BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 04:56 PM

well steve
seems we agree on something;you ,me, dawkins,creation.com;ie that theistic evolution is an accomodation.

No it isn't. There is no such thing as theistic evolution.

whelk and yourself accuse those of us who believe the bible as evil.

No we don't. We believe that people who drive the Bible down people's throats as if it is divine truth, whilst all the time it is non-divine fiction, are evil. If the cap fits, pete, old bean, if the cap fits...

after all if its just the result of the current state of evolutionary development.

Been here before, pete. You have steadfastly refused to read On The Origin Of Species. You wouldn't know "the state of evolutionary development" if it reared up and bit you on your sanctimonious arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 05:59 PM

whelk
bit of a wide ranging response!
1what you say about creationists is somewhat like what we think of evolutionism except lacking the same venom for it,s proponents.as you rightly say they[reluctantly]back down in the face of new discoveries but" the evolution is true "mantra is as dogmatically chanted like any religio might insist.BTW creationists have also changed or been less sure of earlier models
2 dont know anything about perry and though i dont support capital punishment myself,i dont agree that if he does it makes him less of a christian.it is i think open to question what NT teaching on the subject is.i suggest you are misquoting"thou shalt not kill"missaplying since the hebrew word means "murder"which did carry the death penalty under OT theocratic rule

akenaton-sounds like a fatalistic philosophy.sorry to hear it,s been a bad year for you.

steve-not much constructive comment from you and if you remember i did begin reading   origins...favoured races    and quoted darwin to show how he had more humility to accept his theories limitations than you and dawkins et al.
all the best-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 07:42 PM

Clueless as ever, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,The Lamenting Whelk
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:02 AM

Pete:

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Creationists are trying to get their idea into classrooms to be taught regardless of the beliefs of those they are teaching, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc. They are intent of forcing a religious concept (in this case their creation myth) on people regardless, and that is very, very wrong indeed. Dressing it up as science is a cynical ploy and you have to wonder where these people's conscience is. Science does not do this, it teaches to question everything and realise you don't have all the answers yourself. It's a collective effort and that effort is spread over more than the lifetime of a single individual.

As for he Perry comments, you can argue the translation but that's a strawman and you know it. He calls himself a Christian but he's a killer. Perry has killed/murdered/is personally responsible for the deaths of over two hundred human beings, and if you believe that Christ was right and the bible is his word then you would not kill people, regardless. You're supposed to be compassionate and tolerant aren't you? State sanctioned murder is still murder, still killing human beings however you dress it up. For a lesson on compassion, check out Buddhist teachings - they've got the jump on this bizarre version of Christianity when it comes to respecting live and tolerance.

Of course I'm guessing your anti-science stance doesn't extend to everything. Like computers for example, or the benefits of medical science, or the telly, the car, electricity etc. It's just the bits that threaten you own belief system you refuse to accept. That's fine and your own choice, but don't advocate shoving it down the throat of everyone regardless.That's a consequence of fear, of a nagging doubt that you and all those other Creationists are wrong, not abiding blissfully in faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:33 AM

A couple of hundred years ago the ancients religions of the East worshipped the sun, to our great grandfathers, that seemed primitive and lunacy......but looking back today, was it not exactly what the respected environmental movement are saying?

We know so little about "gods" or "worship".
Those who condemn all religion as a disease, certainly are without a "soul" and without real understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:38 AM

"thousand"

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:42 AM

I don't know anyone who condemns all religion "as a disease."

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 10:56 AM

I joined another folk forum where religion was a dirty word, the people in it seemed to have a bigotted attitude towards any "idiot" who professed any sort of religious or spiritual faith.

