Bill Nye The Science Guy Booed In Texas

[Ivy]

My guess is, and of course in the absence of any unbiased reporting on this event (preferably video) it's just a guess, but my guess is that he didn't bring it up as a challenge to people's faith, but actually a way to connect with the audience. He just didn't foresee that saying the second light wasn't really a source of light on its own but a reflection of one would set them off.

 

[Beorn]

As a part of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,[20] conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:

"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

I lived with a married couple who were Biblical literalists, so don't give me that nonsense, ok? Ok.

Literalist is a poor term to use since it doesn't accurately present what they believe. Notice their focus is on historical-grammatical usage and intent. Not just taking everything literally. Jesus says if you drink of the living water you'll be saved, but none of them believe there's actual physical water they have to drink.

I think the term was chosen poorly as a result of focusing on what they were against (people interpreting certain things as metaphor where they thought it was literal) rather than focusing on what they supported.

 

[Mal12345]

My guess is, and of course in the absence of any unbiased reporting on this event (preferably video) it's just a guess, but my guess is that he didn't bring it up as a challenge to people's faith, but actually a way to connect with the audience. He just didn't foresee that saying the second light wasn't really a source of light on its own but a reflection of one would set them off.

But why would this set them off?

 

[Mal12345]

Literalist is a poor term to use since it doesn't accurately present what they believe. Notice their focus is on historical-grammatical usage and intent. Not just taking everything literally. Jesus says if you drink of the living water you'll be saved, but none of them believe there's actual physical water they have to drink.

I think the term was chosen poorly as a result of focusing on what they were against (people interpreting certain things as metaphor where they thought it was literal) rather than focusing on what they supported.

I'll only give in enough to say that people choose to be literalists on this or that Biblical topic. The way to argue against this is to say, "You don't believe that the Earth is flat and rests on four pillars, why do you believe God put two lights in the sky?"

(The Greek version probably had it as "lamps" and not "lights.")

 

[Beorn]

My guess is, and of course in the absence of any unbiased reporting on this event (preferably video) it's just a guess, but my guess is that he didn't bring it up as a challenge to people's faith, but actually a way to connect with the audience. He just didn't foresee that saying the second light wasn't really a source of light on its own but a reflection of one would set them off.

Idk, Bill thinks creationists can't become serious scientists, engineers, or even citizens. Which is crazy given that we were doing just fine as a country in those areas leading up to the rise of Darwin.

 

[Mal12345]

Idk, Bill thinks creationists can't become serious scientists, engineers, or even citizens. Which is crazy given that we were doing just fine as a country in those areas leading up to the rise of Darwin.

Do you have a cite showing that Bill Nye thinks this way?

 

[Ivy]

But why would this set them off?

Based on my experiences with very strict sects who consider the Bible the inspired/inerrant word of God and take it as literally as possible, I'd guess because they saw it as questioning the Word of God.

 

[Beorn]

I'll only give in enough to say that people choose to be literalists on this or that Biblical topic. The way to argue against this is to say, "You don't believe that the Earth is flat and rests on four pillars, why do you believe God put two lights in the sky?"

Because the genre of the book where that statement comes from is a prophecy.

Genre, grammar, and intent matter.

The Greek version probably had it as "lamps" and not "lights.")

Why are you referring to the septuagint?

Or were you just not aware that the OT was written in Hebrew?

Yeah, you pretty much no credibility on this topic.

I'm done.

 

[Beorn]

Do you have a cite showing that Bill Nye thinks this way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

 

[Ivy]

Only one form of creationism requires denying evolution.

 

[93JC]

Wow, there's a lot of "you're wrong!"s being thrown back and forth here which is pretty ballsy for a bunch of people who weren't there and don't know what he said.

First of all this isn't a year-old story, this is a SEVEN-year-old story. And it was taken wildly out of context. See here and here.

The last sentence from that first source: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."


In short, anyone arguing about this one way or the other is dumb and checkity check yo'self and your sources, dumbasses.

 

[Sniffles]

You're losing credibility and looking like you just have a vendetta against religious people.

Whenever threads like these show up, that usually is the point: to provoke a flame war against religious people.

 

[Mal12345]

Because the genre of the book where that statement comes from is a prophecy.

Genre, grammar, and intent matter.




Why are you referring to the septuagint?

Or were you just not aware that the OT was written in Hebrew?

Yeah, you pretty much no credibility on this topic.

I'm done.

Running away from the truth - the sign of a Literalist.

 

[Mal12345]

Whenever threads like these show up, that usually is the point: to provoke a flame war against religious people.

I would need an example of a "flame" post.

 

[Sniffles]

I would need an example of a "flame" post.

Click on "My Profile" on the top of this page, then click on "Find Latest Posts".

 

[Mal12345]

Wow, there's a lot of "you're wrong!"s being thrown back and forth here which is pretty ballsy for a bunch of people who weren't there and don't know what he said.

First of all this isn't a year-old story, this is a SEVEN-year-old story. And it was taken wildly out of context. See here and here.

The last sentence from that first source: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."


In short, anyone arguing about this one way or the other is dumb and checkity check yo'self and your sources, dumbasses.

So it wasn't a chorus of boos?

"Would you describe it as a huff?" we asked.

"No," Woods says, "More of a low murmur."

LOL. That may be even worse than booing.

 

[Beorn]

Running away from the truth - the sign of a Literalist.

No I'm disengaging from someone who starts an online conversation with A Christian by googling: "Atheism proves bible literalists wrong."

 

[Ivy]

I'm sorry, but as a religious person myself I find it impossible to deny (and wouldn't want to deny it even if it were possible) that there are some very strict fundamentalists out there without much in the way of actual religious education, who are not at all open to interpreting the Bible in any way but what is actually right there on the page. My own parents believe that the King James Version was ordained by God Himself and every word of it is perfectly true. (Fortunately they also have an understanding of genre and literary device and don't require "literal" and "true" to be synonyms.) Being critical of unthinking religious people is not the same as being critical of all religious people and I think we'd do well not to take the punishment when it's not meant for us.

 

[Beorn]

Wow, there's a lot of "you're wrong!"s being thrown back and forth here which is pretty ballsy for a bunch of people who weren't there and don't know what he said.

First of all this isn't a year-old story, this is a SEVEN-year-old story. And it was taken wildly out of context. See here and here.

The last sentence from that first source: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."


In short, anyone arguing about this one way or the other is dumb and checkity check yo'self and your sources, dumbasses.

Uh, what part of that contradicts any of my claims?

 

[Mole]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illness says that a delusion is not a delusion when it is shared by a large number of believers.

But still, a delusion is a delusion no matter how many believe it.

So when is a delusion not a delusion?

Perhaps God is a delusion you have when you are not having a delusion.

Who knows? Certainly not the DSM V.