Shark Evolution

by metatron 135 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Apognophos

  I believe I addressed that in my post here, s&r: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/current/279208/2/An-important-difference-between-atheists-and-true-believers#4997536
• 

  snare&racket

  woops... replied in wrong place.... see below your link :D x

  rough summary...,you once again make assumptions about athiests, their beliefs, their views on sxience AND their motivations. All that just because they dont find reason to believe in Yaweh.

  I don't know what you think we would convert people to? I would agree I have strong motives to help people deconvert if they choose to and that is the only reason I am here.

  It is a cheap trick to once more try to paint non belief in your god as a belief in 'x' and then to cliam we want to evangelise and convert people to 'x'. But it is ridiculous, because 'x' in this case is evidence, specifically a lack of it for your claims. But I undertand why you do it and say it, it makes it look like a 50/50 choice, a matter of opinion, a religion based on god and worship of him, or a worship of dawkins and bowing down to science. But all this does is make you look a bit silly (really no offence) especially when 50% of scientists share your views... science is largely boring journals and papers. lol
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Now come on the apostle paul rejected other peoples label and adopted his own, under whoses authority? Anyone dumb enough to beleive him that was his own authority over those words/labels that made him always right in his conclusions and people marched to his tune.

  So argueing about absolutes in labeling things seems a little conter productive if we are to get anywhere. Seems like every one got their thinking caps on but get easily side tracked on insignificant issues due to some old programing that needs recognition and deletion if possible.
• 

  Ruby456

  apognophos my understanding of your dicitionary def is that strict adherence (and an zeal to prove/to say others are wrong and all the same in their wrongness) defines a fundamentalist rather than being confident and haveing a sense of conviction about your principles and worldview.

  viv - we are not saying scientists are fundamentalists when they are doing science, at least I am not saying so. In terms of good scientst and bad scientists I prefer to think in terms of good theories and bad theories rather than good scientists and bad scientist.

  are you also trying to fudge us with your woo

  The other interesting bit, given that definition, is that Dawkins is simultaneously accused of being a bad scientist, meaning he wouldn't be holding to the fundamental princicples of science and therefore NOT a fundamentalist whilst simultaneously being accused of being an excellent scientist, be definition holding to the fundamental princicples of science, sometimes by the same person.

  As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
• 

  Ruby456

  snares&rackets

  fundamentalism raises its ugly head in all disciplines. secular fundamentlists here

  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/06/comment.religion1

  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Secular-Fundamentalism

  edit: apognophobos, I just read what u said on the other thread and agree with you - neither do I have a prob with people evangelising - whether it be atheists, agnostics, christians - as fundamentalism isn't to do just with with belief and non belief and evangelising.
• 

  Ruby456

  great book from an atheist neuroscientist

  http://www.amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734

  a devastating critique Raymond Tallis exposes the exaggerated claims made for the ability of neuroscience and evolutionary theory to explain human consciousness, behaviour, culture and society. The belief that human beings can be understood essentially in biological terms is a serious obstacle, argues Tallis, to clear thinking about what human beings are and what they might become. To explain everyday behaviour in Darwinian terms and to identify human consciousness with the activity of the evolved brain denies human uniqueness, and by minimising the differences between us and our nearest animal kin, misrepresents what we are, offering a grotesquely simplified and degrading account of humanity. We are, shows Tallis, infinitely more interesting and complex than we appear in the mirror of biologism.