Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
The Littlest Homo

Bad Faith Awards 2008 : Vote Now

From The New Humanist

Quote:
It's the historic poll you've all been waiting for. No, not the Presidential election. We already know what's happened in that one. Now that it's out of the way we're inviting you to cast your vote to help decide which deluded fantasist will walk away with the prestigious 2008 New Humanist Bad Faith Award.

Regular readers will know we've been gradually releasing the nominees by podcast during the past week, and we are now proud to present you with a motley crew of nine servants to the cause of unreason, who you can single out by voting in the poll at the top right of this page:

Click here to hear the podcast featuring the full list of nominees

   * Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya: Infamous Islamic creationist, author of the Atlas of Creation. Hit the headlines this year by getting Richard Dawkins's website banned in Turkey and offering a trillion dollars for anyone who can prove that evolution happened. For more info, watch Richard Dawkins's very funny dissection of his "ideas".

   * Ann Coulter: Barmy US conservative blonde bombshell – she must be feeling pretty low following last night's events. Obviously Coulter deserves to be nominated every year, but comedian Robin Ince put her forward this year having spent a portion of 2008 struggling his way through a paperback copy of her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, which suffice to say has left him slightly infuriated.

   * Bishop of Durham aka Tom Wright: His views on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? "Gender-bending was so last century; we now do species-bending". Enough said.

   * Cardinal Keith O'Brien: The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, and another cleric who landed himself in the running due to ignorant comments over the Embryology Bill. Talks about Nazis, Frankenstein and Dunblane when most other people are trying to have a sensible discussion about science.

   * The Governors of St Monica's High School, Prestwich: We had a major breakthrough in the UK this year when cervical cancer vaccinations were introduced for 12-13 year old girls in schools. So it's a shame the governors of St Monica's Catholic school decided to keep their pupils exposed to a fatal cancer because they think giving girls the jab would encourage promiscuity. Idiocy and bad faith of the highest order.

   * Rowan Williams: Ah, the Archbeard. Why did he make those comments about Sharia Law? He's still the only man who knows the answer to that, but in addition to all the fuss they caused they've landed him a Bad Faith nomination from Johann Hari.

   * Sarah Palin: Sarah, oh Sarah. So easy to look at (so some say), but not so difficult to define. You burst onto the scene with your convention speech, and we lapped up those videos of you being blessed against witchcraft and nodding your head while some nutter talked about the End Times. You were the best thing that ever happened to me (I've blogged about you 29 times since you entered my life), but now you're gone. Goodbye.

   * Stephen Green: He of Christian Voice (or possibly the only guy from Christian Voice). Obviously he's committed too many offences to mention, but I think my favourite this year was when he picketed "Gay Sunday" at London Zoo. He's nominated here for saying the following about the Atheist Bus Campaign: "People don't like being preached at".

   * Tony Blair: Is he old news? Perhaps, but comedian Nick Doody is none too impressed with his post-PM conversion and his round-the-world faith drive.

So there you go. Quite a field - get your votes in now and have a say in who becomes 2008's most scurrilous enemy of reason. To help you along your way our in-house bookmakers Paddy Gowers have priced up the runners and riders:

Adnan Oktar: 5/4 F; Rowan Williams 7/1; Sarah Palin 15/2; Cardinal Keith O'Brien 14/1; Stephen Green 18/1; Ann Coulter 25/1; Bishop of Durham 30/1; Tony Blair 40/1; Prestwich Governors 100/1
Shaker

All of the above
LornaDoone40

Ann Coulter, if it has to be one of them. A woman whose opinion of herself is almost as high as her skirts, and who would definitely benefit from a hefty dose of humility. (And bloody good slap).
BevIsHopeful

Elizabeth Dole

From the link:

Quote:
The Fayetteville Observer recently editorialized about Dole´s despicable tactics, saying Dole is "ratcheting up her rhetoric, and probably winning the honor, so far, of fielding the nastiest, most misleading, negative ad of the campaign. We understand Dole´s desperation. The polls show she´s trailing Hagan, and she´s dipping into her own pocket to support her campaign. But jumping into the deep end of the slime pool is no way to catch up."


