Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

So.. you're saying 6 day Creationists would not be considered fundamentalists?

Young Earth Creationists are a subsection of fundamentalists.

Historically the fundamentalists were a group of ministers in the early 20th Century who affirmed their belief in 6 fundamental Christian beliefs.
1. The inerrancy of the Bible.
2. The Bible alone as the source of Christian doctrine (sola Scriptura).
3. The virgin birth of Christ.
4. Salvation by substitutionary atonement.
5. The bodily Resurrection of Christ.
6. The literal Second Coming of Christ.

By this historic definition I am a fundamentalist, but I am certainly not a Young Earth Creationist.

Today the word 'fundamentalist' is largely used as a pejorative term meaning "a nasty religious person".

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Today the word 'fundamentalist' is largely used as a pejorative term meaning "a nasty religious person".

I'd be more inclined to go with 'crazy'. Good post though.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

my mainstream view of religion is wrong when I haven't actually given it?


First I point out that dealing with Creationists is the responsibility of the Christian majority

Oi there Mark they are your creationists I dont have any argument with them .You are the person who gets upset with them.

Modern christians like to keep a division between church and state because that way politicians and people like your Dawkins buddycant conduct inquisitions auto da fe etc and Im against stuff like that.

And as you dont believe anyway so why should it bother me what take you have on the bible .It wont affect my life.

CDfm

Any pejorative term for the kind of secular scientific bunch?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Modern christians like to keep a division between church and state because that way politicians and people like your Dawkins buddycant conduct inquisitions auto da fe etc and Im against stuff like that.

How does separation of church and state (the modern version coming largely from the secular thinking of the Enlightenment) stop inquisitions?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Any pejorative term for the kind of secular scientific bunch?

Heretic heathen hell bound scum?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

How does separation of church and state (the modern version coming largely from the secular thinking of the Enlightenment) stop inquisitions?

Wicknight -Oi - Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars etc came first.

All organisations if they grow large enough acquire power and are corruptable.
Thats why it should be so- it gives way to too much concentation of power without the normal checks and balances.SAy like in Ireland what happened in approved schools and the like.

Not to get Nietzsche. Butif you look at a religion is a social construct and its members will in general share certain values and norms but these are voluntary- maybe to acheve a spiritual goal. A country is also a social construct and a political entity and it has laws that bind. There may be overlap but their raison d'etre differs fundamentally. #

That and 20 cents will get you a latte at Butlers

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Heretic heathen hell bound scum?

I can live with that - sounds reasonable to me.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

All organisations if they grow large enough acquire power and are corruptable.
Thats why it should be so- it gives way to too much concentation of power without the normal checks and balances.SAy like in Ireland what happened in approved schools and the like.

Ah right, you mean that something like a protection of/from religion clause in a constitution protects people from anti-religious laws that a particular government may attempt to enact.

Yes I agree with that, it is in the interests of religious people as well as atheist that a state has a complete separation of church and state policy at the highest levels of the law

sorry I got a bit confused by your choice of the word "inquisition" which is a bit out of place in the context.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, you mean that something like a protection of/from religion clause in a constitution protects people from anti-religious laws that a particular government may attempt to enact.

Yes I agree with that, it is in the interests of religious people as well as atheist that a state has a complete separation of church and state policy at the highest levels of the law

sorry I got a bit confused by your choice of the word "inquisition" which is a bit out of place in the context.

Aha - you get the picture but even in modern times lobby groups wield an awful lot of power. For example the Department Of Social Community and Family Affairs was called something to do with Women and children. Their lobby groups had an aghenda that way where the state providers are effictively their "peer" group. Renamed so its same dog different hair.

So its not just church and state but as a concept it should go further. People have no problem with equating Sinn Fein IRA with private armies and nazis. But the Labour Partys direct links with unions mean that union members contribute to the party irrespective of personal political affiliation.

So those types of links are corrupt or corruptable.

An off topic example just to make a point- but to change the ethos you would need to purge the organisation and rebuild.

The word "inquisition" I meant historically but mind ya instead of Tribunals of Enquiry I think it would add some authority imagine "the Mahon Inquisition" now that would scare ya. Or at the races " Theres going to be a Stewards Inquisition and Mick Carmody is walking very strangely ":D

CDfm

Get this - Richard Dawkins website is banned in Turkey for posting libelous comments on other authors.

