Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Its meant to be creepy. To put of the criminals.

In USA, they would be smiley faces with a logo "Because we care..."

Everything would be blue and orange too with a cartoon character mascot thrown in for good measure.

 

[gerg]

It would also put off me if I was riding opposite of it, in a bad way.

CCTV in London is everywhere. If you're not being recorded by cameras operated by Transport for London, then you're going to be recorded by hundreds of other privately- and publicly-owned cameras while you walk to work instead.

 

[The Technomancer]

CCTV in London is everywhere. If you're not being recorded by cameras operated by Transport for London, then you're going to be recorded by hundreds of other privately- and publicly-owned cameras while you walk to work instead.

Emotionally my reaction is "that's creepy", but I can't think of a logical complaint against it. Its not invasion of privacy, since people are in public space.

 

[Zaptruder]

In the UK? er... is it really a problem in the uk?

Nope. But it's thanks to efforts like this both small and large that it isn't a problem.

 

[JGS]

Nope. But it's thanks to efforts like this both small and large that it isn't a problem.

The reason it's not a problem is because it's not a problem.

This is simply publicity.

 

[Amir0x]

Smart people win this day, at least.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

That seems to me a really bad argument, because it invites the riposte that 'science' has had to update its beliefs etc also every hundred years or so, and maybe even more often. After all if science has all these great claims to be evidence-based and objective how come it changes its mind so often, huh?

Nothing wrong with a religion taking the same approach and updating things in the light of evidence. After all, if there were to be a sensible religion that's what you'd want it to do, surely.

I've got an awful feeling here that I'm suggesting a merger between Catholics and Scientists versus the rest.

science never operates in 100% certainty, no scientist in his right mind would ever claim absolute certainly. religion on the other hand operates in pretty much black and white.

 

[StealthGoblin]

The reason it's not a problem is because it's not a problem.

This is simply publicity.

Even if one child has this mix of creationism mixed in with traditional science just once in their life it is a problem. Dawkins himself has demonstrated that this occurs in some schools when he made a documentary about it.

 

[Maleficence]

There are a lot of things in the Bible that are contradictory to current knowledge or current morality. Those are often rejected by most religious people. Although this is for the best for everybody, picking only the parts you like about a book pretending to be the end-all book of truth as the basis for what you think is true is often considered hypocritical.

The same goes for most sciences. If you accept knowledge of physics, biology (anything that has to do with biology really, most notably medicine), geology, chemistry in the case of Islam, and possibly even mathematics (Bible does very much seem to claim pi = 3) then you hold truths contradicting those of the Bible. It is therefore that science and religion (technically only religions that dictate scientific facts in scripture, but that's all the major ones) are factually mutually incompatible. The intellectual hypocrisy worsens the more you need to work with that knowledge as a scientist. Moreover, if you reject certain truths found through science because the Bible says otherwise, the intellectually honest thing to do is to reject the scientific method, which makes you unsuitable to be a scientist.

The thing is, people are generally not troubled by contradictory beliefs and it is therefore that a huge amount of people still think that. I don't in general have a problem with people having some sort of faith, as long as they have the clarity of thought to realize that it's contradictory and people should not take them seriously for it.

This line of thinking only works when people believe the Bible and other holy books to be purely factual rather than allegorical and metaphorical.

As with all religious texts they can be interpreted in many ways, if our interpretation contradicts science then clearly our interpretation is incorrect and requires adjustment.

There's nothing inherently hypocritical in doing that at all.

With the Bible specifically there is a lot of evidence that the gospels themselves have changed a lot since their original versions, so any contradictions and false factual innacuracies can be put down to those changes. I have little doubt that had the bible been written in the time of Jesus or directly after, and had not been changed so significantly, it would be a book of allegory and hold little categorical facts which could so easily be pointed out as factually incorrect.

 

[Red]

Yep. Same in Spain. I used to attend this Catholic junior high school (sigh...) and they never taught us creationism, it was all evolution theory.

Is it a problem in the US?

I had creationism pushed down my throat until 12th grade, spread across both public and private schools. Whenever evolution was taught, it was presented as the "next best thing" after creationism.

I've never really believed in God, and I was thrown out of class and sent home a couple of times after disagreeing with teachers during creationism talk. They would stammer and call me a blasphemer and I would laugh and have my parents called.

I went to a private Catholic elementary school and spent two years at a Catholic preparatory high school. I think it was my freshman year, I made a teacher cry by challenging her as to why we had a block of our day dedicated to "religion" class if everything they were telling us was a lie.

This was in the US.

 

[Zaptruder]

The reason it's not a problem is because it's not a problem.

This is simply publicity.

Things just are, because they are.

More useless tautology JGS.

