• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Long rant re Randi's anti religion rant

I was a trainer out in Saudi Arabia for several years. One of the Saudi trainees was an instrument technician. This meant he had to be able to diagnose and repair problems with inertial navigation systems, satellite navigation systems, automatic landing systems, artificial horizons, compasses etc etc. he also had to have a reasonable grasp of the theory behind it all. He did, in fact he was a very good student. He also believed the Earth was flat.
This (reasoned faith)?? chap reminds me of him.
 
I think that if someone ever actually followed up on that we would come down to True Chritianity being a guy named bill in a cabin in the mountains somewhere.

Yeah, and if there's any justice it'll be Bill Shatner. Khaaan!

David
 
ReasonedFaith,

Welcome to the forum!

When I first started reading, I thought, "Hey, this guy writes well, he may be intelligent. This might be a useful discussion."

Unfortunately, you then trotted out the same old badly reasoned, flying in the face of the facts arguments we've heard time and time again. The list of logical fallacies has already been provided above by others.

I am somewhat disappointed.
 
mummymonkey said:
I was a trainer out in Saudi Arabia for several years. One of the Saudi trainees was an instrument technician. This meant he had to be able to diagnose and repair problems with inertial navigation systems, satellite navigation systems, automatic landing systems, artificial horizons, compasses etc etc. he also had to have a reasonable grasp of the theory behind it all. He did, in fact he was a very good student. He also believed the Earth was flat.
This (reasoned faith)?? chap reminds me of him.

Did he ever attempt to reconcile these totally conflicting viewpoints?

did

p.s. must ask, where in Scotland?
 
Who you callin' a cargo cultist?

Every religious person should contemplate Cargo, the well-known body of Papuan cults that arose after Europeans arrived in New Guinea and other islands of the southwestern Pacific. Quite early in the twentieth century, Cargo believers, under the influence of a number of homegrown messiahs and prophets, were building ramshackle jetties and performing rituals intended to lure ships laden with trade goods. Later, and more famously, Cargoists tried the same practices with airplanes, running up pitiful stick-and-rattan imitations of control towers and stamping "runways" out of the bush, in the belief that this would fetch the C47s they had seen Americans flying in.

Reason didn't work very well against Cargo. Papuans defined anybody who came from over the horizon as supernatural; ergo, Europeans were spirits and their inventions were obviously made for them somewhere outside the visible world and brought to them by magical means that others could learn and employ. A lot of additional mumbo-jumbo went into Cargo, including belief in an apocalypse that would sweep away the Europeans, and that unquestionably increased its appeal.

Cargo was a stubborn cult. First, the Cargoists craved trade goods, and they meant to get them no matter what. Second, they clung mulishly to their initial assumptions about the nature of the world and about how magic influenced it (among old-time Papuans, everything, no matter how mundane, is accomplished by magical means), and lack of results didn't phase them. After all, Cargo was a chiliastic religion, and the faithful were ready to wait. (Prophets, always include the end of the world in your doctrine; keeps 'em happily anticipating for years.)

Cargo has changed over the last generation or so but, alas, it isn't quite dead even yet. John Frum, bye m' bye 'e come plenny too muss!

I say that religious believers should take a good look at Cargo because in descriptive terms, i.e., viewed from the outside, it looks exactly like any other faith. Cargo had and has its prophets, its doctrine, its initiations, its rituals and observances and hymns. Cargo even has its martyrs, sad to say. Cargo is a religion like any other.

And yet Cargo is based on assumptions - beliefs - that we know absolutely to be false.

The parallel between Cargo and other religions is obvious to any thinking person; no point laboring over it. But try it out on an otherwise intelligent religious believer and watch how obtuse he suddenly becomes. Alas, alas.
 
Cleopatra said:
Unrepentant Sinner, evangelicals are a bunch of heretics that have nothing to do with us, the good and always right Christians, as the etymology of the word that defines our dogma, suggests :p

Guys, can you please stop with the ad homs for a newbie who actually had the balls to register and enter the foray of the forum?

Cleo, one of my closest friends is a sub-deacon in an Antiochan Orthodox Church. I'm quite familiar with Orthodox theology and tradition. Further, I'm one of the few non-Orthodox, and I'd be willing to bet one of only 100 atheists world wide who knows who Shenouda III is.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


Guys, can you please stop with the ad homs for a newbie who actually had the balls to register and enter the foray of the forum?