Apparently, in an effort to rally support from the strong Christian, right-wing, North Carolina voters in the race to be re-elected Senator of North Carolina, Dole hired a voice-a-like, pretending to be her opponent Hagan, admitting to her atheist alliances.  It was discovered to be a complete fabrication and grossly liable.

For me, she wins the award because she used Christianity as an excuse to behave in every way contrary to true Christian behavior.
Lexilogio

Does it have to be one of them?
Can't I vote for Grandad Phelps? (Another every year candidate)

If it's one of them I think I have to go for Adnan Oktar, as anyone banning stuff deserves the Bad Faith Award in my book.

We don't move forward by stopping people questionning. We move forward through questions and debate.
Sprocket

Stephen Green, our own home-grown Fred phelps.
david_geoffrey

Lexilogio wrote:
We don't move forward by stopping people questionning. We move forward through questions and debate.
Which is why I feel that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not to be castigated for what they have said.
Lexilogio

david_geoffrey wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
We don't move forward by stopping people questionning. We move forward through questions and debate.
Which is why I feel that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not to be castigated for what they have said.


I agree, David.
We should start by encouraging debate. By everyone.
The Littlest Homo

Lexilogio wrote:

I agree, David.
We should start by encouraging debate. By everyone.


In the cases of many (including Tom Wright and Rowan Williams) we should also encourage education and the use of common sense.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:

I agree, David.
We should start by encouraging debate. By everyone.


In the cases of many (including Tom Wright and Rowan Williams) we should also encourage education and the use of common sense.
What do mean by education - in what would you educate Tom Wright and Rowan Williams?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:

What do mean by education - in what would you educate Tom Wright and Rowan Williams?


To know all the facts and get some background knowledge on subjects before discussing them (e.g. Sharia Law, Fertilisation and Embryology, etc)
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:

What do mean by education - in what would you educate Tom Wright and Rowan Williams?


To know all the facts and get some background knowledge on subjects before discussing them (e.g. Sharia Law, Fertilisation and Embryology, etc)
So you think that knowing ALL the facts and having background knowledge are a pre-requisite for entering into any discussion?? Mmmm...OK

And what makes you think that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not knowledgable about what they were talking about? Is it, shock horror, that they dared express an opinion to which you disagree? So through education they will come round to the right opinion which happens to be yours. Have you read 1984?
Shaker

Quote:
And what makes you think that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not knowledgable about what they were talking about?

Isn't using a phrase like "species-bending, on analogy with "gender-bending," a sufficient giveaway?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
So you think that knowing ALL the facts and having background knowledge are a pre-requisite for entering into any discussion?? Mmmm...OK


It should be certainly when you are in the public eye and want to be taken seriously, then it would stop you making stupid comments as both Wright and Williams have done.

Quote:
And what makes you think that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not knowledgable about what they were talking about? Is it, shock horror, that they dared express an opinion to which you disagree? So through education they will come round to the right opinion which happens to be yours. Have you read 1984?


Their ill-informed comments would suggest they are not knowledgeable. They would obviously disagree with me, both being believers, but they do nothing for their cause with their uneducated comments.

No I haven't read 1984 personally, I know it contains the idea of a Big  Brother society. I am not expecting them to be educated and brainwashed so they have the same opinion as me. Don't even know how you came to that twisted idea! I said they ought to be more educated and knowledgeable in the subjects they choose to discuss and interfere in - which is very different!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
So you think that knowing ALL the facts and having background knowledge are a pre-requisite for entering into any discussion?? Mmmm...OK


It should be certainly when you are in the public eye and want to be taken seriously, then it would stop you making stupid comments as both Wright and Williams have done.

Quote:
And what makes you think that Tom Wright and Rowan Williams are not knowledgable about what they were talking about? Is it, shock horror, that they dared express an opinion to which you disagree? So through education they will come round to the right opinion which happens to be yours. Have you read 1984?


Their ill-informed comments would suggest they are not knowledgeable. They would obviously disagree with me, both being believers, but they do nothing for their cause with their uneducated comments.

No I haven't read 1984 personally, I know it contains the idea of a Big  Brother society. I am not expecting them to be educated and brainwashed so they have the same opinion as me. Don't even know how you came to that twisted idea! I said they ought to be more educated and knowledgeable in the subjects they choose to discuss and interfere in - which is very different!


