slowtrend wrote: > http://www.darwinismanddesign.com/ If it quacks like a quack ... it's a quack!! These discovery.org guys remind me of a psychiatrist from Harvard I heard once who believes some of his patients were actually abducted by extraterrestials. He's a quack too.
The following proves my point: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=News-CSC&command=view&id=1694 "The publisher Michigan State University Press submitted the book to a rigorous peer-review process that included reviews by an Ivy-league professor of biological sciences, and professors of philosophy of science and rhetoric." This is one of the key signs of quackery: use "Ivy-league" and "rigourous" to make your quackery look respectable.
Whoever contributed to this thread, but has yet to read "CosmicComics" -- Italo Calvino; should really do themselves a favor... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_6/002-0065429-6136045?v=glance&s=books From the back of the book; "During the course of these stories Calvino toys with continuous creation, the transformation of matter, and the expanding and contracting reaches of space and time. His characters, made out of mathematical formulae and simple celluar structures, disport themselves among galaxies, experience the solidification of planets, move from aquatic to terrestrial existence, play games with hydrogen atoms, and find the time to have a love life..."
No sorry, I don't ridicule your beliefs, I said they were wrong given our current understanding of the universe. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you want to turn it into ad hominem, so be it. I say for the last time: my beliefs are based on known facts, yours are based on emotion and irrationality. If you think they are equally valid, there is something by definition irrational with the way you think. This is neither a sad comment or one lacking emotional or mental maturity. Your ad hominem is FALSE at its face.
Current "understanding" of the universe? Current belief system is more like it. This is ridicule: "They'll never stop because they know the moment they do they have to argue on a rational basis and they'll lose. Cuz then they have to start with the following premise: "I believe a man in the sky controls my destiny." LOL
The belief in God is not considered ridiculous by the majority of our society, nor is it considered ridiculous by the major health organizations and professional societies in this country such as the AMA/psychological/psychiatric/neuro psychology professional associations, etc, nor it is considered ridiculous by many branches of philosophy, nor was it considered ridiculous by the Framers of our constitution, etc. Belief in God may be considered ridiculous by a small homogeneous group of people. Why then spend their time ridiculing those who have different belief systems than their own? What is the justification of ridiculing those who do have alternate belief systems. This is logical? Ridicule is illogical, unnecessary and doesn't promote good will and intelligent discussions. It serves no purpose in the process of argumentation and reasonable/civil discussions. A strong argument will serve the purpose of putting forth an idea without the need for mockery and/or derision. A strong argument stands on its own, and if someone rejects that argument, isn't that their right to do so without being ridiculed for doing so? rid·i·cule ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd-kyl) n. Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: âI know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weaponâ (Dorothy Parker). tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules To expose to ridicule; make fun of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [French, from Latin rdiculum, joke, from neuter of rdiculus, laughable. See ridiculous.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ridi·culer n. Synonyms: ridicule, mock, taunt, 1twit, deride These verbs refer to making another the butt of amusement or mirth. Ridicule implies purposeful disparagement: âMy father discouraged me by ridiculing my performancesâ (Benjamin Franklin). To mock is to poke fun at someone, often by mimicking and caricaturing speech or actions: âSeldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort/As if he mock'd himself, and scorn'd his spiritâ (Shakespeare). Taunt suggests mocking, insulting, or scornful reproach: âtaunting him with want of courage to leap into the great pitâ (Daniel Defoe). To twit is to taunt by calling attention to something embarrassing: âThe schoolmaster was twitted about the lady who threw him overâ (J.M. Barrie). Deride implies scorn and contempt: âWas all the world in a conspiracy to deride his failure?â (Edith Wharton).
The belief in God is not considered ridiculous by the majority of our god believing society, nor is it considered ridiculous by the god believing major health organizations and god believing professional societies in this country such as the god believing AMA/psychological/psychiatric/neuro psychology professional associations, etc, nor it is considered ridiculous by many branches of god believing philosophy, nor was it considered ridiculous by the god believing Framers of our constitution, etc." State the obvious. Now for the converse. The belief in God *IS* considered ridiculous by the majority of our non-god believing society, and is considered ridiculous by the non-believing members of major health organizations and non-god believing members of professional societies in this country such as the non-god believing members of the AMA/psychological/psychiatric/neuro psychology professional associations, etc, and is considered ridiculous by many branches of non-believing philosophy, and was considered ridiculous by many Framers of our constitution, etc." Claiming truth by majority is called the bandwagon fallacy. All the institutions you listed are composed of BOTH believers and non-believers. All you have shown is that believers out number non-believers. This carries no weight. Further.... when some psycho hears god in his head, and is violent he is considered INSANE. But if he is NOT violent, he is just ART. LMAOOO Actually... I would use the word IRRATIONAL instead of ridiculous. peace axeman
Many people confuse the concept of rational and the idea of what is reasonable. Love is not rational. Art is not rational. Beauty is not rational. Humor is not rational. Joy is not rational. Yet, were most people to see a man who rejected love, humor, art, beauty, and joy we would conclude him to be unreasonable and imbalanced as a human being. If someone makes a decision to live their life according to the standard of pure rationality, that would be their choice of course (that might be their choice, but human nature would bet on them failing to overcome all emotions). If someone makes a decision to live their life according to the standards of pure emotion, that would be their choice as well. To live life with a balance of intellect and emotion is considered wise and healthy by nearly all. As a society we believe in love, humor, beauty, joy, art and God. Those who have other beliefs form their own society and keep to themselves, shunning the ways of others. Belief in God is very reasonable. If a minority group concludes otherwise, fortunately for them if they choose to have alternative belief systems than the norm, and they live in a society society like America they are free to express their opinions. Americans believe in a live and let live way of life, as we were founded on the concept of freedom from persecution and ridicule of a chosen religion. If some minority group think themselves superior to others, they are free to think so. If they ridicule others for their belief systems, they are being irrational and narcissistic.