Grin! Actually, I’ve had remarkably good luck with Mormons, not visiting my door, but stopping me on the sidewalk. Had a right fine chat with them. Of all the strange things, we got to talking about the Koran! Now, obviously, we ended up disagreeing, but it was completely peaceful, in part because it was what we all pretty much knew would happen anyway.
I once had a promising visit from a Jehovah’s Witness. We actually talked rationally to each other. Alas, on her next visit, she became insulting and abusive. She pulled out the old argument, “You aren’t really an atheist, because, deep-down, you have to worship something.” I said no, and she denied it.
Calling me a liar to my face isn’t a healthy way to make converts, and so I invited her to have a nice day, and closed the door.
You let them have it… good for you. Someone who approaches me out of the blue and says “you will rot in hell” will be told, in no uncertain terms, to leave. If push comes to shove, all I need do is call 911.
From the cited article: “Why does snow sit on mountain tops waiting for the warm spring sun to melt it at just the right time for the young crops in farms below to drink? A very lovely accident?”
Well, yeah. Fancy that. It’s like the egoistic mud puddle, absolutely amazed that the hole in the ground exactly fits its contours.
The idea that, solely because it is lovely, it must be designed by someone, is intellectually bankrupt. We perceive it as lovely, because we evolved within it, and it is life and breath to us. To someone from one of the moons of Jupiter, the earth is one of the most hell-hole ugly places there ever could be!
(All that corrosive Oxygen! What were they thinking!)
That link has nothing to do with the reference to the Time-Life volume. The link makes reference to a rather long article; In any case I was only referring to Bishop’s article, the ten paragraphs in the middle. Spare me your sarcastic descriptions.
Bishop’s article is even stupider than I expected. He was ignorant of the concepts of evolution and the conservation of angular momentum. Not to mention gravity.
Did he really think that oceans don’t go flying off because of the rotation of the earth?
If you’d like we can go over that thing line by line and demonstrate that every word is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
You can just bring one of the residents of the Mariana’s trench up to the surface. Oops - it exploded. It was much happier down there at unimaginable pressures than up here.
Take it up with your friendly neighborhood physicist.
[QUOTE=Voyager; 187706082]
Did he really think that oceans don’t go flying off because of the rotation of the earth?
If you’d like we can go over that thing line by line and demonstrate that every word is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
I think Bishop’s IQ went up when he died.
[/QUOTE]
May it work out likewise for you. The sooner the better.
Like? Why would I like to? I sense that, If Jim Bishop were around and you had the chance, you would spit in his face.
I can only think of two ways to interpret this post. Either you’re implying that he lacks IQ points - he’s stupid - or you wish him dead. Either is out of line in GD.
I’m not Voyager, but if Jim Bishop were around I will point to him that there is this “silly” thing called the march of science. Lets look at an example (and I do agree with Voyager that the Bishop was very naive.)
[QUOTE= Jim Bishop]
Who gave the human tongue flexibility to form words and a brain to understand them, but denied it to all other animals?
[/QUOTE]
What? It seems that god forgot to tell him about chimps dolphins orcas and prairie dogs. (The point here is that if the Bishop really had a line to god then god should had told him these things even before the scientists found it)
If he was as smart as a preacher I once found at Berkeley he would had then removed or changed that point, the plaza preacher at the university had fliers that claimed that monkeys were more moderate in their sex drive than the sinner students, so they should learn what nature and god intended. He dumped the flyers on the trash when I pointed out what the bonobos do.
No, why should I? The Bishop tract was utterly inane glurge, wholly deserving of mockery and snide repudiation – at least, to the eyes of people who understand stuff.
Not my problem if you read my post and miss this big fat point:
So thank you for showing all that you do not pay attention. The other point you miss is that the Bishop was… well wrong. And since he is no longer with us it is pertinent that any follower should amend or comment on the issues where he was wrong, otherwise you are only a demonstration of a follower of ignorance.
Only to the extent that I see fit to ignore YOU. To me, following your position in this regard is tantamount to ingesting strychnine, for all I stand to gain from it.
Me and the students that saw the plaza preacher from Berkeley dump the fliers actually ended respecting that preacher more. Indeed the truth will set you free…
… of misunderstandings and making your message stronger and not set for ridicule.
On edit: That was not the point dougie_monty, everyone can see that I made several points and you claimed that I made none, your silly reply only demonstrates a lack of good faith, what a sorry example you give.
Don’t be silly, I’m an agnostic of the teapot variety. For a long time I concluded that organized religion was not going to go away any time soon, so the best thing a humanist can do is to make sure religion remains benevolent, good thing that you guys lost the power of sending people with sceptical ideas to be burned.
And one big reason for that is that societies had to tell them to knock it off.
Over here the effort is to show how inadequate is to depend on erroneous and past due date references or ideas. I’m really sincere on the point that continuing to use or double down on defending mistakes and erroneous information does diminish any religious message made.
You have the problem, not me.
On edit: A politician? if you think that makes it bad for me you are mistaken, I was wrong on his background, but then defending what he said is even more silly as he was not even a reported authority either.
And nothing he wrote wasn’t already known to be incorrect when he wrote it. It is not like advances since then made him wrong - he was wrong from 1687. (When Newton published Principia for anyone not having memorized that date.)
So, dougie, do you understand why that piece is so bogus? Want to learn?