It is quite interesting in a discussion about people getting their facts right that Tom Wright was not specifically talking about the Embryo Bill but a wider question of scientific advances and creating a utopian ideal without God during an Easter Sermon at Durham Cathedral. The phrase quoted was definitely being used polemically and sarcastically. In fact he was very scathing about scientists played God basically without checks and balances - and I am very sure that you object to him saying that - although there are non-religious people who would agree as well although they may not use the same language as NTWright

And under these circumstances I cannot for the life of me see how you think that he is or is not knowledgeable about the subject, which is why I suggested it must be because you disagree with what he said that you made that assumption, although is it possible that you don't even know what he said in the first place? What was that about being taken seriously?
Shaker

So are you saying that as well as being a Bishop he's a trained scientist?

If nobody but the Bishop has ever talked about creating an utopian society (as opposed to merely pushing back the boundaries of ignorance to some degree and using our knowledge to make life just that tiny bit better), isn't that a straw man on his part?

He deserves scorn if for no other reason (and there are many) than for being so witlessly unoriginal as to trot out the phrase "playing God." :roll:
chadivarus

DG. You must remember that LH and Admin are authorities and on all subject are the best informed on the forum
Shaker

So no actual opinion on the subject at hand, then?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
It is quite interesting in a discussion about people getting their facts right that Tom Wright was not specifically talking about the Embryo Bill but a wider question of scientific advances and creating a utopian ideal without God during an Easter Sermon at Durham Cathedral. The phrase quoted was definitely being used polemically and sarcastically. In fact he was very scathing about scientists played God basically without checks and balances - and I am very sure that you object to him saying that - although there are non-religious people who would agree as well although they may not use the same language as NTWright


These scientific advances that humanity is looking to make isn't so that we can live in a utopian society, but so hopefully those who suffer at the hands of tragic diseases such as Motor Neurone Disease or Parkinsons can one day be cured (or at least have symptoms alleviated). To suggest otherwise, shows how very little Mr Wright knows about science and such advances. It is attitudes like his that have held back many advances in the past, through ignorance and assuming theology gives them authority over other subjects, like science!

Quote:
And under these circumstances I cannot for the life of me see how you think that he is or is not knowledgeable about the subject, which is why I suggested it must be because you disagree with what he said that you made that assumption, although is it possible that you don't even know what he said in the first place? What was that about being taken seriously?


There are many examples of this guys ignorance who chooses to discuss subjects, of which he has no or very little knowledge. I am not claiming to have anymore knowledge about these subjects, but then I am not in the public eye putting forward ridiculous claims like he is!

I am more than aware of what he said in the first place :

Tom Wright wrote:
"The irony is that this secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between."


Then he goes on to say about beliefs of the human ability to make a better world - well who the hell is going to do it? Not your sky fairy thats for sure.!

He also goes to make stupid assertions about secular groups advocating the killing of elderly people, as well as saying that he would discipline any clergy registering as civil partners or blessing such ceremonies (following the first civil ceremonies in December 2005).

Still think he should be taken seriously?  :roll:
Shaker

Aha! Bingo!

Thanks for that, TLH: the ignorant and fatuous remark about "killing surplus old people" reminded me of a spat that the journalist David Aaronovitch had with this character, starting a few years ago. There was this opening salvo, but things didn't get really interesting - and highly unfortunate for the Bish - until he came out with his idiotic remarks (which, of course, serves him right). Aaronovitch's initial comment, Wright's utter non sequitur of a reply, to which Aaronovitch lets him have it with both barrels
chadivarus

I think the Bish went a bit wild and inaccurate.

Regarding the OT/NT differences one only sees this if one is unaware of the changes that the coming of the messiah brought.
david_geoffrey

admin. wrote:
So are you saying that as well as being a Bishop he's a trained scientist?
No, but are trained scientists the only people allowed to express an opinion on science?