Their arguments were "based on reason" not "primitive myths"
They made crude anti-religious jokes. They were so much more intelligent and scientific than the common herd.....but they had no heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 02:37 PM

whelk-       of course i dont reject science
you are equivocating
origins "science" is untestable and unobservable unlike operational science.they are not the same thing.

sadly the thing you accuse me of,you exhibit yourself.evolutionists just want kids to accept their dogma without question-probably afraid they might see all the holes in the theory.seems everything is questioned except neo darwinism.
best wishes pete

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,The Lamenting Whelk
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 02:58 PM

Oops - not sure what happened there.

I'm still not sure what you mean by 'origins science'. Wot's that then? Palaeontology? Geology? Genetics? Biology? Zoology? Anthropology? Physics? Chemistry? Maths? Astronomy?

All these disciplines rely on observable, testable and reproducible data for their raw materials so I'm guessing you don't mean any of them. There might be holes in evolutionary theory but the evidence is that evolution is correct . . . it's mechanisms are complex though and we don't understand how everything works at the moment. We're getting there though.

Like I said, science encourages questioning of it's most robust theories so anyone teaching science to children and not suggesting they explore and discover for themselves is not teaching science. No-one should accept any scientific proposition or theory without question; that was one of the first things learnt on my degree. Take no-one's word for yourself, examine the data, methodology and conclusions and decide for yourself. It's this self-questioning that Buddhism has in common with science and that's why I have great respect for buddhists and why they are still along way ahead of western science in terms of understanding how the mind works and how to achieve peace. A far cry from the combative adherents of Creationism and their Taliban-like rejection of considered thought and science, opting for a tabloid interpretation of fact and playing fast and loose with the work of people whom they can't hold a candle to intellectually (not that I'm a proponent of intellectualism as some sort of superior pursuit - as a musician I understand it's way overrated).

Keep creationism in RE classes and science in science classes and all's hunky dory, although I'm getting the impression those RE classes might demonstrate a certain bias . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 05:11 PM

pete... it really is NOT the case that "evolutionists just want kids to accept their dogma without question-probably afraid they might see all the holes in the theory."

It is rather that they do not want evolution to be rejected without seeing the data and proofs. Most folk who accept evolution expect their kids to read and study as much science as necessary. That totally removes it from being called "dogma".

Dogma is what happens when someone is told.."We don't care what your science says, we have our beliefs based on religious writings.

Please...whatever you wish to believe... don't confuse the systems

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: John P
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 07:27 PM

Pete, you are still referring to "evolutionism" as if it were a religion, you Satanist. How can you stand being so purposefully ignorant?

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 07:34 PM

One of the my most pathetic educational memories happened around 1984.

Two girls were talking in the university book store. One said she'd just come from a biology class where evolution was discussed.

"I was just laughing to myself the whole time," she said seriously. 'Cause you *know* none of that stuff is true!"

I bet she's a mom now. Her little friend too.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 07:51 PM

origins "science" is untestable and unobservable unlike operational science.they are not the same thing.

sadly the thing you accuse me of,you exhibit yourself.evolutionists just want kids to accept their dogma without question-probably afraid they might see all the holes in the theory

This man is a total waste of space. His whole point is to get you to engage him in his own crass stupidity. Trolltrolltrolltrolltroll. Why the hell it's taken me so long to see it... I really wish there was a Jesus so that He could come down and give him the bollocking he so richly deserves.

Guess I chose the wrong day to wish I wasn't an atheist...

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:11 PM

""Keep creationism in RE classes and science in science classes and all's hunky dory,""

That comment, Whelk, is arguably the one sensible suggestion advanced by either side in this thread, as in many others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:23 PM

But if creationism is false, why should we allow it even in RE classes? Know what the "E" in "RE" stands for? Education!

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 08:26 PM

Sorry, I hit send before I intended there. I was going to go on to say that if a thing is a lie it shouldn't be allowed to be propagated in anypart of a school curriculum.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 09:19 PM

I suppose this is heresy to say this, but isn't it silly to argue so heatedly about the origins of the universe? If we were created by a god a gazillion years ago, or if we came to be through a Big Bang, is it really worth screaming about?

