Comments on The new age of misinformation

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to The new age of misinformation

Tonyzonit - right on all counts

I think the real money would be in owning the land around the lake where the monster/dinosaur resides.  

posted by gomedome on April 18, 2007 at 10:35 AM | link to this | reply

Gome - an interesting debate.

It seems you are the devil's advocate in some eyes. Sometimes it's because you argue against religious infiltration into society (and are therefore devilish - which itself is contradictory because the 'devil' concept is pretty closely bound up with Christianity), and also because you have now been perceived to be arguing for the sake of arguing. The latter is indisputable - since you know people will not agree, and you want them to come back and argue - but I don't see what's wrong with what you're doing. After all, people don't have to read you or comment on you. That's why, if they do, especially if they try to convert you, and even more especially if they are abusive, then they have themselves to blame, for failing to grasp the underlying nature of your blog - to catch religious ranters like flies in a spider's web! Now, about dinosaurs. I saw one the other day briefly surface in a lake near me. I'm about to sell the blurry hurried photograph for big bucks.

posted by Antonionioni on April 18, 2007 at 8:12 AM | link to this | reply

Pat_B - I was particularly amused by the web site to which I provide a

 link in this post.

On the page I have linked to, a person allegedly holding a PHD, has in his words "paraphrased" a passage in the bible to "prove" that dinosaurs existed concurrently with man. In other words he has rewritten a portion of the bible to suit his ridiculous contention. This is a slick web site, technically very well done. Add the alleged academic credentials of the author and I would bet that there are people who do not see this type of contrived contention as the utter fraud that it is. The author claims to be a great public debater, I would love to debate such a fool publicly. I'd tear him a new asshole just for a warm up.  

posted by gomedome on April 18, 2007 at 7:33 AM | link to this | reply

Gome, you've made a good point here.

And you've lit up some controversy - or at least you've sparked a couple defenders of the faith.  They should be warned about reading you: something you say just might sink in and make them question what they "know."

posted by Pat_B on April 18, 2007 at 6:06 AM | link to this | reply

Troosha - absolutely everyone has the right to defend their beliefs or

challenge contentions made by others pertaining to their beliefs.

I am still however awaiting the first instance of this defence. All instances to date have been decidedly offensive in nature; with attacking, insulting, ostracising and attempting to censure the authors of any divergent religious opinion being the only tactics I have seen so far. This reality is indicative of the need for religious opinions other than "homogenized group think" to be voiced in our societies. It is this very reaction that illustrates how it is that man has come to the beginning of the third millenium of the modern era and still believes in such outdated religious constructs.  

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 10:45 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - to me, a "young earth" proponent is as astounding as a person

still insisting the earth is flat.

Where there are numerous errors in the patchwork chronology that our species has attempted to assemble from pre-historic forensic evidence, the body of evidence itself is overwhelming and irrefutable. I continuously see people attempting to refute this evidence by focusing on past mistakes made by the scientific community in drawing conclusions or in shifting focus from the irrefutable. All of this done to prove that the chronology as found in an ancient book, that cannot possibly be correct is in fact the real truth. This mentality seems to be spreading like a contagious disease. It afflicts the unfortunate recipients in two distinct ways. It impairs their ability to discern and has them wandering through life in a full blown state of denial.     

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome

To clarify: I didn’t say it gave them “hands off” protection. It does, however, give them the “hands on’ right to defend or challenge just as you are challenging them. And they are entitled to deliver/leave the very reaction you are skillfully trying to invoke. I am not for a moment endorsing belligerence or mud slinging. My point was more “be careful what you ask for”.

posted by Troosha on April 17, 2007 at 10:16 AM | link to this | reply

Talion - In past history the extremists have never won but the modern age

brings with it a means of distributing information as never seen before in the internet.

Like a midget brandishing a machine gun, it is the great equalizer. Grassroots movements, entire communities and sectarian divisions, can now be propigated electronically within a society.

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 10:11 AM | link to this | reply

TVBlogger - it is sad that people can so callously ignore their

responsibilities to the development of young minds.