Pointing out the flaws in a very fallacy-written post is not, by any means or stretch of the imagination, ad hominem.
 
diddidit
Did he ever attempt to reconcile these totally conflicting viewpoints?
No. He seemed to pick whatever version of reality (to him) was most suited. Ultra pragmatism I suppose.
In the exam room and when troubleshooting navigation computers - round Earth reality.
Walking around outside and praying in the Mosque - flat Earth reality
It was an ability that many Saudis seemed to have. A man could take bribes yet at the same time be a totally upstanding and honest citizen. America is the evil empire yet Coke is it. At a distance it looks like hypocrisy but I genuinely think it isn't. It's just the ability to believe two contradicting things at the same time. No problem! Maffi mushkalli!

I live in (and am from) Blairgowrie, Perthshire.
Oh! I've been promoted I see.
 
Lord Kenneth said:


Pointing out the flaws in a very fallacy-written post is not, by any means or stretch of the imagination, ad hominem.

For one, it's "fallacy ridden" not fallacy written. For another:

Even if you cover ◊◊◊◊ with a sugar coating, it's still sh**ty.

Nice try bub. Now attack our arguments-- ones we made, not ones you claim we made.

Oh, and grab some common sense on the way out, you'll need it.

there's two ad homs in here.. care to guess where they are?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


For one, it's "fallacy ridden" not fallacy written. For another:



there's two ad homs in here.. care to guess where they are?


That's what I meant to say. I have a habit of typing down something that sounds similar for some odd reason... my mistake.

Also, ad hom only applies if I am stating he is wrong through some attack. I'm just insulting his flawed post, I'm not saying he's wrong because he's a whatever.

Nice try, ImpyTi... er, RepentantSinnerCatholic.
 
ReasonedFaith said:
Recent scholarly works by such highly accomplished and credentialed Ph.D. scientists from respected universities, pose devastating evidentiary arguments against Neo Darwinian materialistic cosmology in areas that include Microbiology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Astrophysics, Mathematics, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, and also associated topics in disciplines of logic and philosophy.

This quote stands out to me foremost in your post RF.
You say that recent sholarly works pose "devastating" arguments against Evolution.

Mainstream science has offered excellent and "devastating" rebuttals to ID and the concept has been hearitly rejected as actual science. Only a very small minority of scientists accept ID as valid science, and their agenda often seems suspect. (Can anyone say "Templeton Foundation?")

ID is a political tool more than anything else, used in a very dishonest manner to revive the teaching of creationism in the schools.

It's not surprising that many folks are willing to embrace it. It's "preaching to the choir syndrome."
Start with a premise that you know is 100% true: "Life was created by an intelligent designer" and then use so called "facts" in any manipulative way necessary to fulfill that premise. And while your doing that, ignore any evidence that contradicts your premise.
There is nothing "devastating" about such foolishness. It bad science, and horribly dishonest.

Your long and often articulate post should be delivered from a church pulpit, I fear, and not in a forum that values critical thinking and the scientific method.
 
Re: Re: Long rant re Randi's anti religion rant

KelvinG said:

There is nothing "devastating" about such foolishness. It bad science, and horribly dishonest.

Re-think sentence #1 in a different context, applying the following sentence, and then you will see how true it is actually is.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ReasonedFaith
Recent scholarly works by such highly accomplished and credentialed Ph.D. scientists from respected universities, pose devastating evidentiary arguments against Neo Darwinian materialistic cosmology in areas that include Microbiology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Astrophysics, Mathematics, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, and also associated topics in disciplines of logic and philosophy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what exactly, while we're at it, does Darwinism (neo or otherwise) have to do with astrophysics?

Mathematics, logic and philosophy I can let pass - it's a scientific theory and all science has links to these three areas. Even anthrolopolgy can just about be linked in (althoguh in its narrowest terms it refers to cultural studies which do not necessarily refer to Darwinism at all). But astrophysics? What does a theory about adaptive complexity in living organisms have to do with astrophysics?
 
Lord Kenneth said:
Also, ad hom only applies if I am stating he is wrong through some attack. I'm just insulting his flawed post, I'm not saying he's wrong because he's a whatever.

Nice try, ImpyTi... er, RepentantSinnerCatholic.

No moron (and where the hell did you get this Catholic thing? Anyway...

"Even if you cover ◊◊◊◊ with a sugar coating, it's still sh**ty."

Is an ad hom. It's not an ad hom is you actually demonstrate why the arguments are sh**ty not if you just call them sh**ty.

Further,

"Oh, and grab some common sense on the way out, you'll need it."

Is an ad hom. It's not an ad hom is you actually demonstrate his lack of common sense.

You really have a lot to learn about debate and logic...
 

Back
Top Bottom