Disbelief is not a choice

[naisho]

That is quite a change from your original post on this subject - you didn't even acknowledge he was found guilty of fraud.

But, now that you did, you are claiming all his other research wasn't

A known fraudster .... we should still believe him?


hmmmm ... ok. carry on.

Steinhauer... do you know what was important about Haeckel and what exactly was considered fraud in what he did? This is not an armchair question, this is something you'd read in a biology text.

 

[jillio]

If you note, the article was written by a member of an organization dedicated to secular humanism. Secular humanism and religious thinking don't necessarily preclude each others. By definition, what makes one a secular humanist is the ability to accept new evidences and adjusting their philosophy accordingly.
Saying that, one can still have a civil discussion about the topic at hand. Do not lie, the reason why religious discussion is a taboo on AllDeaf is because it usually boils down to a screaming-match "YOU'RE WRONG!" over interpretations.

There are some things that are factual however. Scientific advances always flourish in environments where they are secular. We see this repeatedly throughout history. In Greece, it flourished throughout the Hellenistic era.

The reason why sciences flourished during the Golden Age of Islam was because of a doctrine called ijtihad [trans. "independent reasoning"]. They declined since the 13th to 14th century because of a shift to taqlid, which in practice means obeying a higher authority.

Florence was largely secular too during the Renaissance during the 14th and 15th century.

We see a similar course of action under the Dutch Empire where they offered people refugees from the Protestant-Catholic War.

Similarly, the reason why Soviet and American sciences were so tightly competitive during the Cold War was because the scientific institutes in both countris were given some leeway in thinking for themselves; post-Stalinism that is. It's a bit of a misnomer to say Russian Communism prohibits free-thinking because the elites were largely democratic and for the most part they could speak freely among themselves; it's just that the commoners couldn't speak out.

So what David Niose is arguing against are people who see secular institutes as a threat to the survival of their theologies. One of the major arguments against secularism is the absence of a supernatural is a choice. It is not a choice when one realizes there is a natural order to things which can be explained without provoking the outerworldly. Doing so otherwise is sticking their head in the sand.

True, that. Secular humanism does not imply an absence of spirituality nor of religious belief.

 

[naisho]

Wirelessly posted

Oh boy, J found the thread... And there 152 replies to read through.

Sit tight everyone while she catches up.

entering Warp speed ahead, mr spock

 

[jillio]

That's why I refuse to debate the Bible with most people when I had to concede to an Old Earth creationist. It became really apparent it depends on how people read it. If it is dependent on how one reads it, then there is no real point in bringing it into the debate in the first place; because doing so otherwise runs the risks of offending others.

It is not only dependent upon how people read it, it is dependent upon their fundamental mind set and beleif system as to how what they read is interpreted. Most interpretations are completely predictable when the previous is considered as a variable.

 

[jillio]

I believe science has been used as a tool to prove factual information that may or may not contradict religious beliefs.

Wouldn't that be known as progress? When occurrances can be explained scientifically, there is no longer a need to explain them with superstition.

 

[jillio]

That is quite a change from your original post on this subject - you didn't even acknowledge he was found guilty of fraud.

But, now that you did, you are claiming all his other research wasn't

A known fraudster .... we should still believe him?


hmmmm ... ok. carry on.

Try to look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on a point that is neither here nor there.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

Oh boy, J found the thread... And there 152 replies to read through.

Sit tight everyone while she catches up.

I'm working on it, Souggy!

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Ah, she's done. I was half-expecting the thread to double in comments when I returned.

 

[rolling7]

Who decides intent? "Intended purpose" is not a set function. It changes constantly depending upon the individual and the circumstances surrounding that individual.

You wish! Nope, nature sets the intended proposes....but you already knew that!

 

[rolling7]

Wirelessly posted

I only used Amerindians as an example because there are huge distortions about them. The methodology can be applied to any culture, so accusing someone of not mentioning Africans a bit silly.

First off, for oral history to be used, it must be recorded through some means be it through correspondences, codices, video tapes, digital reproduction, whatever.

Second of all, historians acknowledge people who produce primary sources don't really paint the full picture of their environment or time-frame. The choice of medium and audience omits crucial information due to the inherit nature of the medium.

Like say, if I was to record to preserve the first known footage of American Sign Language, the medium is going to be black and white. The films are going to be short, and what is conveyed is the stories the signer has to share. Right off the bat, there are several limitations: it's in black and white, it's only one person signing, the stories don't necessarily tell us much information besides the signs one person used during early 19000s and any implications derived from the stories; and there is no audio. As silly as it sound, the absence of audio for an early film leaves out clues like gutteral noises, background noises such as say-- maybe the coo of a Passenger Pigeon! Inclusion of seemingly meaningless details like this could have a vastly different interpretation.

Makes sense?

Yes, when applied fairly and balanced.

 

[rolling7]

The statements you seem to be objecting to are fact as supported by the evidence.

So....post the evidence here...oh, that right..you can post the name of a medically acceptable test BECAUSE there is none

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

Ah, she's done. I was half-expecting the thread to double in comments when I returned.

I am attempting to practice restraint. You and others have done so well in expressing my belief and my understanding that I found it would only be redundant to reply to most comments.

 

[jillio]

So....post the evidence here...oh, that right..you can post the name of a medically acceptable test BECAUSE there is none

Where did I say there was a medically accepted test? It would appear that you are very confused.

 

[jillio]

You wish! Nope, nature sets the intended proposes....but you already knew that!

I know nothing of the kind. Nor does science.

 

[rolling7]

Where did I say there was a medically accepted test? It would appear that you are very confused.

You have not been around lately. The test name has been ask for more than one. Nevertheless, go back and re-read your post #160.
Since you were not here, my objections is to the Mr. Noise making statements as facts WITHOUT offering any proof....sound like someone you know?

 

[rolling7]

I know nothing of the kind. Nor does science.

If you don't know that nature sets the intended purpose of body parts, then post here who/what does WITH your proof, of course.

 

[jillio]

You have not been around lately. The test name has been ask for more than one. Nevertheless, go back and re-read your post #160.
Since you were not here, my objections is to the Mr. Noise making statements as facts WITHOUT orrying any proof....sound like someone you know?

I have been attending an out of state academic meeting. Why would I provide the name of any medical test when I have never claimed that one existed?

He has proof.Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the medical literature on the topic. Proof does not always come in the form of a blood test.

 

[jillio]

If you don't know that nature sets the intended purpose of body parts, then post here who/what does WITH your proof, of course.

Have you ever heard of plasticity? It is virtually impossible to discuss these concepts with the ignorant. Therefore, I must determine exactly what your level of knowlege is, as you seem to be prone to misunderstanding posts.

 

[rolling7]

He DOES!?!? First time AD has heard that......be a sweetheart and post HIS proof for us all.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Take the homosexuality debate to the other thread. It doesn't matter how somneone become gay or transgender. What is clear is every attempt to cure homosexuality and transgenderism, short of extreme electro-colvusion and labotomy, has failed. The only ones who claim any measure of success relies on internal suppression of such thoughts.