But I know what you're trying to say. The culture in the UK quash this kind of fundie craziness at its bud, so it doesn't manage to get some foothold and turn into some crazy education threatening epidemic.

 

[Divvy]

Those of you saying how pointless this was should look at turkey and see what happened after a man introduced creationism to a previously secular country.

 

[CatPee]

I made a teacher cry by challenging her as to why we had a block of our day dedicated to "religion" class if everything they were telling us was a lie.

This was in the US.

Bravo.

 

[Ashes]

Those of you saying how pointless this was should look at turkey and see what happened after a man introduced creationism to a previously secular country.

The Theory of Evolution was erm.... well there ain't no other way to say it. It was created here in the UK.

Charles Darwin is on our money man.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Good.
Creationism deserves to be taught in insane asylums to people eating flies, not schools.

 

[Atramental]

Great news!

 

[Count Dookkake]

Nice work, UK.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Atheists get so happy over the weirdest things. Yet another fake danger averted. Phew!

I know right, i didn't even know this was a problem. I understand catholic schools or religious schools but normal public schools, i find it hard to believe.

 

[Divvy]

The Theory of Evolution was erm.... well there ain't no other way to say it. It was created here in the UK.

Charles Darwin is on our money man.

Never underestimate the power of money.

 

[that1dude24]

woo!

 

[Air]

I think this gives people the wrong impression of what's been going on.

Creationism being taught in schools wasn't a problem, but the government has recently introduced a new 'free schools' policy which allows anybody to set up a publicly funded school given they show they have a good plan and is locally approved of (or something like that). These schools have more control over their curriculum, but the legislation for this policy would have allowed non-science to be taught as though it has some level of credibility. And now this has been fixed.

Thanks. I was confused at the sensationalist thread title.

It's unfortunate that a vocal (creationists) minority has kind of made this into a really big deal. Evolution is like the absolute last thing that would disprove God or even a god.

Hopefully this starts a trend of it being taught better in school.

 

[leadbelly]

Even if one child has this mix of creationism mixed in with traditional science just once in their life it is a problem. Dawkins himself has demonstrated that this occurs in some schools when he made a documentary about it.

Everyone has their view I guess. I've been through this in my mind though. I concluded that it is very unlikely that mankind will continue forever, so it is, in the big scheme of things, meaningless. Even if we were around for a billion years, it is but a drop in the ocean in comparison to an eternity of non-existence.

I can't come to terms with non-existence. The beginning of universe is likely to be so strange and incomprehensible that there could be a greater mystery there. I am not someone who blindly disregards science, but I am someone who is very open to the possibility of god in some form.

 

[Metalmurphy]

How exactly do you "teach" creationism?

 

[F#A#Oo]

How exactly do you "teach" creationism?

I would assume it would be;

Adam and Eve first humans...dinosaur fossils are fake. Evolution = invalid we still got monkeys

 

[LuchaShaq]

It's not just Atheists. It's congrats to everyone who uses a shred of common sense or intelligence. Religious or otherwise.

QFT A good friend of mine who is a Catholic priest recognizes evolution and so do the vast majority of people who happen to be intelligent and religious. Guess how it's explained? "God did it, and the time it took was the 6 days to god etc" Not that fucking complicated!

Hell even the VATICAN is pro evolution http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...volution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

It's only extremist psychopaths who fight it that don't even understand what they are fighting for/against.

 

[Chinner]

How exactly do you "teach" creationism?

they put a monkey on a type writer and ask it to write the complete work of shakespear.

 

[Orayn]

The reason it's not a problem is because it's not a problem.

This is simply publicity.

It should have been policy all along.

 

[DCKing]

This line of thinking only works when people believe the Bible and other holy books to be purely factual rather than allegorical and metaphorical.

No it doesn't. That's the point. You can't say that page 28 is allegorical but page 100 is fact, when it says on page 3 that the entire book is all true. The only two intellectually honest options are to go entirely literal fundamentalist and start stoning people for collecting sticks on the sabbath, or classify the entire thing as a fable.

As with all religious texts they can be interpreted in many ways, if our interpretation contradicts science then clearly our interpretation is incorrect and requires adjustment.

There's nothing inherently hypocritical in doing that at all.

It always amazes me how people can 'interpret' Genesis as describing the Big Bang, the accretion of planet Earth, the Late Heavy Bombardment and the evolution of life. What's described in the text is completely opposite to that. This creative interpretation to get stuff that's clearly not meant at all in the Bible up to modern standards is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty and contradiction, really. Creative interpretation is a synonym for cherry picking in this case, because the good stuff can be taken as fact right away, and the bad stuff 'needs to be reinterpreted'. That's some excellent self delusion right there It may not always be hypocritical in the sense that people do this automatically however. It's still not intellectual honest.