I mean, it could be an interesting discussion and a good reason to publish National Geographic Magazine, but why get so goldurned hot and bothered about it? Do we really care about our origins, or do we just want so badly to defeat the other side?

Who cares?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: John P
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 09:52 PM

Do we really care about our origins, or do we just want so badly to defeat the other side?

Joe, I certainly don't care about our origins. It's one of those currently unknowable things that I don't have time to worry about. What I care about is generation after generation of little Americans being taught that it is good and honorable to believe that the Bible is the literal truth and that science is another form of religion. I think it encourages people to believe other things that aren't possible, such as most of the stuff Republicans say.

I think that those "Christians" who are forcing religion into the classrooms by taking over school boards, dictating what gets taught in science classrooms, and rewriting history and science textbooks to reflect their religious beliefs are engaged in a well-organized and well-funded attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. Make no mistake that ID was created and exists only to do that. We see the results in someone like Pete, who is a basically good person who wants to treat others with kindness, but has been sold a pack of lies and firmly believes that his ignorance is a virtue.

That's why I enter into these discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 09:55 PM

Well,Joe...how much time have you got? I can go on for hours about why people both 'care' and want to 'win'.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 12:04 AM

Well, John, you have a point there - when it comes to imposing propaganda upon classrooms, that's when it starts to mean something. It's not having contradicting thoughts that's the problem - it's forcing those ideas on others and on institutions used by all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 03:51 AM

The sad thing is that this is supposedly a folklore forum and nobody seems to be prepared to investigate or discuss the stories in the Bible as myth, and the place of myth in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,The Lamenting Whelk
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 04:05 AM

"I suppose this is heresy to say this, but isn't it silly to argue so heatedly about the origins of the universe?"

But Joe . . . we're the universe made conscious and it's wonderful and awe-inspiring and humbling and incredible to be part of the whole thing. We're universe making art and talking and running and learning and contemplating ourselves and our surroundings.

Ultimately this is about learning who we are and where our place in this magnificent cosmos is . . . and when a few fanatics hijack both science and religion for their own ends and start forcing it down the throats of others we must not succumb. Do do so would be to turn the clock back and we've so far still to go . . .

It's not origins as such this discussion is about, it's how to teach those various viewpoints and the fact creation myth is not science and vice-versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: John P
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 08:34 AM

The sad thing is that this is supposedly a folklore forum and nobody seems to be prepared to investigate or discuss the stories in the Bible as myth, and the place of myth in society.

Why do you say that? Start a thread. I'll join. Sounds interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 10:00 AM

You don't need to investigate bible stories as myth. Wherever they seem to break the laws of physics, or where they are lifted from older fables with a couple of name changes, there you have your answer.

That said, as stories with which to question your own sense of morality, such myth can be seen to have a place in society. Especially for those who feel the need for such a crutch.

Not sure that this is a folklore forum though. I know nothing of folklore other than my mum putting a bread poultice on a grazed hand I had and then getting a bollocking off the GP... I thought Mudcat was a music based forum, with a bullshit section for us to take the piss out of each other and put the world to rights?

If you want to talk folklore, let me tell you how Chris Waddle goes down in (increasingly ancient!) folklore as the brightest light ever to walk the turf at Hillsborough....................

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 11:09 AM

At the top of the screen it does say Traditional Music and Folklore Collection and Community.

The use of myth within society has much more depth of meaning than just folk tales to pass away long evenings.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:20 PM

...nobody seems to be prepared to investigate or discuss the stories in the Bible as myth, and the place of myth in society.

Dave, I'd like to change that to the value of myth in society, and I think that value is profound. However, the absolutists see myth as frightening, and are unable to discuss or explore it. Religious absolutists see myth as fact, so it can't be discussed or explored or questioned. Non-religious absolutists see myth as falsity, and see no reason to do anything but refute it.

