Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
44 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Happy Birthday: glowby
Post Volume: Total: 884,809 Year: 2,455/14,102 Month: 120/703 Week: 99/272 Day: 34/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 110 (674226)
09-27-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 8:02 AM


Re: Assumptions
Craig Palmer, and Randy Thornhill, academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press).

Why is the reference ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because they did not propose that rape was not evil, that's something you made up. This is why you cannot quote them stating this imaginary opinion that you've foisted on them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 8:02 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 110 (674228)
09-27-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:44 AM


Let me make this clear. It is a religion. It is also a scientific theory.

So ... it's a true religion?

Don't tell any Christians you should happen to meet, they like to think that their religion is true. (Obviously there cannot be two different true religions.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 110 (674252)
09-27-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 9:24 AM


A true religion may not be the truth.

Um ... I don't think it's me that's making the mistake here. I think it's you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:24 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 110 (674253)
09-27-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 9:22 AM


If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well.

Well, that would make a difference. Even if we grant your premise that it is a religion, it is also by your admission a scientific theory, which makes it different from all other religions, which aren't. It should therefore be treated differently from them. Specifically, it should be treated as a scientific theory, unlike the other religions, which aren't.

Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”

That is not someone being "dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution". That is someone saying: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist.

Some reasoning would be nice.

Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.

Paul Johnson has written a lot of silly stuff. Quoting someone (in this case, an idiot) who agrees with you is not the same as producing evidence that you're right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:22 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 61 of 110 (674311)
09-27-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:00 PM


No, I don't think I'm making a mistake. Let me clarify. Suppose we have two persons who both claim to be scottish. How do we know if they’re telling the truth? It seems that they have to satisfy certain criteria, right? Well, then we extend it to religion. If a group fits the criteria for a religion, it is a true religion, as opposed to a pseudo-religion. Get me here?

But you are equivocating. By "true religion", I obviously mean "a religion that is true", not "something that is truly a religion". You're just playing with words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:00 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 110 (674313)
09-27-2012 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:12 PM


Why don’t we take a dual approach. Religious, and Scientific? Sure, one can emphasize just the scientific parts, which it mostly is.

Well, sure. If there is any religious aspect to evolution, then I disagree with it. The scientific facts, on the other hand, are scientific facts, and the scientific theory is a scientific theory. If any loony wants to derive metaphysical or ethical propositions from this, then I quite agree that this should not be taught in schools or anywhere else.

Here’s my question. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the evidence against creation is, too, then how can students be confused?

Because creationist rhetoric involves teaching stuff that creationists have made up. To teach what creationists say is to teach things that are flatly false. On the one hand, one would be teaching the evidence for evolution, which is indeed overwhelming, and on the other hand one would be teaching the made-up stuff which supports creationism, which would be equally "overwhelming" if only it was true. Unless one informs students which is true and which is false (which would hardly suit creationists) then they would indeed end up deeply confused.

Specifically, what kind of reasoning?

Well, y'know, reasoning. You just asserted stuff. That's not reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:12 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 110 (674357)
09-28-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 3:14 AM


Context, my dear LimpSpider. If I write: "Obviously there cannot be two different true religions", then there is in fact only one thing that I can mean by "true".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:14 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:21 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 105 of 110 (674527)
09-29-2012 11:44 PM


The connection between the topic of this thread and anything at all that anyone's posting on it seems to have vanished.

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2012 10:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021