1 Attachment(s)
Noah And The Ark - Maybe There Is Hope For Still Believers
Riight - because of the movie, which I didn't watch - and the media backlash - I came across the fact, that American Christians in especially have among them a considerable proportion of people, who take the bible's account of the great flood and Noah seriously.
If you saw the movie and have an opinion - go ahead and tell us.
There are many, many Noah rebuttals - but I enjoyed watching this short one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g
Sums it all up very nicely - it could not possibly have happened as described, if you base the story's aspects on how the world is known to work today - so there must have been major magic activity on God's side, if it is supposedly correct.
And that is devoid of any sense whatsoever. But check yourself.
Here we have something, religious people are bound to find offensive (upon second thought - goes for the above as well) - but it hits the nail of the ethical implications of the affair bang on the head - god as deeply unethical, genocidal maniac, who gets away with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9qUMzW3-OI
Concerning the argument against free speech, which goes along the "I feel deeply offended" tirade - very popular in religious people, but not only - I go with my maybe favourite humanist and atheist Stephen Fry:
"You feel offended? So fucking what!?"
Get your arguments out and behave like grown-ups - you have not been directly personally insulted in any legally relevant way - or even threatened - you simply do not like what you hear - wo/man up!
Here we have a lengthy counter-example in approach - very soft, but not failing the mark anyway - rather the opposite.
In February this year Bill Nye (the science guy) agreed to debate Ken Ham on his very own turf - the Creation Museum.
Even people on his side largely agree, that Ham lost the debate. Some claiming, he would have pulled his punches out of Christian nicety.
Weell - if somebody did pull punches - it was Nye.
And I was a bit disappointed in that regard at times - I felt he could have more poignantly used esp. rebuttal time.
But overall - that was a good tactic and I guess on purpose - unlike Dawkins would have done it - he left out pointing directly towards giving up all religion - he wanted to just get these Christians to not be much more deluded than the rest.
In the name of progress, using science in order to innovate and keep America economically competitive. Dislodging out of heads things, most Christians view as metaphorical and - like Ham also seems to do with parts of the bible - poetic.
He also keeps reminding people, that the bible has been written and translated and modified over centuries - that there are bound to be effects of mixing stuff up and misrepresentation of the maybe original stuff telling another story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
He also appeals to curiosity and the drive to find out more about the world and the awe of nature's complexity and other emotional things connected with the pursuit of knowledge about nature.
Transporting to people, that they will not be deprived of profound - lets say in a way spiritual experiences - of awe, wonder and the bliss of discovery and insight.
Good approach for this sort of audience at the lecture - and the millions (sic!) of people watching it in the media - esp. the fence sitters.
Richard Dawkins might have not been getting such a result - he opposes going half the way to sort of lure people to atheism - instead he goes all out - which is the only consequential and honest thing to do in my eyes - but lets not dismiss actual effect-size.
It worked - all hail to Nye for that - people did change their minds - I wonder, if I can get that in numbers, like the amazing turn of opinions in another panel discussion on if Christianity is a positive force in the world.
Maybe I'll post that one as well, later.
Nye answers clearly with "we don't know yet", in the cases, in which we really don't - funnily - one thing Ham brings up, is that back in February and for the last 30 years - still the evidence for the inflation of the Big Bang was missing.
Just some weeks before we finally found the "suspiciously missing" evidence.
A very good demonstration of how the gaps get filled.
What I see with most irrational claims - they always point out flaws and holes - perceived or real - on the opposing side, instead of bringing anything remotely useful as a counter-explanation, their own work.
Nye did a better job, than I was fearing.
So - maybe I do preach to the choir, Christians on here rather taking the bible metaphorically in these aspects - like Noah and young earth - but maybe some sort of discussion could ensue anyway.
Go ahead!
Attachment 6804