|
|
Post by noons on Jun 8, 2009 15:50:41 GMT
A documentary being shown on BBC. Somehow I get the feeling that BBC came up with the title. Its hosted by Connor Cunningham and makes the case that (gasp!) one can indeed be a Christian and accept evolution. www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/?tab=20There is a long threat about it on one of my favorite websites, militaryphotos.net, and it has the usual New Atheist style comments. I'm trying to raise the intellectual level over there, unsuccessfully, but the fact that its not an atheist site is to my advantage. I'll post some of the gems soon. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 8, 2009 16:11:13 GMT
The site says it was shown 2 months ago. Are they repeating it soon?
|
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 8, 2009 16:20:57 GMT
Oh, didn't notice that. I just learned about it from the discussion forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 8, 2009 16:50:19 GMT
I saw the show when it came out. It was OK but very flat and the presenter was not too great. The best thing about it was the paroxysm of rage it provoked over at the Dawkinista's forum. Nice to see Michael Ruse on the creen though.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 8, 2009 17:03:38 GMT
I only saw the first few posts on the Dawkins forum, but they were Gold.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 8, 2009 18:34:07 GMT
Great stuff. This thread on the BBC where you get to question the producer is quite entertaining. www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=6446558As you would expect, the old comparison of God with the tooth fairy comes up. Also: I had no idea there was a 'bronzed' age. Was that when human societies gave up on trying to produce bronze and iron in favour of getting a nice sun tan?. |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 8, 2009 18:43:02 GMT
When it comes to the tooth fairy etc. my response has always been that if the universe was created by the tooth fairy, then the tooth fairy would be God.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 8, 2009 22:48:55 GMT
I was discussing the Cosmological argument on an atheist blog, and the claim was made that the argument could equally well point to the tooth fairy or the FSM, etc. I suggested that, if successful, the Cosmo argument had to point to an entity capable of dong the creative act. I suggested several different monotheistic Gods qualified, and asked if the tooth fairy, FSM, etc had this power. Quite seriously (as far as I could tell), I was told that they did. I gave up at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Jun 9, 2009 1:21:39 GMT
"I had no idea there was a 'bronzed' age. Was that when human societies gave up on trying to produce bronze and iron in favour of getting a nice sun tan?. "
PLEASE tell me that you actually posted that response, Mr. Clarke. I would have loved to hear their response to that.
"Quite seriously (as far as I could tell), I was told that they did. I gave up at that point."
Unklee,
You mean to tell me that they basically did one of two things:
A. Admitted that God's existence via the Cosmological argument was possible.
or
B. Admitted that they have no idea what a philosophically sound argument looks like.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 9, 2009 3:01:49 GMT
You mean to tell me that they basically did one of two things: A. Admitted that God's existence via the Cosmological argument was possible. or B. Admitted that they have no idea what a philosophically sound argument looks like. Dose guys, dey admitted nuttin' ! Even when I pointed out that the FSM was made of material (pasta) and hence part of this space-time universe and hence would have had difficulty creating it, their response was that it was metaphorical spaghetti ! I wasn't sure how they could take that statement as anything other than ludicrous, but I sure couldn't. I saw no point discussing with someone who could come at that. And they probably think all christians are delusional and anti-logic! I think one of the things that most convinces me that atheism is untrue is the ridiculous ambit claims so many of them make. There are no good arguments for the existence of God (despite 2000 years of philosophical stalemate on the question), not an iota of evidence that could conceivably point to God existing, Jesus didn't exist (even though the majority of historians say he did), the church has been utterly evil and all believers are obviously delusional, etc. I don't know why they can't admit that there are good reasons in logic, science and history, but they don't find them compelling. But when a person makes an ambit claim like they tend to, I just feel sure their viewpoint is baseless and biased. There's probably lessons there for us christians too! |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 9, 2009 7:59:48 GMT
PLEASE tell me that you actually posted that response, Mr. Clarke. I would have loved to hear their response to that. No, sadly I only just noticed it. And they probably think all christians are delusional and anti-logic! This is a bit of a problem. I mean how do you argue with someone who thinks you are suffering from a parasitic mind virus which has taken over your brain?.  It's a bit of a conversation stopper isn't it?. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 9, 2009 9:56:30 GMT
I mean how do you argue with someone who thinks you are suffering from a parasitic mind virus which has taken over your brain?. It's a bit of a conversation stopper isn't it?. The trouble is, internet atheists who use such derogatory terms don't seem to understand that they are derogatory, (generally) without foundation, and (if taken seriously) make discussion as useful as discussing with a malfunctioning robot, as you suggest. I think they repeat the "received wisdom" just like dogma. Oops! |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 9, 2009 10:13:36 GMT
I'd just admit that it could be a metaphorical spaghetti monster, but that the historical and philosophical evidence points towards the judeo-Christian God instead. Then I'd ask them why they thought spaghetti had to be involved, apart from the fact that the skeptic had just pulled it out his own rear in order to be a berk.
|
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 9, 2009 14:37:01 GMT
I use a very different strategy. If someone is using the FSM to argue against theism, then I would just say that he is simply giving God a new name and visual characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 9, 2009 15:00:31 GMT
Fair enough! A bit like the professor who, when asked if Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, replied "Young man, if Shakespeare didn't write those plays, then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and place and had the same name!"
|
|
