I think he has a very fair point....for how many years were kids quizzed on the # of planets and it was accepted without debate in classrooms...then about 9 months ago they decided,,,NOPE,,,No PLANET FOR YOU PLUTO! Remember when we were told that oil was dinosaurs? Herbert Hoover was strait? George Washington chopped down a Cherry tree? COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA?????
Sorry, hombre, but volente's point is boneheaded and you are being intentionally obstinate. So what are you proposing, that children in school "debate" science? Let's not put the cart before the horse. I would think that school aged children should first gain an understanding of that which is generally agreed upon by the scientific community before they embark on fine pointed debate. Science is re-written as knowledge progresses. History tends to be written and rewritten with a considerably more notable political agenda. So let's try not to compare the two. Speaking of "history," how about that bible, eh?
The point has nothing whatsoever to do with the fallibility of the scientific method. The point is that he is intellectually incapable of viewing the bible for what it is - a collection of fables. He sees the bible as a factual account. There is no way for him to understand that not everyone believes in these particular myths. There are hundreds of other mythical systems, believed in by more people than the total number of Christians. He compared a rejection of an priori acceptance of the bible as the word of God with an priori acceptance of the material in a chem text. There is no argument or question about the amount of NaCl that can be dissolved in one litre of H20 at room temperature. Also, we can seek out and question the authors if we disagree with something they said. His analogy was a false one. The religious fanatics have recently (past 10 years) taken to bashing the scientific method. It is an arbitrary and fallacious attack. There is no parallel between a religiously agnostic stance and one that rejects the scientific method.
Your damn right I have a fair point. You are making a choice to believe one's word, but not someone elses. Where do you draw the line ?
You can go shake hands with aristotle or louis pasteur, or charles darwin ? Yet you still believe their works ?
That's entirely specious, and you know it. The singular differentiation, is there is nothing in the works of those individuals, that can compare in any way to the various religious texts, calling for, quite specifically, the bloody mass murder of anyone who disagrees with those texts. Big difference, i think. Not one of those philosophers, not one of those scientists, not one of those PEOPLE held up a text containing a recipe for genocide, mass murder or even CLOSE. Replies? Forgedabout it, religion is .....immune, sacrosanct. And its bollocks.
TM, Surely it is apparent enough â âmessyâ as opposed to ânot cleanâ, that's all. Look, you're now so far off target you will soon be shooting yourself in the foot. Simply put, you cannot reasonably assume the same circumstances apply with someone who has not yet attained cognizance (babies) with someone who has done so, but lost or is losing memory of its resultant affects (Alzheimer's) ddunbar has a point to a degree and I appreciate the position he is putting forward, though he seems unaware of that. The word atheism has so many negative connotations in regular speech that it's original meaning is lost by default, UNLESS you examine its history and root. A lot like 'gay'. The word was originally to do with joy and mirth. Gradually it changes meaning from use in various contexts until it started to be used as a general euphemism for homosexuality. So much so that the Dictionaries altered their entries of it. A thing which some posters on this site think never happens to dictionaries. Nowadays gay is also used to mean ridiculous or pathetic. So if I were to refer to ZZz as being gay, it no longer necessarily means I am referring to his sexual predisposition. Similarly atheism lost it's original etymology, but unlike 'gay' there is not one other word which acts in place of its real meaning. ddunbar was trying to form one by suggesting yet another prefix be added, but in its original form 'atheist' serves very well to describe a particular 'state of mind' which needs no interventions disapprovals or inference past what it actually means. Atheist does not mean to deny or denounce or reject. It means without theism. But a lot of believers in theism cannot handle the idea of that simple unambiguous state applying to anyone, especially babies and go to extraordinary lengths in trying to alter the word's actual meaning into something / anything! else. Semantics word play denial all play their part in that. Unfortunately all that leaves a state of mind which generally became immediately unrecognized and had no word to represent it as the original -'atheist'- had been re-defined. Mostly by strident theists I dare say, who would be happy to see attached any pejorative connotations to the word itself. But nevertheless is why babies are atheist.
It's not me... it's my ghost from Christmas past posting this: Excerpt from Evilbible.com: (An Atheist website) http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm The entire series can be found on thier website. Its 4 pages: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_4.htm