Quote:
If nobody but the Bishop has ever talked about creating an utopian society (as opposed to merely pushing back the boundaries of ignorance to some degree and using our knowledge to make life just that tiny bit better), isn't that a straw man on his part?
For a Christian there can be no ultimate utopia without God, and attempts by scientists and anyone else for that matter to create one are doomed to failure. Progress is all very well and good and to be encouraged but not at the cost of our humanity.

Quote:
He deserves scorn if for no other reason (and there are many) than for being so witlessly unoriginal as to trot out the phrase "playing God." :roll:
He didn't.
david_geoffrey

admin. wrote:
Aha! Bingo!

Thanks for that, TLH: the ignorant and fatuous remark about "killing surplus old people" reminded me of a spat that the journalist David Aaronovitch had with this character, starting a few years ago. There was this opening salvo, but things didn't get really interesting - and highly unfortunate for the Bish - until he came out with his idiotic remarks (which, of course, serves him right). Aaronovitch's initial comment, Wright's utter non sequitur of a reply, to which Aaronovitch lets him have it with both barrels


Sounds rather like the typical exchanges on the BBCMB actually, both sides sliding past each other. Because of our viewpoints I like what NTW says and think that DA sounds like an annoying little tick, and you think the contrary - all subjective really.

But the thing is there is opposition to both Euthanasia and also the Embryonic research from non-Christians as well - even if it is merely words of caution, but if the Bishop dares to say so then because of his faith he is to be attacked.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
It is quite interesting in a discussion about people getting their facts right that Tom Wright was not specifically talking about the Embryo Bill but a wider question of scientific advances and creating a utopian ideal without God during an Easter Sermon at Durham Cathedral. The phrase quoted was definitely being used polemically and sarcastically. In fact he was very scathing about scientists played God basically without checks and balances - and I am very sure that you object to him saying that - although there are non-religious people who would agree as well although they may not use the same language as NTWright


These scientific advances that humanity is looking to make isn't so that we can live in a utopian society, but so hopefully those who suffer at the hands of tragic diseases such as Motor Neurone Disease or Parkinsons can one day be cured (or at least have symptoms alleviated). To suggest otherwise, shows how very little Mr Wright knows about science and such advances. It is attitudes like his that have held back many advances in the past, through ignorance and assuming theology gives them authority over other subjects, like science!
Do you think that there should be no outside interference in scientific research then? That no moral or ethical constraints should be placed upon them, however worthy the cause?
Quote:
And under these circumstances I cannot for the life of me see how you think that he is or is not knowledgeable about the subject, which is why I suggested it must be because you disagree with what he said that you made that assumption, although is it possible that you don't even know what he said in the first place? What was that about being taken seriously?


Quote:
There are many examples of this guys ignorance who chooses to discuss subjects, of which he has no or very little knowledge. I am not claiming to have anymore knowledge about these subjects, but then I am not in the public eye putting forward ridiculous claims like he is!
Opinions rather than claims I think, you say they are ridiculous but that is a subjective viewpoint not an objective one.

Quote:
I am more than aware of what he said in the first place :

Tom Wright wrote:
"The irony is that this secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between."


Then he goes on to say about beliefs of the human ability to make a better world - well who the hell is going to do it? Not your sky fairy thats for sure.!
For Christians there is an imperative to alleviate suffering and want, so we do exactly that in so many ways and places, but the ultimate best world won't happen without God. cf Revelation

Quote:
He also goes to make stupid assertions about secular groups advocating the killing of elderly people, as well as saying that he would discipline any clergy registering as civil partners or blessing such ceremonies (following the first civil ceremonies in December 2005).
Baroness Warnock did say something rather similar I think, and by groups if you read the sermon I don't think he had the BHA in mind - perhaps as Oms says he was getting a bit carried away in his polemics (something I am sure you would sympathise with), but as for discipling clergy who broke the rules, well any organisation has to have rules doesn't it? Although the fact that you have brought it up makes me realise why you perhaps have a particular axe to grind here?

Quote:
Still think he should be taken seriously?  :roll:
Nothing you have said has made me think otherwise. A great man is NTW
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Do you think that there should be no outside interference in scientific research then? That no moral or ethical constraints should be placed upon them, however worthy the cause?


