Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-01-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What if your brother has a plank in his eye and you only have a speck in yours?

Stick it to him, while he's trying to remove the plank. (I am right in presuming that fratricide is the subject here, by the way, aren't I?).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 03-01-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

When it comes, say, to the controversy in the United States of giving time to Creationism or disclaimers to biological evolution, I applaud those who have defended the integrity of the educational system and opposed religious-based education in the public school classroom, and particularly the science classroom. May they meet continued success.

But there is the root of the problem. Support from religionists of science is not support, it is infection of the rational by the irrational.

Let us look at evolution.

Quote:

By David Prothero

Quote:
Fishibians

Perhaps the most complete set of transitional fossils is the so-called "fishibian" sequence showing the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the Devonian period (see Illustration). The first of these to be discovered was Ichthyostega, in 1932, though it was not properly described until 1996. Its limbs and skull were amphibian-like, but it had a fish-like tail and gill coverings, as well as a classic fish characteristic: a lateral-line sensory system for detecting currents in water. Since then an incredible array of fishibians has been found spanning the entire transition, from the distinctly fish-like Eusthenopteron to the four-legged amphibian Hynerpeton.

The latest fishibian is Tiktaalik from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic (New Scientist, 9 September 2006, p 35). It had fish-like scales, jaws and palate, but - like amphibians - it had a mobile neck and head, an ear capable of hearing in air, and bones in the fins that were intermediate between those of fish and Acanthostega. The fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...sing-link.html

Let's be perfectly clear about what this example is showing - there is nothing for any type of god to do! Scientific explanations are sufficient and complete in themselves.

So the subject matter is actually the scientific exploration of religion, of psychology, of human behaviour, of myth making.

Things may appear cranky but the reality is that the religious beliefs are the area of study, with no presuppositions, like assuming the existence of gods - a cranky position if ever there was one!

This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. One plus one equals two is an example of truth, evolution without the intervention of a god is another example of truth.

I am free to state one plus one equals three but what is the point - it feels like a 1984 scenario!

Toto · 03-01-2008, 03:19 PM

Hey Folks - this is wandering a bit off topic. We have other fora for discussing these interesting issues.

paarsurrey · 03-01-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't mean to pull anyone's chain here, but... am I alone in finding that this forum is becoming increasingly dominated by marginal theories?
By these I mean ideas which are not mainstream, whatever their merits. I include in this the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, and the oft-reviled yet endless posts that no Christians existed before 325 AD.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I tire of these posts. Every discussion of early Christian origins inevitably becomes polluted by one or another of these theories, which means that the general value of all the threads has been reduced appreciably over the last 12 months.
What do you think? Is any of this true, or is this more likely a symptom that I've been reading this forum too long?
If others share this view, would there be merit in hiving off the JM guys (etc) into their own forum?
All the best,
Roger Pearse

Hi

If you are bored with the monotony; just bring in some new topic. That would help, I think.

Thanks

Clivedurdle · 03-02-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hey Folks - this is wandering a bit off topic. We have other fora for discussing these interesting issues.

I disagree!

Depends on definition of crank theory - I am arguing strongly that you can't get much crankier than belief in god or gods, excepting the dark goddess of chocolate of course!

What is that saying about pots calling kettles?

Clivedurdle · 03-02-2008, 05:02 AM

By the way, the biggest crank theory is of course the historical Jesus one!

http://singinginthereign.blogspot.co...cal-jesus.html

Quote:

I can't believe it--the Pope is coming out with a book on the whole "historical Jesus" debate.

Solitary Man · 03-02-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

(in reply to Amaleq13) My reputation is intact, thank you - and I wouldn't trade it for yours.

Amaleq13 has a far superior reputation to yours. You'd do very well to have his rather than your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Apologists dont want "crank theories." The alleged crank theorists think the apologists theories are crap from head to toe. Yet an individual who is a troll is regarded as a scholar by apologists because he trolls within the rules and takes shelter around semantics of Greek words, references BDAG, TDNT and posts acres of texts in Greek while defending the apologists position.

This reminds me of Doherty and his group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

And how can I stop when the religious people are nothing but dishonest and wants to remove facts and replace them with fantasies? I have no problems replacing facts with new facts, only facts with fantasy! Once this stops, the reason for my actions disappear.

So you'll trade lies for lies? Why isn't there outrage from the posters here who remove facts and replace them with fantasies? What about the religiously motivated people here who are motivated because of their hatred for religion?

Clivedurdle · 03-02-2008, 05:39 AM

Quote:

fantastic

But they are true historical records!:devil1:

Clivedurdle · 03-02-2008, 05:42 AM

Quote:

hatred for religion?

Or hatred of mumbo jumbo and superstition - like damaging eyes by staring into the sun believing the virgin mary is there??:devil1:

Toto · 03-02-2008, 12:42 PM

reopened after splits (use the report post function if a post is in the wrong place)

public policy issues (abortion etc.) split off here to be moved to GRD

complaints about moderation / trolling split

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2008, 03:19 PM	#113
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hey Folks - this is wandering a bit off topic. We have other fora for discussing these interesting issues.

03-02-2008, 12:42 PM	#120
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	reopened after splits (use the report post function if a post is in the wrong place) public policy issues (abortion etc.) split off here to be moved to GRD complaints about moderation / trolling split

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.