Turkish Courts are secular and quite western it just means that this eminent scientist was using the internet to slag other people unfairly - well thats just the kind of guy he is

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1431422.php/Turkey_bans_biologist_Richard_Dawkins_website

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Get this - Richard Dawkins website is banned in Turkey for posting libelous comments on other authors.

Turkish Courts are secular and quite western it just means that this eminent scientist was using the internet to slag other people unfairly - well thats just the kind of guy he is

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1431422.php/Turkey_bans_biologist_Richard_Dawkins_website

Only a day late..... You would do well to read, and I know you love reading, a bit more to the background to this story. The site was blocked on the basis that the guy claimed his book was defamed by Dawkin on the site. I am not sure if you are familiar with this particular book, but I think Dawkins was very kind in his description.

The libelous comments mentioned in the article are in relation to a claim this same auther previously made about a number of scientific blogs hosted by Wordpress, which he also tried to get blocked, unsuccessfully I might add. He also tried to get The God Delusion banned. Trying actually reading the article you linked to.

MrP

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

The libelous comments mentioned in the article are in relation to a claim this same auther previously made about a number of scientific blogs hosted by Wordpress, which he also tried to get blocked, unsuccessfully I might add. He also tried to get The God Delusion banned. Trying actually reading the article you linked to.

MrP

I must admit Mr P that I was so overjoyed at the website banning that I lost sight of everything else.

Now maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury will take a leaf out of the judgement and treat the guy with the contempt he deserves. Dawkins only picks on him cos he is a nice guy.

I dont wish Dawkins any harm but he is a pop author put a tutu on him and he would be on Come Dancing.

anti-venom

CDfm wrote: »

Get this - Richard Dawkins website is banned in Turkey for posting libelous comments on other authors.

Turkish Courts are secular and quite western it just means that this eminent scientist was using the internet to slag other people unfairly - well thats just the kind of guy he is

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1431422.php/Turkey_bans_biologist_Richard_Dawkins_website

You don't seriously believe for one minute that Dawkins' site was banned for containing defamatory attacks on Harun Yahya? As far as I can see Dawkins' observations on Yahya were quite restrained considering the depth of stupidity contained in The Atlas of Creation.

Yahya's work is in the public domain and should be open to criticism however harsh. I really doubt Yahya feels personally offended by Dawkins' comments but he is claiming foul play as a means of censorsing scientific inquiry and Dawkins in particular. This has nothing to do with Yahya's sensibilities being offended, this is disgraceful censorship, plain and simple. Turkish people who respect freedom of speech and expression should take to the streets in protest at this bullsh!t.

CDfm

anti-venom wrote: »

You don't seriously believe for one minute that Dawkins' site was banned for containing defamatory attacks on Harun Yahya? As far as I can see Dawkins' observations on Yahya were quite restrained considering the depth of stupidity contained in The Atlas of Creation.

Yahya's work is in the public domain and should be open to criticism however harsh. I really doubt Yahya feels personally offended by Dawkins' comments but he is claiming foul play as a means of censorsing scientific inquiry and Dawkins in particular. This has nothing to do with Yahya's sensibilities being offended, this is disgraceful censorship, plain and simple. Turkish people who respect freedom of speech and expression should take to the streets in protest at this bullsh!t.

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Do you seriously believe Dawkins is anything less than a charlatan and a demagogue parading his anti-christian message under the guise of free speech or science.

Maybe there are other parts of the site or postings on it that the Court found offensive - who knows what links were of it or what posts were on it. I dont and you dont - but it seems very odd that it was just the site was banned dont you think

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Dawkins is anything less than a charlatan and a demagogue parading his anti-christian message under the guise of free speech or science.

Professor Dawkins is a highly respected academic. Yes he may have written books which are accessible to Joe Public, but that doesn't make him any lesser an academic.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Dawkins is anything less than a charlatan and a demagogue parading his anti-christian message under the guise of free speech or science.

Good heavens, man, what's Dawkins done to you that has you so upset? Your comments are so wide of teh mark, and so splendidly and enjoyably bilious, that a little bit of me (actually, quite a lot of me) is thinking that you've never read a full book by him -- would I be right?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Good heavens, man, what's Dawkins done to you that has you so upset? Your comments are so wide of teh mark, and so splendidly and enjoyably bilious, that a little bit of me (actually, quite a lot of me) is thinking that you've never read a full book by him -- would I be right?

Too busy reading Nietzsche to consider an academic fraud like Dawkins.

