Unfortunately more and more often science's conclusions don't change. They just produce new theories and more subjective "evidence" to back them up. If you want a real time example you need to look no further than 'man caused global warming".
Without turning this into a global warming thread; that's a subject that has had extensive, on-going study's revolving around it. Opinions have changed frequently. There must be some reason why the scientific community hasn't recently swayed from their current stance; perhaps because so far this is what the evidence shows?
Like I said, science changes. Just because you haven't seen them change their opinion on one topic recently doesn't mean they won't ever and doesn't mean they're wrong.
Atheist historians have denied the existance of several cities that are mentioned in scriptures that were later found by the pick and the shovel. They even denied the existance of King David until they found a little piece of stone from his reign with his name on it. They denied his existance even though there are six separate historical books in the Old Testament that mention him extensively. Moreover the largest book in the whole Bible is a collection of David's musical compositions. Until independant evidence was found these atheist scholars maintained that the absence physical evidence outside of the canon of scripture was proof that the bible was made up. Pretty much what Sam Harris does with his little chart.
What Atheist's claimed this? LINK?
Lots of places and names in the bible can be believed, do you think an atheist's goal is to disprove the whole book? hell even I believe there was a man named Yeshua. It's the ######ed fairy tales that people worship that irks an atheist.
BTW, can you loan me a candle and a pair of Jesus slippers?...it's dark in this whales belly and when I find my way out I think I'll need to walk across the sea to get home.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Without turning this into a global warming thread; that's a subject that has had extensive, on-going study's revolving around it. Opinions have changed frequently. There must be some reason why the scientific community hasn't recently swayed from their current stance; perhaps because so far this is what the evidence shows?
Like I said, science changes. Just because you haven't seen them change their opinion on one topic recently doesn't mean they won't ever and doesn't mean they're wrong.
It is where the big money is.
Sam Harris's motivation on the other hand was just being faithful to his faith. It probably helps that atheists are not restrained by any rigid moral code.
Those "scholars" who question the existance of persons or places found in a book that has proven so reliable historically are not unbiased in their judgments either. You've got two camps of scholars. The one points to anything said in the Bible and not confirmed independantly of the bible's 66 books as proof of its unreliability. The other uses the information within those books to find lost cities and understand the lives those people lived.
Sam Harris's motivation on the other hand was just being faithful to his faith.It probably helps that atheists are not restrained by any rigid moral code.
Those "scholars" who question the existance of persons or places found in a book that has proven so reliable historically are not unbiased in their judgments either. You've got two camps of scholars. The one points to anything said in the Bible and not confirmed independantly of the bible's 66 books as proof of its unreliability. The other uses the information within those books to find lost cities and understand the lives those people lived.
Do you even know anything about Sam Harris other than he's an atheist? Yes he's a critic of religion but his main problem with it is he wants it seperated from state because history has shown it causes nothing but grief.
Other than that he has a Ph.D, is a wonderful author and a brilliant speaker. he's also family man with high morals but unfortunately because of the religious groups made up mostly of Christians and Muslims throwing death threats at him he has to hire bodyguards to protect himself and his family.
Do yourself a favor and watch this, it's not a Christian slam vid.
Last edited by T@T; 11-17-2010 at 10:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Where else but on CalgaryPuck can you get CalgaryBorn calling Sam Harris the Atheist Benny Hinn. This is roughly equivalent to proclaiming Foghorn Leghorn to be Henry David Thoreau. Folks, you just can't make this kind of comedy up.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
Right, so this is the same Sam Harris who runs screaming, holding his breasts everytime someone mentions Dinesh D'Souza? Iginla and Sakic are Christians ,so please, for the love of Darwin, don't bother your little head with graphs unless it involves playoff picks.
She argues that looking at arguments put forward by Christian apologetics, most are at odds with that fact that Christianity failed to do the right thing time after time in history. And now apologetics use outcomes that might have nothing do with the influence of religion through history to prove their point.
"Right, so this is the same Sam Harris who runs screaming, holding his breasts everytime someone mentions Dinesh D'Souza? Iginla and Sakic are Christians ,so please, for the love of Darwin, don't bother your little head with graphs unless it involves playoff picks."
Not sure what you mean by this PeakOil, what does the fact that some highly paid athletes believe in a made up vindictive God have to do with a discussion about religion? Do you call them up and ask them what are good buys in the stock market too?
Cool Dawkins speech for those interested (slams pope):
From John Toland's book - Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography
Quote:
According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, although it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."
Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience, since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God—so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."
From John Toland's book - Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography
Dude, you should know better and you really shouldn't have gone there. Your credibility goes up in smoke instantly as both sides immediately fail when they appeal to Nazis (and both readily do!).
Dude, you should know better and you really shouldn't have gone there. Your credibility goes up in smoke instantly as both sides immediately fail when they appeal to Nazis (and both readily do!).
I didn't start the Hitler talk!
Edit, well maybe in text, but I was responding to the vid by Sliver
Right, so this is the same Sam Harris who runs screaming, holding his breasts everytime someone mentions Dinesh D'Souza?
Problem with a guy like Dinesh D'Souza is that he's skilled mainly on rhetoric and is not really an official religious nor scholarly authority in any capacity.
http://dailye.com/2010/03/timeline-of-the-universe/
Why your brain is wrong, according to me