I see myth as a wonderful tool for exploring what is beyond our understanding - mysteries like life and love and peace and such things. I don't seek absolutes - I seek insights. Myth has profound folkloric and philosophical and anthropological value, but the tendency of many of the people in this forum, is to discount it as complete falsity and to approach it with fear and disdain.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM

It becomes problematic only when it is taken on by individuals not able to differentiate between metaphor and factual proposition. Then Pandora's box of improbable horrific vectors of thought gets unleashed upon the world, and the miasma of "might be" is mistaken for the simple clarity of "is". Myth to those who appreciate the music of it is a wonderful tool, as you say, Mr Offer. It can encapsulate centuries of pondering and lessons from past generations in a handy nutshell of a tale.

It takes reflection to be able to face up to a myth for what it is and still be able to understand its value. Some people are more reflection-prone than others! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:45 PM

""Just remember, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way"". ~
M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 05:47 PM

Science is a process of investigation that leads to reproducible results. Arithmetic is a process that leads to reproducible results. If anyone does not "believe in" the "processes" of science or arithmetic, please suggest other "processes" that lead to reproducible results that we can use to explain the world around us and to advance the human experience.

"Creationism" and "intelligent design" are "belief systems" that are not based on any kind of system of inquiry or processes that can be reliably used to get to the same results.

If "G-d" or "G-ds" then why are there so many well-meaning people who come to such markedly different explanations for the world? Who is "wrong," and why?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:00 PM

""Always watch where you are going. Otherwise, you may step on a piece of the Forest that was left out by mistake"". ~Pooh's Little Instruction Book, inspired by A.A. Milne

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:04 PM

But Saul, why must there be only one "explanation," one perspective? What's right and what's wrong when we're talking about how different individuals perceive something? Why is there need for uniformity in thinking, for there being only one "right"?

I'm an eternal optimist, perhaps annoyingly so - but that is my perspective, and I think it's a valid, rational perspective. Many people are pessimists, and they have very good reason to be so. Why can't both perspectives be valid?

Must everything have a "rational explanation," and is there no room left in life for mystery and uncertainty and subjectivity?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:05 PM

""Never explain. Your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe it anyway."" ~Elbert Hubbard, A Thousand and One Epigrams, 1911

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 06:08 PM

""What a strange narrowness of mind now is that, to think the things we have not known are better than the things we have known."" ~Samuel Johnson

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 07:09 PM

"While some people do have to struggle hard before ceasing to be (say) a Christian, an awful lot simply drift away without much reflection. "

While this ostensibly seems true, these people without reflection carry with them the same baggage from where they drift away.

Belief in something doesn't automatically suggest a passion but could be an unquestioning position not well thought out.

The problem with "mystery" and "powers unknown" is that they are exploited by manipulating religious types to convince others that what they believe is valid.

The "mystery" is always a quest for mankind to discover and make visible what is mysterious. It's like the monster in the closet as seen by a child, the scientist opens the closet door an reveals that mystery as no monster but a scientific fact. Curiosity is inherent in our DNA and solving mysteries is a major preoccupation of the brain.

Myths can be useful as long as that is how they are acknowledged, not truth nor fact but as stories to shed light on human behavior. Folklore serves this function.
Folklore is not history.

The real exultation of life is knowing more about the universe through scientific knowledge resulting in the appreciation for where and how we live. The wonder of little droplets creating the rainbow from the hydrological cycle, the experience of looking at the stars as an index into the past, the miracle of how we got to be here through the gene pool, the astonishment at the revelations of the insect world, the knowledge of aerodynamics as we watch a flock of geese, the poetry of science which is far more substantial then the limited world of "mysterious imagination".

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 02:00 AM

So, Stringsinger, how's your "scientific knowledge" on the mystery of love? You have it all analyzed, do you?

How about death? Sorrow? Joy?

Sorry, but to my mind, "scientific knowledge" leaves out many of the dimensions of the experiences of life that intrigue and enliven me. I'd prefer to explore a little more deeply than the Scientific Method would allow.

