The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

Science is also about atheistic materialism. The idea of the supernatural cause is rejected apriori:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

Religion itself serves no purpose. Going to church, partaking in sacraments, putting on a public face of piety, these are the dead works of men. The heart of Christianity is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know God intimately and experientially. It is not religion but relationship.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

At the outset, they were friends to one another. The idea of an orderly Universe based on universal laws is a Christian idea, and so is the idea that we can suss out those ideas by investigating secondary causes. Science really got its start in Christian europe. Though they are portrayed as rivals now, it is truly a false dichotomy. I think John Lennox explains this best:



What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

At their essence, I don't think there is any conflict. Religion tells us about who the Creator is while science tries to explain how He did it. The bible isn't a book about science, although it contains some scientific principles. It is a book that describes what God wants from us, why He created us. Science shows us His marvels, it tells us why the stars shine so brightly, it reveals their secret power.

The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

The idea that science is an objective enterprise is a myth. This isn't about the best evidence.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

If you want to challenge the status quo, you need the support of the status quo. It's a closed system. You're not getting any grants or getting published unless you're towing the line on the conventional wisdom of the day. Check out some of the finds that modern science conveniently ignores..



Evidence starts around 10:00 or so

Also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Myth-Conventional-Wisdom-Scientific/dp/1904275303

>> ^bamdrew:

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

Two words, Hugh Laurie

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
two words: annie lennox.

two words: annie lennox.

I do love that song "Laughter in the Rain." I mean, not love like I'd like to give it a rimjob or anything...or oral sex...not like he's Annie Lennox...but it was a happy song in a time/space continuum when I was around ten years old and more monkey than man, climbing trees and chewing on dandelion stems, scouring unlikely places for thrown-away Playboy's and Penthouses and dreaming of a secret hiding place where I could have sex with women twice my age....

love the end bit were lennox says "I can't believe self-contradictory claims". Mmm projecting much...?

"Noah Benjamin Lennox[2] (born July 17,[1] 1978 in Baltimore, Maryland) also known as Panda Bear, is an experimental musician and a founding member of Animal Collective."

Animal Collective were wildy successful in 2009 - Merriweather Post Pavilion was one of the most critically acclaimed albums of 2009. Even, Spin selected it as the best album of 2009. Panda Bear's last album "Person Pitch" was named by Pitchfork Media to be the top album of 2007[17] and placed it 9th on the Top 200 Albums of The Decade.

They innovated experimental music with using samplers to create strange rhythmic pop songs. I calmly resent that question because all of you should be at least trying to listen to new and innovative music if you're into music. If you're into music you should try to not be closed-minded... at all. I know it's difficult but if there is a genre or field of music someone has done that style well enough for me to enjoy. For me to resolve this question with - didn't you know Animal Collective's album was the best album of the entire year?! PSHHH... is ridiculous. Bottom-line - listen to music and don't worry about whether you should care or not, just listen and have a good time.


>> ^Sagemind:

Who's Panda Bear?
... and why should we care/take interest?
Not meant as a Troll, I've just never heard of Panda Bear - ever, in any-way, or at any-time as an artist or otherwise.
I could be out of touch, but maybe a better description is required here.

And a Merry Christmas to you as well! Cheers!

In reply to this comment by robbersdog49:
That was brilliant. I loved the imagery and style of the video and the music.

A nice start to my Christmas day! Happy Christmas Fusionaut

Tags for this video have been changed from 'annie, lennox, god, rest, ye, merry, gentlemen' to 'annie, lennox, god, rest, ye, merry, gentlemen, christmas' - edited by calvados

>> ^jwray:

Why kick someone in the chest when you can kick them in the nuts. It's faster, longer range, does a lot more damage, and puts you at much less risk of losing your balance in a counterattack.


Sorry jwray, but i have to say your advice next to the advice of mr. rutten (who could pound just about any single person in a real fight) falls distincty short.

Let's not forget that this video right here is a demonstration of a technique for fighting in a certain style of MMA competition.

But he, and people in his sport, also give self defence lessons which relate to real fights.

Don't be under any illusion, jwray, this guy could kick most people's arses in a real world fight. You may as well pretend that lennox lewis is a pussy who'd get his ass kicked in a street fight because nail clawing, eye gouging, biting and kicking isn't allowed in boxing.

The bottom line is that these guys are experts in delivering punches, kicks, holds and throws - they're trained by repetition and baptism of fire to deliver them even under the worst of circumstances, when they're dog tired, when their nose is broken into 4 - AND THEY CAN KICK/EYE GOUGE/NAIL SCRATCH AND HAIR PULL BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO HAVING THAT ADRENALINE OF THE FIGHT RESPONSE.

Honestly pal, if you think anyone near to the top of just about any MMA or boxing type competition is on an even footing to your average person in a street fight, you're kidding yourself. I pray to god, allah and budda that your over confidence doesn't lead you into a fight with one of these guys, cos you'd be lucky if they decided to stop very precisely short of killing you.

I finally understand what mom was going on and on about when listening to Annie Lennox. As a kid eurythmics was catchy and all, but now that I have a "proper" appreciation of music, it hits home and my eyes are open to what I missed earlier.

May I also reccomend this one as a follow-up:
"Eurythmics singing an acoustic version 'There Must Be An Angel 'live' on Parkinson."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvNpvM2Nf28

Annie Lennox was and still is the most amazing female vocalist.
And there is something so incredibly sexy about her. Great video.

>> ^thinker247:
I love Annie Lennox, but I always come back to the fact that nobody could out-sing Freddie Mercury. Ever.


Can't argue with you there. Freddie was a one of a kind.

I love Annie Lennox, but I always come back to the fact that nobody could out-sing Freddie Mercury. Ever.

she's damn sexy. so is david bowie (weirdly), but they are 2 of the most androgynous figures in pop culture, even aside from ziggy stardust. watch more 80's mtv.

>> ^Payback:
Androgyny? I'm sure you only refer to Ziggy. I'm sorry, but when factoring in her voice, Annie is one of the sexiest women alive.