Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
To what purpose? So he could cast all the thinking people into Hell?
No thanks. There is no such God as that, and I wouldn't want to live in his universe for a microsecond.
I don't blame you for rejecting that kind of god. I'd reject him too, if that was the kind of god I thought existed.
You should try finding out about the real one instead of the atheistic construct that has been posited to turn people away from Him by other God haters.
Hatred of Catholics was “settled science”? Haha.
You know better than that.
It does you no credit at all to take things like that out of context.
Misrepresenting others absolutely shreds your credibility when you try to make a case for your side. It shows the absolutely closed mind towards other opinions, not something any scientist can afford to have but sadly many do.
So, exactly what scientific field is your degree in?
Right along side the false teaching (indoctrination) of Darwinist Evolution; I'm glad we agree. Still, Evo's will say its religion and hide behind the so called "separation of church and state".
So, exactly what scientific field is your degree in?
Oh, so you're going to appeal to authority? Well, when you don't have a degree in geology, it's best to listen to a geologist. When you want to understand relativity, you ask a physicist. When you want to understand evolution, you read the work of paleontologists and biologists. They are all clear on the evidence for evolution, the age of the Earth, and the age of the universe. "Creation Science", alchemy, palm reading, and astrology are rackets, and any intelligent layman knows it.
I do have a BA in political science though, which means I'm good at spotting BS. That's why I can see Ham for the con artist that he is.
If your answer—which appears to be a gross misunderstanding of my comment—is in fact a sincere misunderstanding and if such is due to my failure to communicate effectively, then I offer you my sincere apologies.
I’ll put it another way.
Freud attempted to discredit religious belief by explaining it as “wish fulfillment.” Freud’s ideas are the source of atheist thinking on a popular level.
But Freud apparently never recognized that atheists also have a very strong psychological motive to wish away God’s existence—the freedom to pursue erotic and other material pleasures unrestrained by a transcendent moral law giver.
This is a sound refutation of Freud’s attempt to discredit religious belief, thus eliminating the philosophical groundwork underlying comments such as those in post #266.
I can’t conceive of rejection of God as anything but a wrongful act of the highest severity.
And then you ask; "Oh, so you're going to appeal to authority?"
Talk about being a hypocrite! BAHAHAHAHAAAA !!! OTFLOL !!!
I’ve found over the years that precious few evolutionists have a science degree.
For some reason, I’m not surprised......
Ya think?
%-}
I read a lot from both sides for many years, and I've never heard Freud's name come up with any frequency on the atheist or non-believer side. Bertrand Russell, Rand, Sagan, many others, yes; but you'll need to reassess the assertion that Freud is "the source of atheist thinking", because it's incorrect.
the freedom to pursue erotic and other material pleasures unrestrained by a transcendent moral law giver.
I don't see how this makes any sense, since there's no evidence whatsoever that belief in a creator or a transcendent moral law giver inhibits people from pursuing "erotic pleasures". Ask any pastor or rabbi about the frequency that he counsels couples who've experienced infidelity issues, and the prisons are full of religious people.
The fact is that someone's character is not dependent on whether they are a theist or not. We've known this for certain since the Neolithic.
Right, but most reasonable people would see a paradox between the pedophile priest going the heaven and the molested child going to hell.
But you seem to think that:
* Using your 'God-given' brain to make a serious attempt to understand the nature of the world, and after many years of reading, soul-searching, and honest deliberation, coming to the conclusion that there's no basis for theism.
AND
* Molesting a child.
Are both "wrongful acts" of the same severity.
I have no problem calling this equivocation wicked and wrong, although you are quite free to hold such beliefs.
Uh, the appeal to authority was a preemptive statement referring to metmom’s obvious future invoking of the scientists in her family, all of whom are apparently 6,000 year old Earth creationists from what she has said (i.e. not very good scientists).
Oh really? If even just half the country believes in evolution, that's 165 million people. How many of those people have you personally evaluated their education credentials? A baseless assertion with no evidence fits in perfectly with your baseless defense of 6,000 year old Earth creationism.
Do you want to take a guess at the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution? What is the support in the scientific community for a 6,000 year old Earth? Take a guess before I give you the numbers.
Evolutionist is a misbeggoten slur uttered by those who are unable to see reality.
Those who utter the slur have never spent time in the field nor the lab actually seeing what is there by first hand observation. They are however, quite capable of quoting those who have read books about those who made statements about books written about in magazines but have no real knowledge.
But then again, while you still live, you may choose to get right with Jesus - our Lord and Savior (John 3:16). The question is open till the end; is Jesus a liar lunatic, or was He telling the truth? Hopefully, you won't stay wickedly foolish the rest of you life and choose eternal life. Then we can laugh together at what we once were.
Forget about Freud. And this has nothing to do with the character of the believer or the non believer. Focus bro, focus.
Belief in God as wish fulfillment is one of the most common atheist arguments. It’s so common because it’s been around for many decades. The argument seems to carry a lot of weight, because it makes a lot of sense.
But the opposition has a counter argument which has not been around very long, or perhaps it simply hasn’t had as much exposure for whatever reason. It could be something Lewis wrote about—I’m not sure. This counter argument completely neutralizes the atheist wish fulfillment argument, because it shows that a psychological excuse for atheism is equally as likely as one for theism.
If God doesn’t exist, you can do whatever you want. “As long as nobody else gets hurt.” See Dostoyevsky, Sartre, Bentham, Mill.
But if God does exist, we all will be held accountable by a judge who has control over everything. In such a scenario the price for sin is indescribably high.
I think the important distinction to make here is between God’s moral law and man’s moral standards. It seems clear that your lens is made of the latter.
Child molesting can only happen in the context of a rejection of God. Given this perspective, the two sins are not separate from each other.
And appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that usually does not involve a deity; they usually teach that in third grade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.