As for myth, I would surmise that intelligent people can identify myth without having it labeled as myth - and for unintelligent people, it wouldn't make much difference.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 03:49 AM

Sorry Joe, but your last comment there would lead people to think that people with fairly strong religious belief are unintelligent?

You may say so, I couldn't possibly comment......................

I have no problem with embracing myth, it does put the colour into our landscape of course. I do have an issue however with those who use their power and influence to allow it to drift into reality. Hence creationism being seen by many, including legislators, as indistinguishable from science, or indeed as a branch of science on the basis that we haven't got all the scientific answers yet, hence giving a crude form of respectability for literal interpretations of biblical and other myth.

I fully agree with your statement by the way, and identifying myth without labelling it strikes a chord, and am rather taken by your succinct comment. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:10 AM

Well, I wondered how people might take that comment, Ian. I stand by it, however. Sure, I suppose there are people who would even take the parables of Jesus as "gospel truth" - but the parables are obviously fiction, aren't they?

To my mind, fiction is not untruthful. For the most part, fiction must be truthful. It is dishonest if it conveys misconceptions or prejudice.

To my mind, the creation stories are truthful - they're not meant to tell the "how" of the beginnings of the universe. They are a statement of faith that God was intimately involved with the universe since the beginning. The stories don't attempt to define or describe this God, other than to say that God created and saw that it was good. I don't think that those who originated the creation stories had any intention of having them interpreted "literally."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 04:51 AM

Yes, Joe: the parables are obviously fiction, and Jesus explicitly told them as such, to illustrate his points by allegory. The mythopaeic aspects of the cult he founded, on the other hand, are what need addressing. I cannot but feel you are fudging this by the irrelevancy of introducing the parables into the argument, as a sort of smokescreen to obscure what so many of us consider the absurdities of the totality of that cult of which they were a minor part, when nobody denies their fictionality. And I think you palter with two distinct and discrete meanings of the word 'truthful' in your intro clause to your last paragraph above.

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:23 AM

So, Stringsinger, how's your "scientific knowledge" on the mystery of love? You have it all analyzed, do you?

How about death? Sorrow? Joy?

Sorry, but to my mind, "scientific knowledge" leaves out many of the dimensions of the experiences of life that intrigue and enliven me.

No it doesn't, and science, as in every area of life except one, nibbles away and closes in inexorably on these. We might be a bit further back in our understanding of these areas but I can't imagine that there are any facets of these phenomena that could never yield to scientific exploration.

The one area that can never yield to scientific investigation is the supposed existence of God. Why? Because God has deliberately, tendentiously and falsely been placed beyond science by religion. If God really did exist he'd be absolutely appalled by this trickery.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:04 PM

joe-as one of your unintelligent posters perhaps i might understand if you put it simply why you consider the writer of genesis as intending not to record historical/revealed narrative.for that matter do you think jesus is misquoted or mistaken in his obvious endorsement of genesis as recorded in the NT.
not offended by the way.not as though you are trying hard to be obnoxious as some posters appear to.
strange how these lettered scholars get so angry with a simple believer of a different faith-or is it!

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: John P
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:28 PM

strange how these lettered scholars get so angry with a simple believer of a different faith-or is it!

Pete - I don't think anyone here is angry about believers because of their belief. However, referring to the lack of religious belief as "a different faith" is likely to make people get mad at you. You should consider not doing that anymore. As someone said in an earlier thread, referring to atheism as a belief is like saying that the fact that I don't have a stamp collection means that my hobby is stamp collecting.

The big thing that people get angry about is the penchant on the parts of lots of religious folks to try to alter our laws, textbooks, and public school classes to reflect their beliefs. It doesn't have anything to do with the belief itself, but rather what you do with it.

People also get upset when you try to make religious tenets carry the same weight within a factual conversation as scientific fact does. That only works if you're in a conversation with other believers. The rest of us are just irritated by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 03:48 PM

The vast majority of the earth's people do not fully understand the difference between an established fact, an opinion, and the truth.