I've seen similar instances to the one you describe, where some zealot is attempting to impose their version of truth on children by suggesting that all scientists are lying about evolution. From claiming that it is the work of the devil to arguing points that are not even elements of the theory of evolution. From this an unfortunate trend is beginning to gain momentum. An entire generation of children are begiining to lose their ability to identify and understand what comprises a scientific principle. The cornerstone of learning and ultimately progress; in developing the ability to apply objective scrutiny to all contentions is being impeded by the continuous practice of rewriting facts to suit predetermined conclusions. It is a mindset that is subliminally contagious.   

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM | link to this | reply

David1Spirit - the really scary part is when we see college aged kids

regurgitating this nonsense.

The attempt at credibility by claiming tenuous academic credentials on the part of the web site's author, can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.  The most astounding thing about this entire web site is the constant use of fraudulent means to solidify the man's contentions. Even the bible passage he uses to suggest that there are references in the bible to dinosaurs living amongst mankind is rewritten to suit his argument.

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 9:53 AM | link to this | reply

THE CONCLUSION IS DRAWN WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Then evidence has to be manufactured to fit the conclusion.

I have seen that so many times here on Blogit -- they have already made up their minds.

That's fine, I guess, except when belief overwhelms validity, as in the Creation/Evolution debate.

Holding onto beliefs that can be demonstrated invalid, is itself an invalid act.  This in fact helps to invalidate Belief for many others.

Thinking believers constantly question.  The Apostle Paul says to0" prove all things" -- put them to the test; then embrace tightly what has been demonstrated to be valid.

Many believers don't seem to want to follow that advice.

Embracing what cannot be demonstrated to be valid is like holding onto a bag of air -- nothing there of substance.

Creationism is a creation of the Middle Ages, a religon speaking from the darkness of ignorance without scientifc enlightenment.

Like the age of the Earth:

Date of Creation according to the Pentateuch

The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world, including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days. Genesis goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after the Creation.

Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for the Creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.

Two dominant dates for Biblical Creation using such models exist, about 5500 BCE and about 4000 BCE. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Greek Septuagint. The later dates are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. The patriarchs from Adam to Terach, the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies of Genesis was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE.

Some Traditional Catholics use the year 5199 BCE, which is taken from Catholic martyrologies, and referred to as the true date of Creation in the "Mystical City of God," a 17th-century mystical work written by Maria de Agreda concerning creation and the life of the Virgin Mary.

Jewish scholars subscribing to similar interpretations (mainly as given in a pre-Talmudic work, the Seder Olam) give two dates for Creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of Creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the proleptic Julian calendar.^[3]

<>In the English-speaking world, one of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE, in the Julian calendar. He placed the beginning of this first day of Creation, and hence the exact time of Creation, at the previous nightfall. See the Ussher chronology.^[2]<>

(from Wikipedia)

As you will notice, there is variance in the exact date of creation, even among Christians, and the Jews, who should know, have a different date altogether.

So Christians don't really know.

But the bulk of Christians have accepted this October 23, 4004 BCE date ever since.

To discard traditional creationism would be the best thing happened to belief.  Belief and evolution can be compatible.  Think of evolution as part of God, that's all.

posted by Xeno-x on April 17, 2007 at 9:50 AM | link to this | reply

Troosha - you are correct on almost all counts

I do enjoy stirring the pot but don't care too much about "Blogit stardom" as you put it. I also hope that my motives are transparent, I have tried many times to make it clear what this blog is all about but once again: This blog is an attempt at reciprocating some of the inequities that all persons not subscribing to the irrational religious constructs of a believing majority must endure in their daly lives. A person would have to be on the receiving end to completely understand how and to what extent these transgressions exist. As for the issue of showing respect for the beliefs of others, I have the same answer for all persons of faith "you first" (as in you in general, not specifically you). You cannot say that you have seen me demand this respect for what I happen to believe unequivocally or non solicited, as I have only ever made this demand in response to those who were clearly and completely disregarding my right to my own beliefs.  Surprised? hardly.... but offended . . . it is possible for anyone to be offended if the remarks are insulting enough, even when playing the "blogging game" which a lot of your observations of my activities can be accredited to. The only thing you have said that I disagree with is your attempt to play the "sacred card" ....sorry, but the continuous proliferation of an unworkable societal paridigm that is organized religion is not sacred. The fact that others hold certain beliefs as sacred does not give them any form of "hands off" protection when they are intent on imposing those beliefs on the society that I live in.

