dougie, I think you misunderstood the story that GIGObuster told; it was about a man who learned that an argument he had been making in good faith was based on an incorrect premise, and did the honest thing by no longer using the incorrect argument. There is no indication that the preacher stopped believing in God - just that he stopped using a bogus argument.
Learn what? Atheism? Contempt for non-atheists? That’s what I’m getting here…
Not that he had any genuine argument to use–or is that the objective?
Hopefully, he found a genuine argument after he stopped using an argument based on incomplete information.
Yep, you got it, AFAIK the preacher did continue with his preaching, no need to stop believing, only to stop using silly arguments.
There was something different about the “preachers” at Sproul plaza in Berkeley, I think they did learn early that they needed to tailor their message constantly as that crowd was not like the one they would found in less intelligent settings.
I still remember another fun encounter very early one morning with another “preacher” (It seems to me that a few were not reverends but just people on a mission to “save” the students from science).
It a very cold morning and I was walking fast to get to work at the Main Library.
When at the plaza gate to get to the university there was one of the preachers.
“No time do discuss” I thought. And continued walking to pass through the gate.
Just then I could hear him going: “Christ was perfect in any way, read the bible, he never made a mistake, he never made a mistake!!”
And then, like if the stars aligned 
, at the same time I was passing the gate my mind got an idea and I said in a hurry: “Except when he attempted to pick fruit out of season!”
I could not see his expression but the few kids that were around also heard what I usually do not hear in many discussions. He stopped and thought about what an opponent said, did not just spout more nonsense back.
He did pause indeed, and after a nervous laugh he said “UH! Mmm, well… maybe!?
Could not stop to commend him for not being the usual “I will ignore any contrary information, so there” system of [del]witnessing[/del] debating .
You’re really not paying adequate attention if you think so.
Learn why that article is so wrong, of course. You don’t have to be an atheist to recognize misunderstandings of science.
It seems to me that I have three strikes against me in any case if I question your assertions, no matter what method I use. I particularly recall a thread in The BBQ Pit, in which one scientific authority whom I adduced was repudiated as having no real expertise in the field; as for a second I cited, you gave him the Joe-Freen-is-a-lousy-son-of-a-bitch dismissal. So I can’t win. You reject all my sources out of hand. There’s no point in me continuing with this.
It is true that there is no, zero, absolutely no reputable science supporting creationist claims.
The thing is that Joe Bishop was a reporter and a writer, his ponderings on what he thought science told us about god were only his opinion, and his “facts” were wrong.
What I do in cases when a source I used was flawed is to, well, not use it any more.
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address.
Well, then, perhaps we should just burn our Bibles. And put on blindfolds and walk out onto the freeway.
The thing is that even high school physics or physics 101 in college is enough to refute him. I’m old enough to remember his best sellers - not that I read any of them.
Ditto for the biology part.
If someone attacked Christianity because they were under the impression that Jesus lived in New Jersey, you wouldn’t have to be a theologian to show that they were wrong. This stuff is about that level.
Why are you so resistant to looking at the facts?
a) get better sources
b) actually, you know, post a coherent, reasoned argument citing your sources
c) be willing to learn
If your minister or whatever you guys call him told you to walk blindfolded on the freeway because God will protect you, would you? Science has nothing to do with being blindfolded, it has everything to do with opening your mind to all possibilities - and then rigorously testing them.
That is silly, even prairie dogs would not do that. 
The basic problem remains, if you are still propping up Bishop then it would lead the faithful to create special churches to spread the word among the prairie dogs since they were not denied their capacity for language by god.
So, no, Bishop and many like him should had been dropped a long time ago as a source. And indeed, many that are still believers do not see that action as a show stopper, life will go on for the faithful, and it will be less ignorant.
And there will be no need to convert those heathen prairie dogs…
No; believers should file their Bibles away as just another book of mythology, and take their blindfolds off.
Here is the problem we (many of us) have with Bishop, et al:
And lo, God did spread his hand, and the mountains were covered with snow, and the streams ran fulsome, and the harvests were bountiful
Then, one year, the winter snows become scanty, the rivers turn to trickles, and the crops are scrawny and inadequate. So, since God is the agent, we pray, slaughter goats, drive out the homosexuals and adulteresses, perhaps even sacrifice a virgin, in the hope that God will recognize our penitence and purification, that he might restore the depth of the winter snows.
Which leaves us in a dicey position. Because these things do not have an effect. The winter snows may or may not come back, the evidence shows that praying to God is exactly as effective as not praying to God.
Meanwhile, rapt in our righteous fervor, we have attended no consideration on how to deal with the lean years, because God is always there to make it right. Nor have we examined the other possible causes of diminished snow or that there might, possibly, be a behavior we can change that could mitigate the problem.
So, in very real terms, God is a practical cop-out. By relying on belief, we eschew useful discovery, which does not merely inhibit our growth and progress, it can quite literally be dangerous to our survival.
Fortunately, the people in the bible-first camp number in the vanishing (albeit loud) minority, if we can keep them confined to their camp, they will be mostly harmless. Most of us do not really feel animosity toward those people, we just need them to throw wrenches in their own works and leave everyone else’s be.
Do you seriously not see any middle ground here? Is “I was wrong” so hard for you to say, you equate it to “burning your Bible” and “walking blindfolded on the freeway?”
How about revising your interpretation of your Bible? How about reconsidering a doctrinal stance? How about having second thoughts about the meaning of a specific verse?
How incredibly insecure must a person be to prefer suicide to admitting his own errors?
That is not how Evolution works.
Yes, being not a Being!