MrP

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Good heavens, man, what's Dawkins done to you that has you so upset? Your comments are so wide of teh mark, and so splendidly and enjoyably bilious, that a little bit of me (actually, quite a lot of me) is thinking that you've never read a full book by him -- would I be right?

Its about time people stood up to Dawkins the self important and media whore that he is.

Before his books he was just a sanctimonious little nobody and now he can stand up with his peers Jane Goody and Kerry Katona.

PDN

CDfm I think you're quite possibly either a wum or on drugs, but I'm finding this thread to be very entertaining.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

Professor Dawkins is a highly respected academic. Yes he may have written books which are accessible to Joe Public, but that doesn't make him any lesser an academic.

Of course it does its like comparing the Sunday Times to the Sunday Sport or Newsweek to the National Enquirer.

I am not saying Stephen Hawking either was accessible - even his Joe Public stuff is unintelligible to most people -and did use his wheelchair to sell a few copies but he did not compremise his academic reputation to do so.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

CDfm I think you're quite possibly either a wum or on drugs, but I'm finding this thread to be very entertaining.

Well its a lot less dangerous than getting kicked out of the library.

I went to one this morning and asked do you have any copies of Richard Dawkins the God Delusion and was asked if i had a library card. I said lady I dont want to borrow it -I want to burn it.

BTW whats a wum

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

BTW whats a wum

Wind Up Merchant.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

Wind Up Merchant.

NO - Im not.

But I dont see why I shouldnt have a little fun with the secular humanist brigade - they can give it but they cant take it.

So what if Im a bit irreverent about Dawkins.It never stops his supporters from getting a dig in where they can when they can.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Oi there Mark they are your creationists I dont have any argument with them .You are the person who gets upset with them.

Actually, they are your creationists not mine. They take your belief and bastardize for greed. I have a problem with them because they lie to others with their baseless pseudoscience nonsense, and try to destroy science in schools with their desire to teach creationism in science classes. The fact that you feel no responsibility for what others do with your beliefs says a lot about you.

CDfm wrote: »

And as you dont believe anyway so why should it bother me what take you have on the bible .It wont affect my life.

Then why bring it up at all?

CDfm wrote:

Do you seriously believe Dawkins is anything less than a charlatan and a demagogue parading his anti-christian message under the guise of free speech or science.

So do you actually have any proof of this, or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

Get this - Richard Dawkins website is banned in Turkey for posting libelous comments on other authors.

Also known in some circles as a 'scathing review'.

CDfm wrote: »

Before his books he was just a sanctimonious little nobody and now he can stand up with his peers Jane Goody and Kerry Katona.

You know sometimes you (perhaps accidently) stumble across a genius idea. I would love to see Dawkins on Celebrity Big Brother! :cool:

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The fact that you feel no responsibility for what others do with your beliefs says a lot about you.

So, Mark, do you feel responsible for what others do with your beliefs?

I think you're an atheist, is that correct?

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

So, Mark, do you feel responsible for what others do with your beliefs?

I think you're an atheist, is that correct?

*feels responsible for Stalin*

My bad guys.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually, they are your creationists not mine. They take your belief and bastardize for greed.

No theyre not mine.The Messiah Im not.

I think they are definately your bunch they have scientists writing books arguing with other scientists and misinforming people. That sounds like one of your bunch all right.

And if there is anyone coining out of it its your buddy Dawkins coining in the dosh with his books selling out.Misinforming even more people with the myth that christianity and creationist are synonymous and interchangeable.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

So, Mark, do you feel responsible for what others do with your beliefs?

I think you're an atheist, is that correct?

If I ever came across someone trying to use atheism to forward hatred, bigotry and lies then I would not hesitate to inform of the error of their ways.

CDfm wrote:

I think they are definately your bunch they have scientists writing books arguing with other scientists and misinforming people. That sounds like one of your bunch all right.

With beliefs like
"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework." (Henry Morris)
they exclude themselves as scientists. Not to the mention the complete lack of scientific research on creationism. All of their assertions are based on irrational literal interpretations of the book of your religious basis.

CDfm wrote:

And if there is anyone coining out of it its your buddy Dawkins coining in the dosh with his books selling out.Misinforming even more people with the myth that christianity and creationist are synonymous and interchangeable.

Can you actually show any source for Dawkins saying this? Can you show how its any worse than you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
Its funny that someone so adamant that athiests are wrong for (supposedly) taring all christians with the same brush as creationists, you tar all athiests with your same interpretation of Dawkins (supposed0 wrong doings, very hypocritical.