With the Bible specifically there is a lot of evidence that the gospels themselves have changed a lot since their original versions, so any contradictions and false factual innacuracies can be put down to those changes.

Fair enough. Though what evidence do we have that there was 'an original story' that was altered in the gospels besides these gospels themselves?

 

[params7]

Logic and science triumph over fantasies and myth's. Keep it up UK.

 

[Orayn]

No it doesn't. That's the point. You can't say that page 28 is allegorical but page 100 is fact, when it says on page 3 that the entire book is all true. The only two intellectually honest options are to go entirely literal fundamentalist and start stoning people for collecting sticks on the sabbath, or classify the entire thing as a fable.
It always amazes me how people can 'interpret' Genesis as describing the Big Bang, the accretion of planet Earth, the Late Heavy Bombardment and the evolution of life. What's described in the text is completely opposite to that. This creative interpretation to get stuff that's clearly not meant at all in the Bible up to modern standards is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty and contradiction, really. Creative interpretation is a synonym for cherry picking in this case, because the good stuff can be taken as fact right away, and the bad stuff 'needs to be reinterpreted'. That's some excellent self delusion right there It may not always be hypocritical in the sense that people do this automatically however. It's still not intellectual honest.
Fair enough. Though what evidence do we have that there was 'an original story' that was altered in the gospels besides these gospels themselves?

I'm all for harping on literalists, but your perspective on this smacks of a false dichotomy. No individual book in the Bible says that the entire Bible is true, because the Bible is an anthology of books written years and years apart, many of them completely unrelated to each other and linked only by their selection as part of the same canon. Any statement about the Bible being true is CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE and not any feature inherent in the books themselves, because none of them "know" that they're a part of the Bible.

A more reasonable aproach would be to look at each book in its own historical and cultural context, because the Bible sure as hell isn't any sort of monolithic work that you can talk about as a single consistent unit.

 

[protonion]

obligatory

 

[Kai Dracon]

How exactly do you "teach" creationism?

Essentially, by denying that the mechanics of natural selection could be responsible for creating unique species - such as causing one species to spawn another truly separate species from itself. And in some flavors of creationism, by denying that evolution by itself could create some biological systems of complexity.

Creationism, as I understand it, is a relatively clever attempt to undermine the idea that human beings - the only animals that really matter to the motives of the religious - could in any way, shape, or form, have arisen from nature without a supreme being intervening to make them occur. Creationist arguments may not literally try to say the garden of eden story is literal; though some creationist teachers might insinuate that, if their flavor of creationism is mixed with young earth nonsense. (Earth is only 10,000 years old, etc.)

Basically the real goal of creationism is to shake confidence that the universe can be understood or explained without the hand of god. It helps promote the "God of the Gaps" argument - where every time you find something you can't explain, you say "there! That is where God is hiding, only He could be responsible for this mystery mere humans can't explain."

It's why creationists keep moving the goal posts on fossil evidence. No matter how many "transitional" forms between older primates and humans you uncovered, the creationist would say "but where is the transitional form between THOSE two? It doesn't exist because it isn't possible without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."

 

[Cyan]

In the UK? er... is it really a problem in the uk?

My first thought too. I thought this was a Southern US issue.

 

[Something Wicked]

Unfortunately, they still promote AGW as fact. Though, I suppose the average person appears to need to have "faith" in at least something...

 

[Air]

I'm all for harping on literalists, but your perspective on this smacks of a false dichotomy. No individual book in the Bible says that the entire Bible is true, because the Bible is an anthology of books written years and years apart, many of them completely unrelated to each other and linked only by their selection as part of the same canon. Any statement about the Bible being true is CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE and not any feature inherent in the books themselves, because none of them "know" that they're a part of the Bible.

A more reasonable aproach would be to look at each book in its own historical and cultural context, because the Bible sure as hell isn't any sort of monolithic work that you can talk about as a single consistent unit.

Basically. It isn't hard to understand that at all.

 

[Maleficence]

No it doesn't. That's the point. You can't say that page 28 is allegorical but page 100 is fact, when it says on page 3 that the entire book is all true. The only two intellectually honest options are to go entirely literal fundamentalist and start stoning people for collecting sticks on the sabbath, or classify the entire thing as a fable.
It always amazes me how people can 'interpret' Genesis as describing the Big Bang, the accretion of planet Earth, the Late Heavy Bombardment and the evolution of life. What's described in the text is completely opposite to that. This creative interpretation to get stuff that's clearly not meant at all in the Bible up to modern standards is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty and contradiction, really. Creative interpretation is a synonym for cherry picking in this case, because the good stuff can be taken as fact right away, and the bad stuff 'needs to be reinterpreted'. That's some excellent self delusion right there It may not always be hypocritical in the sense that people do this automatically however. It's still not intellectual honest.
Fair enough. Though what evidence do we have that there was 'an original story' that was altered in the gospels besides these gospels themselves?