There definitely shouldn't be interference in the scientific research by people who have no idea how the advances work or will work in the near future. The ignorance of these bishops (because of lack of knowledge about the subject) is again what is holding back scientific advances, and has done previously.

As for moral or ethical constraints, do you seriously think these types of research are allowed to go ahead without certain moral or ethical questions being answered? There are safeguards in place, regarding such pieces of research. Patient groups and scientists also argue that it is immoral not to allow this research, because of its medical potential.

Quote:
Opinions rather than claims I think, you say they are ridiculous but that is a subjective viewpoint not an objective one.
Well regardless of whether opinions or claims, they are still ridiculous and ill-informed and show him to be a follower of an backward organisation who have no place trying to question things they know nothing about!

Quote:
For Christians there is an imperative to alleviate suffering and want, so we do exactly that in so many ways and places, but the ultimate best world won't happen without God. cf Revelation


There are many non-religious people also that want this too and instead of blocking such research (that should eventually alleviate symptoms) they are pro-actively trying to help those who need it. By doing this, we can make a better world for all, not necessaril the utopia that this uneducated buffoon suggests! It sure won't happen with your "god" after all, he hasn't bothered doing anything about it so far, has he?

Quote:
Baroness Warnock did say something rather similar I think,


She did say something similar about dementia patients, controversially :

Baroness Warnock wrote:
If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service. I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die


But then we are not talking about her, are we?

Quote:
and by groups if you read the sermon I don't think he had the BHA in mind -


I don't think anyone has mentioned the BHA, have they? He has said secular groups though. As you know so well what he was thinking, which groups was he referring to? Please share

Quote:
perhaps as Oms says he was getting a bit carried away in his polemics (something I am sure you would sympathise with)


I dont think so. I think he genuinely believes his claims.

Quote:
but as for discipling clergy who broke the rules, well any organisation has to have rules doesn't it?


Yes, they do but they shouldn't be contrary to the law of the land, which he is obviously trying to do. He doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, which is fine - he is allowed that opinion. But to discipline people because of it, shows someone on a power trip!

Quote:
Although the fact that you have brought it up makes me realise why you perhaps have a particular axe to grind here?


I am just answering another of your disagreements. The fact that he said it just adds to the other stupid, and ignorant comments made, which then backs up my statement!

Quote:
Nothing you have said has made me think otherwise. A great man is NTW


I didn't think for one moment it would. As for being great - that is certainly untrue, but hey if it helps you sleep at night!

But everything you have said has reinforced my, already, negative view of religion. Thanks.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Do you think that there should be no outside interference in scientific research then? That no moral or ethical constraints should be placed upon them, however worthy the cause?


There definitely shouldn't be interference in the scientific research by people who have no idea how the advances work or will work in the near future. The ignorance of these bishops (because of lack of knowledge about the subject) is again what is holding back scientific advances, and has done previously.
That dangerously sounds like a restriction of free speech you are advocating there - this was after all a sermon on Easter day in Durham Cathedral. There still seems to me to be an attitude on your part that simply because he is a Christian his views are instantly to be discounted. Isn't that simple prejudice on your part? Also there seems to be an element of only scientists being able to make decisions on what is ethical or moral in science here in your argument. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that

Quote:
As for moral or ethical constraints, do you seriously think these types of research are allowed to go ahead without certain moral or ethical questions being answered? There are safeguards in place, regarding such pieces of research. Patient groups and scientists also argue that it is immoral not to allow this research, because of its medical potential.  
Indeed nice healthy debate from both sides is what is desired

Quote:
Quote:
Opinions rather than claims I think, you say they are ridiculous but that is a subjective viewpoint not an objective one.
Well regardless of whether opinions or claims, they are still ridiculous and ill-informed and show him to be a follower of an backward organisation who have no place trying to question things they know nothing about!
Ahh I love the smell of prejudice in the morning...

Quote:
Quote:
For Christians there is an imperative to alleviate suffering and want, so we do exactly that in so many ways and places, but the ultimate best world won't happen without God. cf Revelation


There are many non-religious people also that want this too and instead of blocking such research (that should eventually alleviate symptoms) they are pro-actively trying to help those who need it. By doing this, we can make a better world for all, not necessaril the utopia that this uneducated buffoon suggests! It sure won't happen with your "god" after all, he hasn't bothered doing anything about it so far, has he?
Oh dear I think we have gone round this one before haven't we, eschatological hope and utopia versus utopia now. And of course God has done something, once and for all time upon the cross, there are more important things that bodily suffering and death for a Christian.

