FFI comments about "Giant Skeleton"

[gnome]

FFI comments quoted in the Commentary:

If a major newspaper, in this day of the Internet and worldwide communication is not abashed to fabricate such an obvious lie to promote Islam, one can only imagine how the rest of the miracles and noble acts attributed to Muhammad were forged in a time when educated people were scarce and opposing views were gagged.

This amazingly good point would seem to have relevance to Christianity as well--given the environment, how is it that horribly exaggerated stories WEREN'T spread around recklessly?

 

[Phil]

This amazingly good point would seem to have relevance to Christianity as well--given the environment, how is it that horribly exaggerated stories WEREN'T spread around recklessly?

It's not difficult to imagine that they were.

But try mentioning this possibility to any devout believer, especially those who think the Bible is untouchable.

 

[davefoc]

Gnome's point has been made before about some of Randi's anti-Islamic comments.

In defense of Randi, I think he's mostly an equal opportunity offender with regards to this. But still, it must be easier to take shots at Islam in a mostly Christian country than to take shots at Christianity and it might be interesting to know how Randi decides on the balance.

One of the things that I was at first a little startled by about Randi and then came to really appreciate was his willingness to speak his mind with regard to this kind of thing. He might have had an easier time of it if he just avoided the whole religion thing all together. Most of his message has to do with debunking testable claims and since religion makes few of those it seems like something that he might have passed on in the interest of a more peaceful life.

Speaking as an audience of one though, I'm glad he didn't.

 

[Robin]

I suppose what I find irritating is the assumption that atheism means that you have to be uniformly and dogmatically dismissive of any religion and its believers.

It would appear that the newspaper did not manipulate the image but were hoaxed themselves, and it just adds to a long line of hoaxes that newspapers and magazines have participated in, very few relating to religion (Hitler diaries, various Elvis and ET sightings).

Do find all of science ridiculous because of Piltdown Man and the Archeoraptor?

Personally I don't find it threatening to my atheism to see the good as well as the bad in religions, for example the flowering of mathematics and science that occurred in the early Muslim world.

 

[DrMatt]

I suppose what I find irritating is the assumption that atheism means that you have to be uniformly and dogmatically dismissive of any religion and its believers.

Nope. Show us the goods, same as anybody making claims.

It would appear that the newspaper did not manipulate the image but were hoaxed themselves, and it just adds to a long line of hoaxes that newspapers and magazines have participated in, very few relating to religion (Hitler diaries, various Elvis and ET sightings).


Do find all of science ridiculous because of Piltdown Man and the Archeoraptor?

Both of those were overturned by science itself. Self-correction is a feature of science which isn't pertainent to religion.

Personally I don't find it threatening to my atheism to see the good as well as the bad in religions, for example the flowering of mathematics and science that occurred in the early Muslim world.

I just find it annoying that corrolation gets routinely equated with causality, e.g. that science occurred in the pan-Arabic empire and therefore Islam is credited with science, or that some Christians act ethical and then Christianity is credited with ethics.

 

[Robin]

From DrMatt:

I just find it annoying that corrolation gets routinely equated with causality, e.g. that science occurred in the pan-Arabic empire and therefore Islam is credited with science, or that some Christians act ethical and then Christianity is credited with ethics.

You resist the idea that the flowering of science under Islamic countries might mean that Islam was not (at least at one time) resistant to science. Fair enough, more evidence is needed.

But are you then quite happy with the correlation that if a hoax photo and story appears in a Bangladeshi newspaper this is a reflection on Islam generally?

I personally found that the tone of James's comments unnecessarily insulting, I would never use that tone with my Muslim friends even if I might disagree with them.

 

[Blue Monk]

From DrMatt:



You resist the idea that the flowering of science under Islamic countries might mean that Islam was not (at least at one time) resistant to science. Fair enough, more evidence is needed.

But are you then quite happy with the correlation that if a hoax photo and story appears in a Bangladeshi newspaper this is a reflection on Islam generally?

I personally found that the tone of James's comments unnecessarily insulting, I would never use that tone with my Muslim friends even if I might disagree with them.

You should read what he has said on 'The Virgin of Guadalupe' in his columns.

Islam is certainly not the only target. He has been equally critical of Christianity especially when people do silly stuff as see the image of the Virgin Mary in window stains and such.

 

[Robin]

From Blue Monk:

Islam is certainly not the only target. He has been equally critical of Christianity especially when people do silly stuff as see the image of the Virgin Mary in window stains and such.

I have no problem with him being critical of any religion, that is not what I said.

Re-read the piece and you will see that he managed to contrive an extra irrelevant insult by pretending not to be able to find out what SWT meant. It has already been pointed out that 20 seconds and Google would have satisfied his curiosity.

Instead spends his supposedly precious time acting out this charade that allows him to quote dismissive phrases such as “fawning modifier” and “ass-kissing phrase” over not one but two weeks.

The hoax itself – comparable to “Elvis at Burger King” style stories was worth a couple of lines at most.

I suppose that courtesy may not be important, however what is the intention here. If he is just preaching to the converted I suppose that this sort of thing is giving the people what he wants.

But if he wants to win people over, why drive them away with contrived superfluous insults?

 

[Blue Monk]

From Blue Monk:



I have no problem with him being critical of any religion, that is not what I said.

Re-read the piece and you will see that he managed to contrive an extra irrelevant insult by pretending not to be able to find out what SWT meant. It has already been pointed out that 20 seconds and Google would have satisfied his curiosity.

Instead spends his supposedly precious time acting out this charade that allows him to quote dismissive phrases such as “fawning modifier” and “ass-kissing phrase” over not one but two weeks.

The hoax itself – comparable to “Elvis at Burger King” style stories was worth a couple of lines at most.

I suppose that courtesy may not be important, however what is the intention here. If he is just preaching to the converted I suppose that this sort of thing is giving the people what he wants.

But if he wants to win people over, why drive them away with contrived superfluous insults?

What!?

You expect me to get my facts straight before I comment?

Boy, you must be new around here.

OK, I see your point now.

note to self: read then post, read then post