Burgers?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I should also probably point out that when I was in Catholic school the nuns told us, explicitly, that it was perfectly acceptable for us to believe in evolution, and that acceptance of it was sanctioned by Rome. Why wouldn't it be? The idea was there several centuries before Darwin. Darwin gets special mention because he figured out how evolution works. He didn't propose that. That was also an ancient, and of course, Greek, concept.

[P3nT4gR4m]

What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?

Nope. The Church has always been fairly flexible on that point. Catholics and Lutherans aren't literalists, like Fundies are. And, there is little "Biblical myth" that can't work around scientific knowledge.

So proving people can't walk on water, come back from the dead or bring people back to life. Or how about pretty much every single other word printed? At which point do they hold their hands up and say "Ok, yeah, it's pretty much all bullshit" cos I'm patiently waiting.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What happened was science started disproving large chunks of biblical myth?

Nope. The Church has always been fairly flexible on that point. Catholics and Lutherans aren't literalists, like Fundies are. And, there is little "Biblical myth" that can't work around scientific knowledge.

So proving people can't walk on water, come back from the dead or bring people back to life. Or how about pretty much every single other word printed? At which point do they hold their hands up and say "Ok, yeah, it's pretty much all bullshit" cos I'm patiently waiting.

Could be some dude here or there wanted to jump on the Jesus bandwagon and get his say by making the story a little bit more interesting. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. The faithful who are receptive to science will reinterpret scripture to fit the science. It might be a hell of a logical pretzel but they will do it, and it will be consistent and will define the impossible as metaphor. Christians are pretty smart in general. In general, of course. They actually do want to understand how the whole thing works.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"

Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?

I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.

[Junkenstein]

I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.

Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.

Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.

Me too. I still can't bring myself to completely accept it's not, given that the two things seem diametrically opposed. On one side you've got rigorous testing and review and on the other side you have guys living inside whales and building boats big enough to house the entire animal kingdom and when it's proven, scientifically, to be horseshit, they "change the interpretation" How does that even work? The 6000 year old universe still revolves around the earth, it's just that terms like "6000 years old" and "revolves around" have to be reinterpreted?

I am unable to see this as anything other than really really dumb and really really unscientific.

[Junkenstein]

This is why I was thinking it may be a systemic problem. Previously, science was obligated to work around religious realities. Now, religion has to work around scientific realities, if it wishes to remain relevant.

[P3nT4gR4m]

But why? Why does it want to "remain relevant"? If it's essentially just the cave-painting version of the Harry Potter series, do we really need it? Was it ever relevant? Why do people still have to dress up in silly costumes and mumble in cold buildings? Not that I have a problem with this, it's more the demand that I take them seriously and respect their beliefs. I've tried, fuck knows I've tried but I can't bring myself to do it. How do I respect something so retarded?

People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.

[Junkenstein]

But why? Why does it want to "remain relevant"?(1) If it's essentially just the cave-painting version of the Harry Potter series, do we really need it? Was it ever relevant?(2) Why do people still have to dress up in silly costumes and mumble in cold buildings? Not that I have a problem with this, it's more the demand that I take them seriously and respect their beliefs. I've tried, fuck knows I've tried but I can't bring myself to do it. How do I respect something so retarded?

People whom I respect saying they believe it goes some way to addressing this but I'm leaning more towards those people have fallen, hook line and sinker for a shaggy dog story than the idea that they are possessed of some insightful wisdom that I'm not.

1 - Ask any person or organisation with power and control to surrender said power and control. Watch the inevitable carnage.

2 - I'm starting to think that there was a point where it was highly relevant. Funding scientific advancements is certainly relevant and would have been at the time. The problem is when these advancements must fit a pre-determined doctrine.

[P3nT4gR4m]

On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.

The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.

On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"

Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.

[MMIX]

On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.

The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.

On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"

Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.

Maybe this is just a minor point but maybe not. That should probably read
"Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll Magnify god"; like Roger said the other day proof has never been part of the equation. Just a thought.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why is it so important to believe in people with superpowers, marching around the planet, zapping people with lazor vision or turning them into newts and shit? This is the bit I just can't fathom. Why is it so important to so many people that, rather than just saying "okay it's a bunch of crap" and drop it, they have to "reinterpret"

Like how come saying "Okay we know Jesus didn't walk on water like it explicitly states in the book but now we believe he maybe stood in a puddle or something and that's what it means", is somehow valid or useful?

I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, I just can't wrap my head around the value that a lot of people seem to place in this stuff.

Why does what other people believe matter so much to you? Isn't there some point where you go "oh, well, it isn't any of my business unless it affects me"?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd guess it to be partly an ego thing. It's difficult to admit you are totally wrong about something, it's much more palatable to think that you were mostly right, just slightly off on a few things.

Again, I may be being somewhat harsh here but I've associated organised religion with stunted science so that idea clearly needs revising in some regards.

I've recommended it before, but I recommend Sapolsky's take on why humans believe in spiritual things. If you're genuinely interested, that is.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.

The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.

On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"

Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.

Maybe this is just a minor point but maybe not. That should probably read
"Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll Magnify god"; like Roger said the other day proof has never been part of the equation. Just a thought.

That is precisely what I meant, MMIX, thank you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On your first point, I totally agree but, since the whole power and control structure hinges on some kind of prehistoric version of Pokemon, surely it should have totally evaporated by now.

The church no longer has the military clout to just say "fuck you, we aint proving nuthin, believe or die" All they got is circular logic which was disproven years ago. I can see the leaders not wanting to give it up but what I don't get is the followers insisting we respect their right to get fleeced.

On the second point, it makes a lot of sense in the context of the church originally saying "Fuck yeah, lets use science - it'll prove god"

Of course what ended up happening was science proceeded to debunk most of it.

Your understanding of history is a little off.  Just saying.