Ok. Wasn't sure. Interesting that neither of you were, either, but that's always the main problem with text communication. In the absense of facial expression and tone of voice it is sometimes difficult to hear what people are actually saying.
Nickolas
JoinedPosts by Nickolas
-
18
Does this sound familiar?
by PSacramento inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/woes_of_the_pharisees.
hypocrisy: they taught about god but did not love god - they did not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor did they let others enter.
(mat.
-
Nickolas
Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't my fault, after all.
-
Nickolas
I absolutely buy the Adam and Eve story
Well, I stand corrected. Re-corrected. Whatever. I should not be surprised since (although many Christians have argued otherwise) I have taken the position that taking away the Adam and Eve story takes away the rationale for the messiah - or do you disagree with that presumption, too?
-
Nickolas
I'm sure putting up with you requires a whole LOT of faith
You got that straight. If I believed in saints, I'd nominate her.
-
Nickolas
The OP made it out like a contradiction in the evidence of a new discovery is somehow a bad thing for science
My fault, again. I kind of tipped the conversation in that direction with my original post, which was right after the OP. Sorry about that, Shelb. Taking flak on my account. Tsk.
-
Nickolas
Curtains - I've never read Dawkins nor do I have the desire to. I have however, taken numerous undergraduate and graduate level science, math, and history courses. Not once was his name even mentioned in discussing the various anayltical methods employed to discover facts about our life and world. This thread has nothing to do with some prominent athiestic book promoter. By trying to bring him in to the discussion you are creating a classic straw man fallacy. So again - nobody on this thread is trying to make scientists out to be something their not. Your argument falls flat.
Mea culpa, jnfb, 'twas I who introduced Dawkins to the thread. It was a simple quote, however, not a strawman. In some ways I find Dawkins insufferable - he appears almost to be an apologist for pedophiles and I really have a hard time with his close to contradictory stance on abortion - but you shouldn't discount his brand of rational thinking. One of the great benefits of being free to form one's own conclusions is the ability to read whatever he (or she) wants without fear of being swayed against one's will. The better read of this particular ilk, however, is Hitchens, but in his case you need to get past his apparent arrogance.
-
Nickolas
Well, Shelby old girl, it wasn't exactly an invite. It was a question, vis a vis our earlier discussion about a light coming on in the minds of believers when they're not ready for it, or when they really don't want it at all. No, the question "Do you really want to learn about this stuff" (or something like that, I'm too lazy to go back a page) was simply a question posed for my own benefit. No hidden agenda, no gauntlet thrown down, nothing like that at all. I do not want to be perceived as trying to convince you of something you don't want to know about. If you can believe that God had a hand in the process of evolution, who am I to argue with you? If nothing else, you have just cleared up for me that you don't necessarily buy the Adam and Eve story. I'm very cool with that. I wish I could get my dear wife on that page. So, I will take it that your answer to my question is a simple "yes". Now, if I ask you to prosthelytize to me, then feel free. But I'm not asking. Thanks.
Thanks for starting the thread.
-
Nickolas
Diehard head in the sand believers are very few and far between.
Exactly how many Kingdom Halls are in your community, Curtains?
-
18
Does this sound familiar?
by PSacramento inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/woes_of_the_pharisees.
hypocrisy: they taught about god but did not love god - they did not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor did they let others enter.
(mat.
-
Nickolas
Um. Is that sarcasm I see dripping?
-
Nickolas
Indeed you are correct, jnfb.
"I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.