Senate Derp, DERP. Derpitimus Maximus. Derpity deeeeeeerp...

Teaching critical thinking skills should be a necessary part of education. How can one serve on a jury where one is required to weigh the evidence and then make a decision; or make informed decisions on for whom to vote?

 

Even those freaky-deeky ones in that movie Jesus Camp?

 

Dumb people are always afraid of those who are smarter than them.

 

Why the science hate though? I mean, really, why? I mean, I'm a Christian. I'm a moderate. I have no clue why these nutters hate science. Has anyone ever actually given a real reason?

 

When you want a very rigid ideology that covers everything, then your natural enemy is going to be anything that results in change over time as understanding improves.

 

Because, where the moderate can accept that there are people who might live differently or hold different views than him, the radical zealot cannot.

 

See my signature. Science keeps on refuting things religion claims to be true.

 

Science and religion approach the world in opposite ways. Science uses theories supported by empirical experimentation. Religion uses claims supported by faith.

Religions make a lot of claims. Some claims are supernatural. Others are mundane. These claims are very important to the people who have faith in them. I know because I used to be one of them. For example, a claim among some Christians is that. God created man in his image. This is the basis of humanity being special in the eyes of god. And then here come scientists with the theory of evolution, which challenges this creation myth.

Religion knows science is going to continue to disprove its mundane claims (the supernatural ones are beyond the realm of scence and therefore safe). And they know that the more scientifically inclined someone is, the less religious that person is.


http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

For example, only 33% of American scientists claim to believe in a God, while half of scientists here aren't affiliated with any religion whatsoever. Compare this to the general population, and it's clear what science does to someone's religiousity.

The real hardcore religious people know this, and they're going to fight this tooth and nail, whether it's by attacking science itself or trying to promote pseudoscience.

The attackers are obvious. You see Rep Broun saying evolution is a lie from the pit of hell. The pseudoscientists are a little sneakier. For example, my mother likes to say that quantum mechanics will prove god (something from that deepak chopra idiot i think). The funny part being that quantum mechanics is a closed field and we've moved way past it and god isn't even in the realm of science anyways.

So yeahs, that's why the hate.

 

Meh. I mean, that's not true though. I mean, the theory of evolution doesn't . . . well, this is long, so never mind. When I start my Bible thread, I'll be addressing at great length the misconception that scientific discoveries disprove the divine inspiration of the Bible, particularly focusing on the Creation narrative of Genesis.

But just for instance, you can believe in evolution and be a Christian. I know that because . . . I do . . . and I am. It's simply that God was the force behind evolution; God used the process of evolution in order to create the great diversity of life currently on the planet, including human kind, who He blessed with a soul. The fact that we evolved doesn't mean we're not God's children or God's creation. It's completely obvious that God, divinely inspiring the narrative in Genesis, wouldn't have gone into detail about the methods He used to create life. A person of ancient times couldn't even have understood evolution. So God creates an easily understandable metaphor, a simple story that encapsulates the great truth behind every scientific theory of the creation of life: that, whatever the method, there was a divine force behind that method. I mean, how frigging hard is that? I'm not that smart and it's totally obvious and simple to me. And wouldn't it be one of the two greatest image rehabilitations possible for Christianity to stop opposing evolution? (The other, of course, would involve changing the opposition to homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular).

I've read a lot of science literature (you know, written for the layman, not the serious scientific papers and such) and I see no genuine reason why Christianity can't accept it. But I think what all of you have said is correct, insofar as it goes with a lot of Christians. I just wish they'd . . . get a clue.

 

Well, it's worth also remembering that the Catholic Church accepts evolution, too. That said, you have to open the Bible to not being literally accurate (as it does get these things wrong, like in Genesis), at which point you're now left with the grey area of how liberally various things can be interpreted.

 

It's a slippery slope, that's for sure. If any of it is meant allegorically, then why not all of it?

 

Exactly. Discredit one part of the bible and you've weakened the credibility of the rest.

 

Well, is anything in this world 100% credible?

Because Martin Luther King Jr cheated on his wife, does that diminish his "I Have A Dream" speech and discredit him and all he stood for?

Because Albert Einstein was extremely skeptical or even blindly rejecting of quantum mechanics, does that mean all of his own scientific theories are discredited and wrong?

Because the DNA discoverer guy claimed there was scientific evidence that whites are superior to blacks, does that completely discredit everything he discovered about DNA particularly its structure?

Etc.

 

What if it is? There's a "factual" truth and then there's another kind of truth entirely. Jesus may or may not have said the things recorded in the Gospels exactly as they're recorded. The story of Jacob and Esau may or may not have happened as it's recorded. Paul may or may not have written the books attributed to him. The Ten Commandments may or may not have been received by Moses as it's recorded.

Does any of that change the profound emotional and spiritual truth of the text? Not a whit. I think Jesus probably said many of the things recorded in the Gospels. If He didn't, does that make them less powerful? Does that make them less true, as in correct, as in sound, as in sure, as in right? I say it doesn't. The truths behind these stories are the things that God is trying to get at. The lessons and the principles. We all know Jesus told parables; no one argues that because the parables aren't represented as factually true that makes them less powerful. So why do all the critics say it about the rest of the Bible? Is the Prodigal Son story emotionally vivid and powerful and a beautiful picture of our relationship with God? Yes. If it's not a factual representation of something that happened exactly as recorded, is it still? Yes. So what about the larger stories? Well, let's take the same perspective on them.

I guess, timmoishere, what I'd say to your point is that we have established that the Creation narrative of Genesis 1 is not factually accurate. Does that discredit the Golden Rule? I think not. The beautiful message of Jesus Christ, the powerful emotional resonances of the stories of the Old Testament, the gripping philosophy of the prophets, the practical lessons and principles of the epistles and the books of poetry . . . those things are true and always will be true. If you bring me solid, undeniable evidence tomorrow that not a single thing out of the Bible has any basis whatsoever in factual history . . . I'm sorry, but those things above . . . they are still true, still real, still powerful, still as divine as anything on this earth.

But, this is a total derail. I apologize; I think it's my fault. I really meant to save all this for my Bible thread.

EDIT: No, really, I feel bad. I'm not trying to convert anybody to my opinion, either non-Christians or Christians who feel I'm being far too liberal with my interpretation of Biblical authority. Believe what you want to believe, of course.

 

Michelle Obama had the gall to attend the funeral of a young female gunned down, but what about the males? Waa waa waa...


http://thegrio.com/2013/02/08/joe-w...obama-for-attending-hadiya-pendleton-funeral/

 

Considering Mr. Walsh is still trying to get out of paying child support. He has no leg to stand on in anything really at this point.

 

That shooting happened within a mile of the Obama's house in Chicago.

EDIT:

Well, at least he's out of Congress now.

 

CNN anchor compares cruise ship to Hurricane Katrina

In other derpyness, Limbaugh claimed today that this was all part of the liberal agenda to connect disasters to Bush or conservatism or whatever.

 

I agree with all of this. You couldn't have said it any better. Now start up your gosh darned Bible thread!!

 

The entire cruise ship debacle has been a mass media derp, really.

 

Because if you can't do all of something, you shouldn't do any of it.

 

The U.S. is not alone. There is derp in Russia!

The meteors were not meteors, they were American weapons



He's a fan of Pat Buchanon, and he throws juice at people.