Quote:
Quote:
Baroness Warnock did say something rather similar I think,


She did say something similar about dementia patients, controversially :

Baroness Warnock wrote:
If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service. I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die


But then we are not talking about her, are we?

Quote:
and by groups if you read the sermon I don't think he had the BHA in mind -


I don't think anyone has mentioned the BHA, have they? He has said secular groups though. As you know so well what he was thinking, which groups was he referring to? Please share
No, I was the first to bring up the BHA, but I don't know more than you what he was thinking, unless you have not read the whole sermon yet, in which case I suppose I do. I suspect that when he spoke of groups though he was not thinking of organised groups like the BHA, but more about a similar mindsets of certain people, like Baroness Warnock who is a very influential person indeed.

Quote:
Quote:
perhaps as Oms says he was getting a bit carried away in his polemics (something I am sure you would sympathise with)


I dont think so. I think he genuinely believes his claims.
Ah well we all have opinions don't we?

Quote:
Quote:
but as for discipling clergy who broke the rules, well any organisation has to have rules doesn't it?


Yes, they do but they shouldn't be contrary to the law of the land, which he is obviously trying to do. He doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, which is fine - he is allowed that opinion. But to discipline people because of it, shows someone on a power trip!
Is he? Is that case for all people who carry out disciplinary actions in organisations? They are all just on power-trips? Whilst those rules are in place and they do not contravene the law of the land then he is perfectly entitled to enforce them.
Quote:
Quote:
Although the fact that you have brought it up makes me realise why you perhaps have a particular axe to grind here?


I am just answering another of your disagreements. The fact that he said it just adds to the other stupid, and ignorant comments made, which then backs up my statement!
Which disagreement was that? I don't quite follow your argument here

Quote:
Quote:
Nothing you have said has made me think otherwise. A great man is NTW


I didn't think for one moment it would. As for being great - that is certainly untrue, but hey if it helps you sleep at night!
I assure you my nocturnal slumbers are unaffected by the reputation of NTW
Quote:
But everything you have said has reinforced my, already, negative view of religion. Thanks.
Indeed we are probably both here to a certain extent with something similar in mind. The more I read from atheists the more I thank God I am not one.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
That dangerously sounds like a restriction of free speech you are advocating there - this was after all a sermon on Easter day in Durham Cathedral. There still seems to me to be an attitude on your part that simply because he is a Christian his views are instantly to be discounted. Isn't that simple prejudice on your part?


There is nothing of the sort. I haven't said that he should be stopped from saying it. I have said that he, and people like him, shouldn't interfere in things they know nothing about. Nothing prejudice about that. His views should be discounted because he show an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

Quote:
Also there seems to be an element of only scientists being able to make decisions on what is ethical or moral in science here in your argument. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that


Well there are many involved in scientific research, not all scientists. The ethical and moral aspects are decided by many. I certainly wouldn't expect religious people to be able to preach about morals and ethics, given their dubious beginnings.

Quote:
Ahh I love the smell of prejudice in the morning...

So I see from your posts!

The fact is he has decided to comment on something he has little, or no knowledge of. He is part of an organisation that has shown itself to be backward and has stifled previous scientific research.

Quote:
Oh dear I think we have gone round this one before haven't we, eschatological hope and utopia versus utopia now. And of course God has done something, once and for all time upon the cross, there are more important things that bodily suffering and death for a Christian.


Your "god" ,hasn't, and isn't doing anything. Simple as.

Quote:
No, I was the first to bring up the BHA, but I don't know more than you what he was thinking, unless you have not read the whole sermon yet, in which case I suppose I do. I suspect that when he spoke of groups though he was not thinking of organised groups like the BHA, but more about a similar mindsets of certain people, like Baroness Warnock who is a very influential person indeed.


Knowing what someone has said in a sermon, and what someone thinks are two different things. He was talking about secular groups with no obvious example, just a blanket statement. Can't use the quite of one person as an example of a group, when it isn't so!

