Miley Cyrus... the atheist?

[Non sequitur]

Wonder how this will pan out...

 

[InnerPhyre]

I said/did dumb things when I was her age too.

 

[rambot]

Rambot... The uninterested?

 

[Jade Margery]

I said/did dumb things when I was her age too.

...


...too easy.

Wonder how this will pan out...

Probably with a lot of her fan's parents getting in a flap, possibly with a slight hit to a popularity, definitely with almost no change to anything that actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

Gotta hand it to her, though, posting that quote--whether she's still a christian or not, whether she agrees with it entirely or not--took guts. Grudging respect earned.

 

[HakeemSupreme]

I said/did dumb things when I was her age too.

Agreeing with prominent physicist being dumb - speaks for itself?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I could care less,but I was never a fan of hers,anyways.Does she even sing or work anymore?

 

[Non sequitur]

I said/did dumb things when I was her age too.

I know!

I'm glad she doesn't now...

 

[SithDoughnut]

The saddest thing about this story is that people will find it interesting.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Agreeing with prominent physicist being dumb - speaks for itself?

I rather liked the scientific parts of the quote. It's the philosophical part I took umbrage with.

 

[KingCrimson250]

I believe that Miley's antics are karmic retribution upon Billy Ray Cyrus for his mullet.

 

[Harpuia]

Cyrus aside, I actually find the picture pretty interesting. Then again, I'm one of those Christians that think science is simply us figuring out God's mysteries through our own eyes, so things like evolution can be believed while still being religious.

I think this one professor had told me too that science isn't setting out to prove God doesn't exist, that can't ever be truly done and is ultimately a personal decision, but just to answer questions about the world around us. And toooooo many forget this.

 

[Btodd]

Cyrus aside, I actually find the picture pretty interesting. Then again, I'm one of those Christians that think science is simply us figuring out God's mysteries through our own eyes, so things like evolution can be believed while still being religious.

I think this one professor had told me too that science isn't setting out to prove God doesn't exist, that can't ever be truly done and is ultimately a personal decision, but just to answer questions about the world around us. And toooooo many forget this.

I think your first paragraph is true, in the sense that Steven Weinberg pointed out, 'as long as you're willing to take the scriptures metaphorically enough'.

And I definitely agree with the second paragraph...God is, by definition, outside of proof or disproof, which means that whatever science reveals has no bearing on a definition of God that is open, but does have bearing on specific definitions of a God that did specific things in regard to creation.


Btodd

 

[Harpuia]

I think your first paragraph is true, in the sense that Steven Weinberg pointed out, 'as long as you're willing to take the scriptures metaphorically enough'.

And I definitely agree with the second paragraph...God is, by definition, outside of proof or disproof, which means that whatever science reveals has no bearing on a definition of God that is open, but does have bearing on specific definitions of a God that did specific things in regard to creation.


Btodd

I'm just trying to make the argument that just because there is slight differences between "Let there be light" and The Big Bang Theory or sea animals on day 4, land/flight animals on day 5, man on day 6 v. the evolution chart doesn't automatically mean that a Christian must disavow science to be a good Christian. It also doesn't mean that they must disavow God. I just keep hearing this as a topic of debate a lot and it's like... why? Why is everything have to be one or the other? Like you said perfectly, God's beyond the realm of proof and can't be proven to exist and can't be proven not to exist by general definition. Arguing religion v. science to me is a game of folly. I learned this a couple years ago and I've stayed far away from EvC debates ever since.

 

[Btodd]

I guess the point would be, that if things did not literally occur according to the Bible, then what do we do with the Bible? Re-interpret it in the most metaphorical way possible, to try and reconcile the two? It's a very tenuous approach. As Dawkins once proposed, it would be like we later found out that the DNA helix wasn't quite true, but then we re-interpreted it to say that the two strands were 'hugging each other' in some metaphorical fashion in order to hold to the original premise...but the original premise was very literal. Do we just keep re-interpreting in order to make the scripture fit the facts, or realize that the scripture was mistaken? Or just deny science altogether?


Btodd