JCC Derp. DERP. Derpitus Maximus. Derpity deeeeeeeerp!

Discussion in 'Community' started by VadersLaMent, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    One really, really wonders why the teaching of critical thinking skills makes them so afraid.

    Actually I don't wonder at all.
    Summer Dreamer and Juliet316 like this.
  2. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    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?
    Juliet316 and Valairy Scot like this.
  3. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Eh, who needs a fair trial? It's more important to not ever question the religious beliefs of fundamentalist right-wing parents. The ability to serve on a jury vs. hellfire and damnation? I think the choice should be obvious.
    Alpha-Red likes this.
  4. DantheJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2009
    star 5
    Even those freaky-deeky ones in that movie Jesus Camp?
  5. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Dumb people are always afraid of those who are smarter than them.
  6. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    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?
    Juliet316 likes this.
  7. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    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.
    Last edited by Lowbacca_1977, Feb 11, 2013
  8. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Because, where the moderate can accept that there are people who might live differently or hold different views than him, the radical zealot cannot.
  9. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    See my signature. Science keeps on refuting things religion claims to be true.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  10. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    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.
    Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi likes this.
  11. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    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.
    Last edited by Rogue1-and-a-half, Feb 12, 2013
    Summer Dreamer likes this.
  12. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    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.
  13. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    It's a slippery slope, that's for sure. If any of it is meant allegorically, then why not all of it?
  14. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Exactly. Discredit one part of the bible and you've weakened the credibility of the rest.
  15. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    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.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Feb 12, 2013
  16. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    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. :p

    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.
    Last edited by Rogue1-and-a-half, Feb 12, 2013
  17. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    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/


  18. Juliet316 Shelf of Shame "Loser"

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  19. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    That shooting happened within a mile of the Obama's house in Chicago.

    EDIT:

    Well, at least he's out of Congress now.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Feb 14, 2013
    Juliet316 likes this.
  20. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Joe Walsh was better when he sang "Life's Been Good."

    Oh, wait...
  21. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
  22. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    I agree with all of this. You couldn't have said it any better. Now start up your gosh darned Bible thread!!
  23. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    The entire cruise ship debacle has been a mass media derp, really.
    anakinfansince1983 and Juliet316 like this.
  24. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    Because if you can't do all of something, you shouldn't do any of it.
  25. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9