Quote:
Ah well we all have opinions don't we?
Yes whether informed or not!

Quote:
Is he? Is that case for all people who carry out disciplinary actions in organisations? They are all just on power-trips? Whilst those rules are in place and they do not contravene the law of the land then he is perfectly entitled to enforce them.

They are not all on power trips, no. But then what he has done is blatant discrimination and homophobia. Both going against the law of the land.

Quote:
Which disagreement was that? I don't quite follow your argument here
Just your other disagreements about any statement I make.

Quote:
I assure you my nocturnal slumbers are unaffected by the reputation of NTW
Thats good then!

Quote:
Indeed we are probably both here to a certain extent with something similar in mind. The more I read from atheists the more I thank God I am not one.
Well thanking a non-existent entity won't do you much cop! I am sure the atheists on here have breathed a collective sigh also!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
That dangerously sounds like a restriction of free speech you are advocating there - this was after all a sermon on Easter day in Durham Cathedral. There still seems to me to be an attitude on your part that simply because he is a Christian his views are instantly to be discounted. Isn't that simple prejudice on your part?


There is nothing of the sort. I haven't said that he should be stopped from saying it. I have said that he, and people like him, shouldn't interfere in things they know nothing about. Nothing prejudice about that. His views should be discounted because he show an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
How does preaching a sermon "interfere"? And I fail to see how you have demonstrated a "lack of knowledge"

Quote:
Quote:
Also there seems to be an element of only scientists being able to make decisions on what is ethical or moral in science here in your argument. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that


Well there are many involved in scientific research, not all scientists. The ethical and moral aspects are decided by many. I certainly wouldn't expect religious people to be able to preach about morals and ethics, given their dubious beginnings.
There you go, thank you for making my point for me

Quote:
Quote:
Ahh I love the smell of prejudice in the morning...

So I see from your posts!
:roll:

Quote:
The fact is he has decided to comment on something he has little, or no knowledge of. He is part of an organisation that has shown itself to be backward and has stifled previous scientific research.
Where has the CofE stifled research?

Quote:
Quote:
Oh dear I think we have gone round this one before haven't we, eschatological hope and utopia versus utopia now. And of course God has done something, once and for all time upon the cross, there are more important things that bodily suffering and death for a Christian.


Your "god" ,hasn't, and isn't doing anything. Simple as.
Simple as your opinion, mine differs

Quote:
Quote:
No, I was the first to bring up the BHA, but I don't know more than you what he was thinking, unless you have not read the whole sermon yet, in which case I suppose I do. I suspect that when he spoke of groups though he was not thinking of organised groups like the BHA, but more about a similar mindsets of certain people, like Baroness Warnock who is a very influential person indeed.


Knowing what someone has said in a sermon, and what someone thinks are two different things. He was talking about secular groups with no obvious example, just a blanket statement. Can't use the quite of one person as an example of a group, when it isn't so!
I've covered this one

Quote:
Quote:
Ah well we all have opinions don't we?
Yes whether informed or not!
so it seems

Quote:
Quote:
Is he? Is that case for all people who carry out disciplinary actions in organisations? They are all just on power-trips? Whilst those rules are in place and they do not contravene the law of the land then he is perfectly entitled to enforce them.

They are not all on power trips, no. But then what he has done is blatant discrimination and homophobia. Both going against the law of the land.
Has he been prosecuted then? Homophobia, which I doubt he has, isn't actually a crime. Unless we come back to the thought police again from 1984.

Quote:
Quote:
Which disagreement was that? I don't quite follow your argument here
Just your other disagreements about any statement I make.
I have to admit that we rarely agree...

Quote:
Quote:
I assure you my nocturnal slumbers are unaffected by the reputation of NTW
Thats good then!

