Let's Have One Rational Conversation About Jesus And See How Long It Lasts

[bug on your lip]

I may have just duplicated a point jack straw made. I just most likely said it better and I didn't name drop Richard Dawkins.

this should be a sig

[jackstraw94086]

I may have just duplicated a point jack straw made. I just most likely said it better and I didn't name drop Richard Dawkins.

would have been funny if you weren't the only one to drop that name here.

[jackstraw94086]

You can't prove a claim that exists outside of the five senses, either. The onus reverts back to you.

I can't prove a claim that exists outside the five sense? Isn't that precisely what you're trying to do? (i.e. metaphysical or transcendental experience) I've only said that those things are likely not actual reality but rather just conjured ideas.

Unless you're saying that your claim about metaphysical beings isn't one that can be proven. If that's the case do you see what you just did there?

[thelastgreatman]

Solipsism. I can't prove my experiences to you--I know what they are though, and the conclusion is irrefutable.

[Miroir Noir]

So god exists as an apriori logical concept/shared cultural totem, and also in Randy's subjective metaphysical experience.

Excuse me, I'm going to re-order my life's priorities now.

[jackstraw94086]

Please don't veer off into some sort of cartesian proof/disproof of other minds BS.

Not sure how that applies to your claim of the existence of supernatural gods, an objective claim.
Again it sounds like you're trying to tell me that I can't prove something doesn't exist. If that's what you're doing you're not arguing.

[malcolmjamalawesome]

would have been funny if you weren't the only one to drop that name here.

Thanks for the notes.

[jackstraw94086]

glad to lend a helping hand.

[algunz]

LGM and Jack, do either of you consider yourselves atheists?

[fatbastard]

He once made water into wine

[jackstraw94086]

LGM and Jack, do either of you consider yourselves atheists?

I'm whatever someone chooses to call me. The atheist vs. agnostic argument is boring and useless. I'm anti-theist if anything, but only in matters into which religion inserts itself (i.e. creationism in schools, politics involving reproductive rights, stem cell research, Catholic church misinformation about condoms in Africa, etc.)

I've got zero problem with Jews or buddhists or any mostly harmless religion that doesn't prosthelytize.

[Starraven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=794

Reminded me of this thread. Not about Jesus specifically. Apologies if it is off-topic.

[mountmccabe]

Man, Ham is obnoxious. I am glad this got publicity and I hope many people saw the mental gymnastics he has to go through to fit the world into this interpretation of the Bible. And, specifically, to hear his attacks on old-Earth Creationism.

[thelastgreatman]

I don't remotely see what the fuck Nye thought he was going to accomplish with this whole thing, and there's no way I could stand watching it.

[fatbastard]

[Phantasma Del Mar]

Bill shouldn't have done the debate.
You're giving creationists a platform of credibility by sugesting that there's anything worth debating, and it gives that museum free advertisement.

[mountmccabe]

It is my understanding that The Creation Museum is well publicized and very popular amongst Christian fundamentalists, especially the young earth creationists. They have done a good job already of getting the word out to the audience that is going to be sympathetic.

That is, however, a minority subset of Christians, even. Many other Christians are creationists but they haven't really thought about it or are old earthers. And many Christians accept evolution and natural selection (I believe this is the official position of the Catholic Church). And the more THESE people hear Ham's mental gymnastics the more of them will distance themselves from YEC, creationism in general and the idea of pushing it in schools.

Bill Nye spoke a lot on the power of the science and how fundamental evolution is to modern scientific advancement. I thought he was charming and mostly respectful. Nye also didn't attack belief in Jesus or religion in general; the topic of this debate was creationism. And since Ham was defending it was about YEC and a specific very literal interpretation of Genesis.

I know everyone is different but I might have taken a very different path if when i was losing my faith I heard more from those who didn't teach that a literal Genesis, etc. is necessary but that isn't what happened, I heard Ham and other fundamentalists claiming the Nessie proves that humans lived - and live! - with dinosaurs so I broke completely.

I don't expect that there are many secret creationists doubting the evolutionary views of their family and church and I am certain that there are more folks in the opposite position. And I'll bet many of them were watching last night, in the churches steaming the debate and in their homes.

I want people to hear Ham say "you weren't there, you can't know". To hear him claim that all animals -including obligate carnivores like lions - were vegetarian before the fall (though I think he said before the flood?). I want people to hear him cite a paper about dogs (to prove they all descended from one pair on the ark) that says these dog ancestors lived 15,000 years ago. And having the calm, charming, pleasant Nye be the foil to this? It wouldn't have worked this way with, say, Richard Dawkins.

Young earth creationism isn't the indie band that just needs to be heard to get popular, it's the fucked up, deeply weird band that has one or two semi-popular songs but only the obsessive know the rest of the catalog. "Oh, man, I love Chumbawumba! 'I get knocked down!...'" Shine the harsh light of day on young earth creationism and it is going to wither, not blossom. This is what Ham on Nye accomplished.

[mountmccabe]

To be clear, young earth creationism is not all of creationism. I realize that. And creationism is not part of all belief in Christianity. And Christianity is not the only religion. As belief in young earth creationism withers - I don't expect it to die off entirely - the former or potential espousers won't necessarily stop believing in Christ, gods or even necessarily accept evolution. Those are different issues.

Well, to me they are; to Ham and many other fundamentalists, they are not. Which is why it is interesting to see Christians criticizing Ham, providing a counterpoint. Like, say, Pat Robertson.


Bill Nye said that the seated admissions aren't enough to pay for his debate fee so the Creation Museum is putting up extra money to pay him. And that is on top of paying for event staff (mostly theirs?), the moderator (presumably not their staff?), plus whatever they are paying for the filming and streaming. After the fact they can sell DVDs of the livestream but so can Bill Nye. I see Bill Nye getting a nice paycheck and future sales. I don't see how this is a money-making venture for the Creation Museum, except maybe in the long, long term if they manage to come away looking good (in the eyes of a subset of the population that is un/less familiar with them) from the exposure. But, again, I don't see that happening. I think they have reached most of their peak audience already.

[TallGuyCM]

To me it seemed like perhaps the main reason Nye agreed to the debate (based on how he kept going back to the point time and time again) was to recruit people into science, of sorts. He was very straightforward about the country's need for future scientists, and I'd guess this is the reason he kept his cool so well and was so respectful of Ham's view. That was an insane level of patience he showed.

It does seem like people who are going to be scientists or engineers are already on that path, but he seemed to be talking to the crowd streaming the debate much more than those in attendance.

[TomAz]

I assumed the main reason Nye agreed to the debate is that he's a TV personality who benefits from publicity.

Ham is a fucking lunatic, even within the Christian community, and should not be taken seriously by anybody ever*. But I agree with John's conclusion: giving the guy exposure will allow people to see that bullshit for what it is.


* - his ability to influence policymakers should be taken seriously, however.

[stinkbutt]

It has the opposite effect though. Now he is gonna have more nut jobs sending him more money and he can influence more policy. We need to just stop talking to these dirtbags. They will never change their minds, and we are just elevating their status.

[jackstraw94086]

Ham absolutely does need publicity and this was the only real reason for that dumb spectacle. Of course lots of people know him already but that isn't saving his Noah's Ark theme park project that's hemorrhaging money and he's not getting the amount of state support he was hoping for.

This debate was a way to incite ridicule on the internet, spread to larger discussion of theism vs atheism in general. Ultimately make theists angry and draw more money to Answers In Genesis.

Nothing about that debate was new, as expected. Ken Ham said a bunch of stupid nonsense bullshit but still won the debate.

[vogina]

the greatest action story ever told

[thelastgreatman]

Arguing about how the universe was created is idiotic. Anyone who is particularly confident about the details is an asshole.

[jackstraw94086]

Arguing about how the universe was created is idiotic. Anyone who is particularly confident about the details is an asshole.

The vague argument about whether the universe was created is exactly what Ken Ham wanted to incite. The last thing he wants is people remaining focused on the fact that he's talking about young earth creationism.
And beyond that, he wants people to forget what this whole thing is REALLY about. Say the universe was created. OK fine. Now what? Going from admitting that the universe had a creator to claiming to know exactly how that creator wants you to live is an infinite fucking leap.

But Ham and other theists would be content to let people argue about a creator and somehow equate "you can't disprove god" with "bible is right"

[mountmccabe]

Arguing about how the universe was created is idiotic. Anyone who is particularly confident about the details is an asshole.

Even granting that in general this debate wasn't open ended. This was about creationism, and specifically young earth creationism. The idea that the universe was created in six days of 24 hours. This was about the validity of a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

Sure, due to practicality some of that included pointing out cool aspects of evolution and geology and responding to many of Ham's attacks but he had nothing in specific to defend. And in fact Nye said "We don't know" in response to a number of the questions over the last 45 minutes of the debate. He didn't have to attack Christianity (and didn't) or theism or anything other than young earth creationism.

[thelastgreatman]

But that's what makes engaging in the argument fucking stupid. Evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, and neither evolutionists nor creationists can possibly claim so. Even if young earth Creationism was the truth, evolution could still have happened AFTER the creation.

It's not a debate.

[thelastgreatman]

Even granting that in general this debate wasn't open ended. This was about creationism, and specifically young earth creationism. The idea that the universe was created in six days of 24 hours. This was about the validity of a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

Sure, due to practicality some of that included pointing out cool aspects of evolution and geology and responding to many of Ham's attacks but he had nothing in specific to defend. And in fact Nye said "We don't know" in response to a number of the questions over the last 45 minutes of the debate. He didn't have to attack Christianity (and didn't) or theism or anything other than young earth creationism.

I severely doubt the intelligence of anyone who wants to try to convince people who take The Torah as being literal truth otherwise. It's just people wanting to yap at each other.

[mountmccabe]

Even if young earth Creationism was the truth, evolution could still have happened AFTER the creation.

If the earth was created in 4004 B.C.E. and the flood happened in 2348 B.C.E. then we have no understanding of geology, paleontology, biology, history... so many things. There would be very little genetic drift in 4362 years. The first of the Egyptian Pyramids was built in 2670 B.C.E. Ten more were built before 2348 B.C.E., too, including the (still standing) Great Pyramid of Giza.

Even if we say, fine, no flood but still creation in 4004 B.C.E. then that is still fuck all for time to allow for genetic drift, speciation, etc. Fossils no longer make any sense at all, etc.


But yeah, even though some people actually really believe in this (like Ham) they are a small minority. Of whack jobs. Like I used to be.

[thelastgreatman]

Look, I believe in fossils and carbon dating. But here's the thing: we, as humans with relatively high intelligence and command over language, have done a pretty shitty job of keeping accurate historical records of shit that happened only a couple of hundred years ago. Fuck, FIFTY years ago. Our ability to keep history about shit that really matters sucks. So my faith in our ability to accurately say what year the pyramids were built is kinda fucking diminished.

My general position is I think people should stop being so damn sure about shit that happened thousands of years ago.