I can understand where you're coming from but I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean to pick and choose what is literal fact and what is allegorical. I meant not to look at any part of it as literal fact, but look at the whole thing for a metaphorical guide as to how to live your life.

Getting literal facts from religion was fine hundreds of years a go, but we have a scientific process which makes it pointless and counter productive now. We can all agree on that, so I'm not in any way people look at something from a holy book and take it as fact when we have better evidence available.

 

[DCKing]

I'm all for harping on literalists, but your perspective on this smacks of a false dichotomy. No individual book in the Bible says that the entire Bible is true, because the Bible is an anthology of books written years and years apart, many of them completely unrelated to each other and linked only by their selection as part of the same canon. Any statement about the Bible being true is CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE and not any feature inherent in the books themselves, because none of them "know" that they're a part of the Bible.

Ok. If any book needs to be viewed within its own perspective however, none of them can actually claim to have any sort of authority about what's true, so that makes the entire discussion pretty much pointless anyway. I think I've contributed enough to make this go off-topic however.

 

[onipex]

There are a lot of things in the Bible that are contradictory to current knowledge or current morality. Those are often rejected by most religious people. Although this is for the best for everybody, picking only the parts you like about a book pretending to be the end-all book of truth as the basis for what you think is true is often considered hypocritical.
(Bible does very much seem to claim pi = 3)

Creationism should not be taught as a science and really shouldn't be taught at all. The claim that Bible says pi = 3 is not true though. I at least have never seen it proven to be true.

Why would you hold a book up to only what you think it got wrong anyway?Wouldn't you also have to take into account things that the book got right, like advising people to wash in running water?

 

[Orayn]

Ok. If any book needs to be viewed within its own perspective however, none of them can actually claim to have any sort of authority about what's true, so that makes the entire discussion pretty much pointless anyway. I think I've contributed enough to make this go off-topic however.

I'm with you on this. The individual books each have varying amounts of historical, cultural, and religious credibility, but I don't have any faith in them being authoritatively true in any sense. My post was just a recommendation on how best to criticize the veracity of the Bible, not an assertion that you shouldn't.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm with you on this. The individual books each have varying amounts of historical, cultural, and religious credibility, but I don't have any faith in them being authoritatively true in any sense. My post was just a recommendation on how best to criticize the veracity of the Bible, not an assertion that you shouldn't.

I disagree. Bringing focus to the literal absurdity and contradictions of the bible makes it clear that it's no word of god - or at least not one you'd want to listen to as an authority anyway. Focusing on the written by humans in historical contexts aspect, kinda pulls you into the 'written by god through humans' minefield of tortured logic.

 

[DCKing]

Why would you hold a book up to only what you think it got wrong anyway?Wouldn't you also have to take into account things that the book got right, like advising people to wash in running water?

It doesn't matter for a book to be wrong or not usually. It starts to matter when people are basing their own truths on a book that has no credibility whatsoever that all of this matters.

That running water thing is also one heck of a creative interpretation again.

 

[speculawyer]

Atheists get so happy over the weirdest things. Yet another fake danger averted. Phew!

So spewing superstition as science is a "fake danger"?

 

[astroturfing]

man, progress against religious influence is too slow. i'm not really satisfied by this. there shouldn't have been any creationism in any schools since the 19th century... children should only be taught what is known to be true, no lies.

 

[Orayn]

I disagree. Bringing focus to the literal absurdity and contradictions of the bible makes it clear that it's no word of god - or at least not one you'd want to listen to as an authority anyway. Focusing on the written by humans in historical contexts aspect, kinda pulls you into the 'written by god through humans' minefield of tortured logic.

Haha, but I kind of agree with this, too! When you look at the variety of books and the different styles in which they're written, it becomes clear that they were arbitrarily chosen to be part of the Bible. The logical minefield of the individual authors being inspired by God is there regardless, so you might as well focus on the fact that the Bible is a mix 'n match combination of books from a variety of times and places, with relatively few common themes connecting them.

 

[Pandaman]

im sure ken hovind will be writing a stern letter from his jail cell.

 

[speculawyer]

im sure ken hovind will be writing a stern letter from his jail cell.

Hah! I didn't know he got tossed in jail. What a scammer.

 

[Femmeworth]

Good news, regardless if it wasn't a big issue in the UK.

 

[Deified Data]

Hoorah for kids learning less in school!

 

[midonnay]

You'd be surprised how many people who aren't Catholics, don't know this.

something something galileo

Spoiler

oh yeah, that le maitre bloke

 

[BobsRevenge]

I wonder how long it will take the US to make a step like this.

You know, considering there are many teachers in the country that don't believe that evolution is real.