They also like to believe that whatever seems likely to them must be the truth.

They know nothing of the scientific method. Because of that, they don't understand that science doesn't claim to deliver absolute, unassailable, and final truth - the only kind they feel happy with.
They don't know the difference between "evidence" (which can be good or bad, reliable or not) and "proof" (which may, ultimately, turn out to be a hasty conclusion.)

They tend to believe that science is just a series of arguments among undependable experts who (like them) will say almost anything to "prove their point."

According to this theory (the one that dominated human history for millennia), the one who batters his opponent into silence through questionable analogies, begging the question, endless repetition, ambiguous definitions, clever diction, pointed barbs, etc., wins. He has "made his case."

Nobody likes uncertainty, and few people have learned to withhold judgment as conditions require.

They think if you disagree with them, you're either naive,foolish, or perverse.

At least, that's been my experience. And not just on these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:58 PM

I accept that this longrunning exercise in self-adulation and congratulatory patting of one's own back for being so much smarter (and by implication better) than "those other wretched people who are dumb enough to believe such-and-such which I don't believe" will go on and on for some time yet, and I believe there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Not that it really matters... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Musket
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 04:46 AM

Pete from seven whatsits..

You seem to infer that Genesis was written as being factually accurate. As it clearly isn't, wouldn't it be more credible to agree that the stories in the bible are just that, stories?

If this Jesus character was an actual person, or indeed if there was one person to whom most of the stories refer to, I am sure he would have been a person of his day. Superstitious and prone to believe something on the basis of antiquity of scripture, rather than anything evidence based. So your "Jesus thought it true" carries no weight in such discussions, surely?

I can't agree with Little Hawk about the thread being an exercise in being smug though. I genuinely have problems when confronted by people who are otherwise rational, but have an imaginary friend. As it describes the majority worldwide, although increasingly less in the Western world, I am the one out on a limb. But for me personally, the reason I find these sorts of debate fascinating is that I have to rely on the judgement of others in my professional and private life, just like we all do. I can't help questioning the rationality and logic of somebody's view on more temporal affairs if their overall outlook is based on superstition.

That makes me simplistic. But until I am convinced otherwise, I find my simplicity comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 05:21 AM

An excellent summary of the 'Accept vs Believe' debate, if I may say so, 'Lighter'!

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 06:25 AM

Tidbits on science and uncertainit

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 09:05 AM

Thank you, Shimrod.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

I have noticed that 'fundamentalists', of all persuasions, delight in the "ignorance, doubt and uncertainty" (see the quote from Richard Feynman included in the reference supplied by Ed T above) associated with Science. Every time a scientific theory is modified in some way they shout, "Ahaa! Evolution must be wrong and Creationism and the Bible must be right!" or "Man-made Global Warming is a myth!". Which are, of course, completely stupid and illogical inferences to draw. But then, of course, 'fundamentalists' can only deal in absolutes.

I've also encountered some rather weird attitudes towards Science whilst working in Industry. For some years I worked in the R&D Dept. of a large multi-national consumer goods company. By applying scientific principles this dept. had developed some novel and profitable products for the company over the years. One day we had a visit from a very senior and influential Marketing Executive. He announced to the dept., "This is a marketing company, not a scientific research one!" And soon after that the dept. was shut down (although they subsequently opened another, even larger, R&D Dept. overseas).
In my next job, for a different company, in the same Industry, the management seemed to believe in what I can only describe as 'Science Lite" i.e. a (fictional) form of Science which was supposed to apply specifically to Marketing and Business. Any form of rigour was rather frowned on - although absurd, laborious and arbitrary over-complication was much admired. Any testing carried out was deemed to have failed if it didn't lead to the desired result. No-one seemed to grasp that testing tailored to give a required answer is, effectively, cheating.

So it's not just fundamentalists who have problems with Science.

Subject: RE: BS: Semantics: 'Accept' versus 'Believe'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 27 Sep 11 - 10:29 AM

100