Because what's in the bible matters to science

[Toren]

religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious.

My stance is, whatever works for you. If you have wear green t-shirts in order to be a decent human being, then far be it from me to say that green is a bad choice. Conversely, if your beliefs cause you to be a jerk, I'm against it.

Myself, I pride myself in being a moral atheist. I've avoided cheating on my girlfriends not because I was afraid of what would happen to me in the afterlife, but because I want to make the world that I'm currently living a nice place.

And to keep things on topic, I think the whole crux of the original article is not necessarily purporting that octopus are not alive as we CURRENTLY define it, but that the definition of "life" in the bible is X, and octopus don't have X.

 

[Toren]

because religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious.​

::Grits teeth::
::Bangs head against wall::
:ucks thread::

whew

Hey, he said religious folk that HE knows! Not most of them!

(just kidding, kids)

 

[main_board]

My stance is, whatever works for you. If you have wear green t-shirts in order to be a decent human being, then far be it from me to say that green is a bad choice. Conversely, if your beliefs cause you to be a jerk, I'm against it.

Myself, I pride myself in being a moral atheist. I've avoided cheating on my girlfriends not because I was afraid of what would happen to me in the afterlife, but because I want to make the world that I'm currently living a nice place.

I'm in agreement with the above. If it works for you, go with it. If it negatively influences others (be they people, creatures, the environment), it may be necessary to reconsider.

Cheers!

 

[Toren]

What lends the Bible credibility over the holy Koran, the Torah, the Egyption Book of the Dead, or the Greek pantheon of mythos? Holy texts depend on themselves as the base of their credibility.

I've thought a lot about this recently. What's interesting is that science textbooks are also books, and unless you are going to recreate every science experiment for yourself, you do have to take certain 'tenets' of science 'on faith.' Do I know for sure that quarks exist? No, but I put faith in science (generally speaking). Now the reason I choose science over, say, Christianity or the spaghetti monster is that science just makes more sense to me.

It all reminds me of that episode of the Simspons "Lisa the Skeptic" where Moe is smashing a mammoth skeleton because it represents evolution which offends his religious beliefs. When a tusk breaks off and lands on him, he says "Oh, I'm paralyzed. I just hope medical science can cure me!"

As for "religion caused more violence" I would just like to point out that people will fight over any difference, be it religion or skin colour or land.

Okay I think I'm done. Thanks for putting up with me!

 

[Phil]

By today's scientific definition, squid, octopuses and other
invertebrate sea creatures (mollusks, cephalopods, crustaceans, etc.)
are considered living creatures. But are they biblically defined as
"living creatures"?

(sorry, just thought I'd inject a little humour!)

 

[monty]

I was tempted to reply in kind to this thread, but I'm holding off.

I'm curious what our "benevolent dictator" Tony thinks about the appropriateness of this discussion. I think it's preferable not to censor it, and I'm debating yammering on about my opinions, confusions, recommended reading, etc, either here, in the supporters section, or perhaps just writing some stuff up on my web site and providing a link in case anyone is interested.

I also feel obligated to point out this thread:

Message from Squidman

in which Squidman explains that he is leaving TONMO because he was offended by some people's attitudes (possibly mine; he didn't specify who bugged him enough to leave, or if it was just his perception of the "atmosphere" here or what have you).

I enjoyed having SquidMan around, and, in fact, even thought that he was a good contributor to discussions about how religion and science should interact. I was (and still am) dismayed that he was so offended that he decided to leave. Frankly, I don't know that we should change our behavior based on his actions-- I judge it fairly harshly, in that it seems like he was running away rather than defending his beliefs... I'm not going to be blackmailed into not speaking my mind by that sort of behavior, but I also would have vastly preferred a different outcome.

-- I don't use harmony and diversity smilies too much, but they seem appropriate.

 

[Feelers]

I think as a unit tomno get on very well, and obviously noone is out to offend others.
Although being a site that is(I think we can all agree here) geared towards the scientific point of view due to the scientif nature of the topic, it is not surprising that many people with conservative religious beliefs would be put off.

I think both part and parcel come with looking after an octopus -if you use science prooven techniques to keep it alive, why would you not accept the eplanantion science gives as to why it was here in the first place?
(Unless of course you have a geunine scientific theory that can explain things equally or better, in which case I'd be very interested!)

You cant have your octopus, and eat it too.


I think Tony keeps out of threads like this as much as he can, and I think thats fair enough.

 

[bigGdelta]

I have to say tonmo is amazingly troll-free. Even in the threads involving evolution the posts have been civil with a good bit of humour used on both sides. Let's be tolerant of all sides (except the people who disagree with me of course) and enjoy the debate.

