs of their own religion are with any precision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc

How does this guy's opinions out weigh the average half ass christian?
Well....

From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[8]

[Shagbeard]

To be honest, BikerDude, sounds like you are singling out one thing. That is fine, I hear you, but does not mean I have to agree. Thank you for your ideas and thoughts on it. If I am given the same, in return, to at least hear me on it: I say that the teaching i was raised with was not to be war mongering but to peace seeking and the things of the OT are not paramount. Beyond that any and all systems whatever they may be would have to be scrutinized and I do not think they can stand under scrutiny for being without bad in it.

[BikerDude]

To be honest, BikerDude, sounds like you are singling out one thing. That is fine, I hear you, but does not mean I have to agree. Thank you for your ideas and thoughts on it. If I am given the same, in return, to at least hear me on it: I say that the teaching i was raised with was not to be war mongering but to peace seeking and the things of the OT are not paramount. Beyond that any and all systems whatever they may be would have to be scrutinized and I do not think they can stand under scrutiny for being without bad in it.

One thing?
Slavery was traditionally justified through bible verses that clearly advocate it.
Do you believe that unruly children should be beaten? The bible says so. Is it any wonder that schools in the bible belt still allow corporal punishment
How about some more genocide?
Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
How about a gem like this?
Psalm 137,  "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
It goes on and on and on and on.
And Jesus did not refute any of this in fact he instructed his follower that all the "laws" be obeyed.
The very core belief that Jesus is returning to "Judge" the unfaithful is 100% central to any christian world view and shows a strong conviction to the idea that all non christian shall and should be punished.
How does it make sense for people to just gloss over all this stuff and pare it down to some sliver of subset that they can Abide with?

[Shagbeard]

Yes you are all about the evil of one book. One thing...
I am not quoting anything here you are, please remember that ok. lol
And are you really going to keep this up? Seriously, you want to talk about evil a whole lot. I can come up with evil from every belief so no point in going on with it.

And do not even start preaching at me about how I do or dont raise me children. That is
WAY OVER THE LINE!

[elgranduderino]

Shaggy dude, I don't think anyone here dislikes you or hates on you due impart to your religious believes. Second, I don't know if you live in the USA but if you do; do you realize that fellows with your set of believes are the majority? Folks with lack of believes or lack of believes in deities are the minority. All day long there is a bombardment of religious beliefs presented to Americans regardless of their believes. Now that to me is right out disrespect. I really believe (hypothetically) that if I was to meet you somewhere in the real world and we never touch religion and politics, we could get along just fine. I think that's were "abide" comes in: unification of different points of views and walks of life through a mutual interest. Good vibes to you Shaggy dude and to your kin.   

[Shagbeard]

Shaggy dude, I don't think anyone here dislikes you or hates on you due impart to your religious believes. Second, I don't know if you live in the USA but if you do; do you realize that fellows with your set of believes are the majority? Folks with lack of believes or lack of believes in deities are the minority. All day long there is a bombardment of religious beliefs presented to Americans regardless of their believes. Now that to me is right out disrespect. I really believe (hypothetically) that if I was to meet you somewhere in the real world and we never touch religion and politics, we could get along just fine. I think that's were "abide" comes in: unification of different points of views and walks of life through a mutual interest. Good vibes to you Shaggy dude and to your kin.

Thanx and same back at you.

[The_Sleevez]

I'm not a Christian don't know a lot about the religion. But I truly think you can be a Christian take the bible look at it and realize there is good truth in there along with a lot if crap thrown in to serve other needs. At the end of the day take what you want from it and use what you need. Find your own way your still a Christian that's how so many branches of Christianity started. Religion is about faith some people need someone to lead them so the follow the masses and others intupretation. Other people follow their own path neither is perfect neither is 100% right or wrong. That's my view of it. I'm support shagbeard on this we all find our way on the path that suits us.