posted by gomedome on April 17, 2007 at 9:33 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish, right, wrong, or ridiculous. Though the idea there are guys like this posing as one of the intellectual elite, pushing their literal translations as fact, is frightening, the fact of the matter is the extremists won't win. They never do. Sure they gain a little ground depending on the social climate, but ultimately, the winds shift and they're beaten back.

posted by Talion on April 17, 2007 at 9:13 AM | link to this | reply

A crime

I saw some documentary, and I can't remember where, that showed a Creationism lecture to children.  The lecturer was twisting and manipulating things so badly it should have been a crime.  He would tell these children evolution was complete crap because after all, (he'd put up a slide that combined the face of a woman and an ape) you grandmother didn't look like that did she?  The children would all giggle and in their young minds, that had just disproved evolution.  No actual discussion of the real theory and what it means... your grandma wasn't an ape, so therefore evolution is a fraud.  Fools.

posted by TVBlogger on April 17, 2007 at 9:11 AM | link to this | reply

Troosha

Typos are always unimpeachable. I couldn't tell the difference...

posted by Bhaskar.ing on April 17, 2007 at 9:08 AM | link to this | reply

I can't even apologize for my typos without making a typo - yikes!    "Impeccable" is, of course, what I meant. 

posted by Troosha on April 17, 2007 at 9:00 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Bhaskar

and sorry about some of the typos, gomedome.  Your writing is always imeccable - I should have proof-read a little better. 

posted by Troosha on April 17, 2007 at 8:58 AM | link to this | reply

A wow to Troosha on that!

posted by Bhaskar.ing on April 17, 2007 at 8:53 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome

I’ve read the last few posts and the comments so as to bring myself up to speed. Seems to me you thrive on the controversy and enjoy stirring the pot. Seems to me you scratch the itch in the hopes of rising to Blogit stardom. You posts (albeit it they “tell it like it is” from your perspective) are routinely textured with affronts on people who cling to their religious beliefs. In one breath you say “treat me with respect” – I’m paraphrasing – but on the other hand you find great pleasure in repeatedly diminishing the values that others might hold dear. I enjoy reading your posts because they are controversial and in a well written manner you expound on the hypocrisies of Christianity or structured religion in general. I find your opinions and conslusion intriging.  To me it’s rather transparent that you are seeking some charged or retaliatory reactions. That’s ok. This is the nature of your blog. You state your position unequivocally, do a little bashing on the bible thumpers, and in some instances even reduce a thumper’s belief into some sort of misguided, ill founded “faith”. So why be surprised or offended when you receive castigatory remarks?  Aren't you achieving your goal? 

posted by Troosha on April 17, 2007 at 8:46 AM | link to this | reply

gomdome, I had to stop reading that article about halfway thru it

So the Great FLood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? And it happened only a couple of thousand years ago too!

I am not sure if I want to laugh or cry at this point. I really do want to laugh at this and other things I have seen over the last few years; but inside I also want to weep for our species; I really do.

Did you see this "doctors" resume'???

".......Creation Science Evangelism was started in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind is one of the most requested speakers on the Creation and Evolution topic in churches and Universities all over the world. Dr. Hovind served as an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences. Dr. Hovind has debated the Creation and Evolution controversy over 100 times all over the world, in many large Universities, and on thousands of radio talk shows...."

You know what Gomedome, I am no longer laughing; as I am snow cared to death for the young minds out there that this man may be influencing.

 

posted by David1Spirit on April 17, 2007 at 8:25 AM | link to this | reply