 

[erich orser]

I've also found Tonmo to be amazingly troll-free, with general well-balanced discussion of issues where everybody is free to bring their opinion to the table. I also was sad to see Squidman go, but don't feel this should have been expected. In fact, I was a trifle stunned to see it happen and do miss his input, but so long as the majority of us (myself sometimes included) can behave here in a mature, well-reasoned fashion, I don't think there should be too much to worry about. People with militantly-held beliefs should simply remember to be diplomatic and polite while visiting these hallowed cyber-halls. We all like to come here, after all, and everybody ought to feel welcome. So long as we're not attacking one another, I don't think this thread is necessarily anything detrimental.

 

[bigGdelta]

deleted (it was much funnier in my head)

 

[monty]

liability

One comment I want to make after taking about this thread with Erich a bit last night is that we may start attracting trolls if we debate this too much. TONMO ranks pretty highly in google and the like, so if people are googling for "where are there discussions of science vs religion as it applies to biology" looking for somewhere to come and wax opinionated, we may be at risk for attracting hordes of people who want to argue about that and don't care a whit about our cephalopod fascination. I don't think we should censor our opinions on this, just keep in mind that we may have unintended impact on the intellectual ecology, and it would be a shame to bring invasive species into the TONMO ecosystem...

 

[sorseress]

Religion and civil strife

Religion doesn't often cause wars, but it also doesn't seem to do much to stop them. Religion is far from being a necessary and sufficient condition for morality, and I'd be so much happier if people would do the logical thing and stop trying to equate them.

This statement has been bothering me, as I kept remembering my reading of history as well as current events. While it's true that there have probably been very few wars where religion was the only causative factor, it is frequently the deciding factor. So, I made a short list:

The Crusades (a pretty obvious one)

continuing wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants from 1562-1598

The Thirty Years War (There were, of course, other issues of land and power, but the nations involved were divided along religious lines.)

The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

THe Balkan conflicts involving Serbia (Serbian Orthodox), Croatia, and Slovenia, (Roman Catholic) Bosnia-Herzogovina and Kosovo (Muslim)

India (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, animists) on-going, usually low level assaults that occasionally escalate, by one group against another.

Kashmir (HIndu vs. Muslim)

Sri Lanka (Hindu vs. Buddhist)

Cyprus (Greek Orthodox vs. Turkish Muslim)

Sudan (north, largely Arab/Muslim, South largely Black African and divided between Christian and animist)

Indonesia-not exactly war, but on-going religious strife between Muslims and Christians in the provinces of Ambon and Halmahera)

East Timor (Muslim vs. Roman Catholic)

Kurdistan (Muslim vs.Protestant, Chaldean Catholic, and Assyrian Orthodox Christians)

Iran and Pakistan (continuous low level strive between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims)

Uganda, Nigeria Cote d'Ivoire (various degress of violence between Muslims, Christians and animists)

In the history of the Americas, Christian aggression against the native people, to the point that some tribes were eradicated. As recently as 30-40 years ago children from some of the tribes were being forcibly removed from their families and put in Christian boarding schools where they were forbidden to speak their native languages or practice their traditional religions.

New Zealand In the 1800s strife between Maori and white New Zealanders, not originally religious in nature, but toward the end of the conflict a stong religious component entered the picture. Originally based on a desire from the ethnic Europeans to acquire Maori land. Some really complicated issues there.

Nazi Germany.....all about power, really, but scapegoating one religious group and the glorification of a Germanic/Nordic mythos to help mobilize and inspire the people.....

I could go on, but why bother? Some things never change.

 

[Mizu]

deleted (it was much funnier in my head)

//pats hand
its ok I have the same problem

 

[um...]

Nice list. I still don't see religion as being a major cause of war, but I agree that it can often make them worse. It strengthens the perception of the "otherness" of opponents, allowing them to be dehumanized and treated more brutally. It also suppresses critical thinking and removes accountability. Wars are almost always fought over land and resources. Saying that you're fighting in the name of some god typically allows you to fight harder and dirtier, and is pretty useful when you want to persuade lower-class people to do the fighting but not reap their fair share of the material gains.

 

[Steve O'Shea]

.... and do not forget the "Octopus War"

"Later, during the same year, the Peace Keepers (ECOMOG) arrived and began rescue missions. My sister and I were rescued from the bloody hands of the rebels. This unfortunately did not last long and in 1992 another deadly war broke out which was even worse than the previous. It was called the Octopus War as it spread throughout most of Liberia. Countless of thousands of children lost their parents to senseless killings and everybody started to fend for them selves no matter on what side you were previously on. As the saying goes in Liberia; everyone for himself or herself, only God is for everyone."