Korean Job Discussion Forums

[yodanole]

The OP concerned ignorance. Little wonder that religion soon appeared.

[Died By Bear]

[Underwaterbob]

[Underwaterbob]

I quoted a verse of the bible to our local believer here that says "Do not be haughty... Never be wise in your own sight." and he immediately told me that the science that I trust is "easily, easily destroyed" and "garbage".

I guess Julius thinks that science and the bible are equally open to his twisted interpretation.

[Fox]

[Zyzyfer]

[Smithington]

Over the weekend I watched the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, the founder of the Creationist Museum in Kentucky. It was like watching an adult trying to explain science to a child, trying to explain to him that, mathematically, Santa could not hit that many houses in one night. And Ham says, well you weren't there in the past. You don't know how fast the sleigh can move on Christmas Eve. It was just sad. Then Ham talks about how only two of each "kind" were on the boat so that the total number of animals was only around fourteen thousand, not millions. (The same nonsense Julius was talking about.) And from those original "two of each kind" (two dogs, two monkeys, two rodents, etc.) we get the great diversity of life we see today. Not only is this absurd, but it would mean that each and every day since the flood we would have seen about 30 new species pop up out of nowhere. I farmer would go to bed at night and in the morning there'd be a new species to feed. This would still be going on today. After the news and weather reports on CNN, the anchor would say "And now here's John Berkley with todays new species." It's just laughable. But when this was pointed back to Ham he again asserts "that you weren't there." Childish nonsense.

Anyway, here's a clip of the debate. Anyone who is interested can watch the full thing on youtube. I for one was face-palming myself throughout the debate. I have no idea how Nye kept his composure. When the moderator asked him if there was anything that would change his view of evolution, he said yes and gave some examples of discoveries that would shake his belief in evolution. When Ham was asked the same thing about his belief in creation, he answered 'No". Therein lies the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc

[Stain]

[The Cosmic Hum]

[Stain]

[Underwaterbob]

[The Cosmic Hum]

[Smithington]

Here's the funny thing, religious folk like to talk about science as "the language of God" while the bible is "the word of God". Then surely the two should jive. Both should say the earth is 5000 years old, or both should say the earth is 4.6 billion years old. But they don't. If the earth is young, and creationists say it is, why does every single bit of scientific evidence ever collected and analyzed suggest that it is old. Why would God create such deceptions that lead people away from their faith?

But putting all of that aside and, for the sake of argument, pretend that evidence for a young earth, Noah, and the flood is overwhelming. The flood happened. Now we have to ask the question of why a deity would do something so evil as commit genocide against the human race. How is that a moral being? How is mass murder of men, women and children the answer to anything? What crime did the children, invalids, the elderly, mentally handicapped and blind commit deserving of death (by drowning no less). It's a monstrous tale that makes Hitler and Pol Pot look like amateurs. How can this deity, in the afterlife, sit in judgment of anyone? A murderer stands before YHWH and is condemned for his crime. The man start, "But you...." Before he could get the words out the gates of hell open and he is tossed into a lake of fire. Lovely. Seems like a completely reasonable chap. You commit one murder (or steal a box of cookies) and you get eternal punishment. You kill millions of people and you get off the hook.

Only problem is (besides the monstrosity of it all, and the fact that it all started because a rib woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating a poisoned apple from a magical tree ) is that the flood story and all the mass killing doesn't fit...theologically. Wasn't YHWH planning to send Jesus to die for humanity's sins? Why didn't he just stick to that plan instead of wiping everyone out "because of their sins". He could've just moved Jesus' appearance forward and YHWH could have taken out his wrath on Jesus instead of humanity (which is what Christians tell us actually happened when he was crucified). There was absolutely no reason for this holocaust. It was avoidable, unnecessary and ineffective. Surely, being omniscient, he knew humanity would keep on sinning and that the mass murder he was inflicting on five year old kids and paraplegics would achieve nothing. Yet he decided to do it anyway. By what definition is that not evil? By what definition is that good?

The truth is that YHWH is a moral monster. There simply is no getting away from that. Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to spend some time on a shrink's bench. Because if this is an entity that meets your definition of "good" and "love" you're pretty messed up psychologically. But you can't question the insistence that he is loving. You don't dare, because if you question his love and he catches you he will torture you with fire...for eternity. So better just to believe in his love. That way he won't torture you.

Religious people are truly messed up.

[Died By Bear]

I don't care either way. Live and let live I say. Why can't both sides just back off the argument, think what they want and leave everyone else alone? Why do the bible thumpers have to shove it down our throats? Why does the other side have to constantly deride the bible thumpers? It would be nice to see them both give it a rest.

BTW, good posts Smith, enjoyed reading the last two.

[Zyzyfer]