Quote:
Indeed we are probably both here to a certain extent with something similar in mind. The more I read from atheists the more I thank God I am not one.
Well thanking a non-existent entity won't do you much cop! I am sure the atheists on here have breathed a collective sigh also!
So you want me to keep my faith? Well keep up your posts then Smilie_PDT
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
So you want me to keep my faith? Well keep up your posts then Smilie_PDT


You will anyway. You are happy to believe in something without any scrap of evidence to back it up. Thats up to you. You might see sense one day.  :roll:

Anyhow, theres no need to keep going over the same old crap with you. Lets get back to the subject at hand.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
So you want me to keep my faith? Well keep up your posts then Smilie_PDT


You will anyway. You are happy to believe in something without any scrap of evidence to back it up. Thats up to you. You might see sense one day.  :roll:

Anyhow, theres no need to keep going over the same old crap with you. Lets get back to the subject at hand.
Evidence yes, proof no.

But your "you might see sense one day" statement is yet more grist to my mill, thanks!

Did we leave the subject at hand?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Evidence yes, proof no.


So where are the observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory, that count as evidence?

Quote:
But your "you might see sense one day" statement is yet more grist to my mill, thanks!
Jolly good.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Evidence yes, proof no.


So where are the observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory, that count as evidence?

I know you brought it up, but like you say we have done this...er....stuff before - i.e. discussed evidence on these boards before. Perhaps we can have a short hand that short circuits the discussion.
#1 Proof of God cannot be achieved
#2 There is no evidence of God, yes there is
#3 The bible is fiction, no it isn't
#4 God is love, no he isn't
#5 etc etc

Then all we have to do is go "I invoke #1 argument" and we can both nod sagely and move on
Lexilogio

david_geoffrey wrote:
The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Evidence yes, proof no.


So where are the observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory, that count as evidence?

I know you brought it up, but like you say we have done this...er....stuff before - i.e. discussed evidence on these boards before. Perhaps we can have a short hand that short circuits the discussion.
#1 Proof of God cannot be achieved
#2 There is no evidence of God, yes there is
#3 The bible is fiction, no it isn't
#4 God is love, no he isn't
#5 etc etc

Then all we have to do is go "I invoke #1 argument" and we can both nod sagely and move on



:smt044  :smt044
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:

I know you brought it up, but like you say we have done this...er....stuff before - i.e. discussed evidence on these boards before. Perhaps we can have a short hand that short circuits the discussion.
#1 Proof of God cannot be achieved
#2 There is no evidence of God, yes there is
#3 The bible is fiction, no it isn't
#4 God is love, no he isn't
#5 etc etc

Then all we have to do is go "I invoke #1 argument" and we can both nod sagely and move on


Or when you say there is evidence of your "god" you can prove it instead of side-stepping the issue!

So, I invoke #2 argument, now prove it!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:

I know you brought it up, but like you say we have done this...er....stuff before - i.e. discussed evidence on these boards before. Perhaps we can have a short hand that short circuits the discussion.
#1 Proof of God cannot be achieved
#2 There is no evidence of God, yes there is
#3 The bible is fiction, no it isn't
#4 God is love, no he isn't
#5 etc etc

Then all we have to do is go "I invoke #1 argument" and we can both nod sagely and move on


Or when you say there is evidence of your "god" you can prove it instead of side-stepping the issue!

So, I invoke #2 argument, now prove it!
That is #1 there is no proof

#2Evidence for God is to be found in Creation, The Bible, The person of Jesus, The growth of the early church, the saints and martyrs over the centuries, the testimony of believers.
Shaker

Quote:
#2Evidence for God is to be found in Creation, The Bible, The person of Jesus, The growth of the early church, the saints and martyrs over the centuries, the testimony of believers.

Come come, every one of these can have a coach and six driven through them, chopped to pieces, the pieces minced, jumped up and down on, burnt, the ashes ground up, placed in a box and given a decent burial. Tut, you should know better  :?
david_geoffrey

admin. wrote:
Quote:
#2Evidence for God is to be found in Creation, The Bible, The person of Jesus, The growth of the early church, the saints and martyrs over the centuries, the testimony of believers.

Come come, every one of these can have a coach and six driven through them, chopped to pieces, the pieces minced, jumped up and down on, burnt, the ashes ground up, placed in a box and given a decent burial. Tut, you should know better  :?
So our two posts effectively make up #2. In future it will become so much quicker - a bit like two comedians  :shock: who just trade punchlines of jokes. So much simpler, n'est ce pas?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum