Actually here’s the order in genesis:
-“heavens and earth”
-light
-night and day
-ground and waters
-plants
-sun moon stars
-animals
-livestock
According to science:
-light
-stars
-sun
-moon/“heavens and earth” and day/night simultaneously
-ground and waters
-sky (somewhat debateable)
-plants and animals simultaneous
-livestock were obviously not created but are the result of selective breeding
I wish people would stop using this “genesis gets the order right” talking point. As you can see above, it really, really doesn’t get the order right. To the point of absurdly stating that sun and moon come after night and day.
Interesting discussion of whether or not creationism should be taken seriously above. To build on some of the points being made, one aspect of the Nye/Ham debate that was pretty familiar to me was the stuff about radiological dating. Nye was relying on dates derived from radiological dating and when asked whether there was any evidence for the age of the earth besides radiological dating he didn’t really have an answer. Ham used some stock creationist talking points about radiological dating (e.g. “different dating methods give different results”).
The upshot here is that creationists can create a lot more confusion about radiological dating than scientists in a format like this. Radiological dating is really, really technical complex stuff with (as Ham pointed out) a lot of assumptions built in. Nye can point out that there are good justifications for those assumptions (as he did) but he can’t enumerate them and explain them in the time it takes Ham to muddy the waters. “A lie will get halfway across the world before the truth gets its boots on” or whatever.
However, given the fundamental importance of radiological dating to the scientifically justified chronology of the universe anyone advocating the scientific worldview is at a huge disadvantage in a format like this (or really any format given how really complex radiological dating actually is). Should tactical concerns such as this factor into the question of whether or not to engage in debates like this with creationists?
Yes and no, depends on the understanding of “religious”. As a prefix, I’m someone who “became religious” in my late 30s. Despite being raised in a household without religion, I understood that God exists. However growing up I understood someone who is “religious” as someone who goes to their house of worship on a regular schedule and perhaps displays some external signs of their faith. I did not see religion as 道 (do or michi in Japanese, a way or path of how to live/act).
After becoming exposed to Buddhism in Japan, Zazen in particular, I started looking at things differently in this regard. Some people understand religious action as a way to live ones life, a complete system of action, not something one does on a weekly basis. In time I became an Orthodox Jew and that understanding of path is expressed as Torah. The actions of life are defined by the mitzvahs expressed their in. When I getup , say a series of blessings, pray, say appropriate blessings before eating and before performing other actions, it is acting according to a path.
Given that free will exists, I choose each moment to stay on or veer from the path. Externally that looks religious but internally its a system of action. So is it really “religious”? Yes and no
It depends on how you read it- The Hebrew is rather quite different from the English, and there are parts which are pretty clearly supposed to be poetic expansion of the actual text, with some other stuff mixed in- I’d recommend Genesis With Talmudical Commentary by Paul Isaac Hershon if you want a breakdown from somebody with a better understanding of it than I have.
Because seriously- I’m a bloody Druid! I should not be the most qualified person to answer questions about Judeo-Christian mythology…
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume the 6 days of creation model is used even in the Hebrew versions. In which case, God will still make day and night on the second day (?!) and then wait until the fourth day to create the sun. I’m not really interested in hunting down every different version of Genesis to refute them separately; if there’s something specific you’d like me to look at then feel free to link to it.
I’m not bashing Genesis or Judaism or Christianity – I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that the writers of Genesis didn’t have any special inside information or insight into the origins of the universe and that Genesis is folklore and not science.
That doesn’t mean one can’t use it as a metaphor for something. I’m just pointing out that your claim that Genesis is “pretty accurate” is false. It is not.
You know, supposedly the early books such as Genesis were handed down from visions of the prophets (Moses, I believe, in the case of Genesis.) So if I were to show you a high light reel of the creation of the universe and you were to write a transcript describing what you saw, it would in no possible way be all encompassing of what ever processed used.
Sure, but if according to your transcendental visions both the day/night cycle and the existence of plants precedes the creation of the sun I might reasonably suggest that your transcendental visions are dreams or hallucinations and not a good guide to the actual origins of the universe.
Or that your interpretations of your visions are fucked sideways and no useful information can be derived from them. Either way, Genesis is not “pretty accurate”.
Maybe if you could use google and wikipedia you wouldn’t have listed Taoism as a religion that didn’t fit my description?
Man, I don’t really care if someone believes nonsense but what I do care about is when said nonsense interferes with my life, the lives of others (even the believers themselves) and, most importantly, science education. Ken Ham and his ilk firmly push for their creationist bullshit to be taught alongside evolution as competing theories with equal weight of truth. That’s fucking stupid.
Believe what you want, but don’t expect me to buy into or even respect your beliefs. This is the treatment that atheists received from the religious for all of history, and there continues to be a smugness from religious people IRT their beliefs somehow being more respectable or authentic.
The thing most attractive about atheism is its honesty. When pushed, most atheists admit that there could be a god, because there’s no absolute proof that one doesn’t exist. Conversely you won’t find many religious people who would admit there there might not be a god, despite an equal lack of proof that there is.
Except, unlike belief in god, you have to eat food to live.
IRT personal benefit as a result of belief, I should have chosen my words more carefully. If someone gets satisfaction out of their faith that is fine. What I meant to say is that the other “sales pitch” of religion is that if you do believe in -insert religion here- you will be favoured by the sky wizard and be blessed in life.
The religions you listed are IMO not particularly damaging to anyone. If it hasn’t become clear yet my primary annoyance with religion is its impact on the lives of non-believers. The only reason gay marriage is not a universal thing yet is religion (and social stigma resultant of religion’s historical influence). I’d be interested to know how homosexuality is treated in the religions you have studied?
I understand how it works, I just think it’s an arbitrary rule with no basis in any reality (genetically what does it matter whether if it’s the mother or the father who is jewish) that affects people’s lives for the worse. Any group that can deliberately exclude someone who, for all intents and purposes is one of their own, sounds like a group I’d rather ridicule.
You do grossly generalize. And I certainly don’t describe myself as religious, I’m just not an atheist. Well, most days. But I’m also not terribly dogmatic, and I’m the first to acknowledge I have absolutely no idea what “truth” is. I am open-minded scientifically a la Charles Fort. I certainly don’t agree with teaching creationism in school, and believe in serious science education. But you know… I just feel like atheists would do better with their arguments if they didn’t often come off as, well… assholes. Enough of this pleasant chat.
Just so you know, I’m not arguing against your personal choices directly, but talking generally about the topic. Also, being an asshole doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of an argument.
Yes it’d be nice if I weren’t such an asshole, but at least you know that I’m also not trying to convert you… if I was I’d approach the discussion with more tact. The callous approach of atheists IMO reflects the callousness with which non-believers have been and continue to be treated by many people of faith.
I don’t see any countries on that list which at present determine there to be a difference of Jus sanguinis if the relevant parent is a woman not a man.
Also: religion≠nationality (Except in the case of your namesake nation which, as you might have guessed, is not one of my favourite places in the world)
Israeli citizenship is not predicated on the Jewish religion. The halachik (Jewish legal system) principle of nationhood of the Jews as a people differs from most nation state concepts but exists nonetheless.
Kemetic Orthodoxy is very LGBT-friendly; it married a pair of gay men years before it was technically legal in the state where it happened (Illinois), several of the priests have been bi, lesbian or gay, at least one was asexual, and there were a handful of openly trans* people around.
Wicca is mixed – mostly positive overall, but some groups have gender role hangups and at least one is obnoxiously transphobic (in the guise of being feminist). On the other hand, there’s at least one radical gay activist Wiccan group.
Most other pagan groups tend to be pretty relaxed about it as far as I’ve seen. I don’t know what cultural biases might exist with Taoism and Shinto, but at least what I’ve read on them doesn’t indicate any bias against homosexuality or gender diversity.
