the bible

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

in fact the discourse is so brilliant here we actually have several threads now devoted to how brilliant we are here.  i myself have started about five or six of them  

[RoninFox]

Okay, questions over which is the best translation of the bible...

solved thanks to BBQ Platypus

[basselope]

Just a note for those interested in the Romer book "Testament"
Barnes & Noble resellers show 6 "New" or new condition copies starting at about $8.00 USD.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Testament/John-Romer/p/9781568524894/?CND=5

Still searching for the vids.... anywhere!

[Tripe]

Here's a little of it:

[yt=425,350]flqBSbwrzvQ[/yt]

[basselope]

Here's a little of it:

Dude, you're killin' me!    I feel like a junkie in need of a fix.

Just to dirty up the water a little further, I thought I might mention A rather prodigious and definitely controversial author, Harun Yahya, a "Turkish Intellectual". Most all of his works are freely available from his website: http://www.harunyahya.com/
Most of his material will probably rub you the wrong way, but the man is not stupid. He does raise some interesting points... if you can wade past all of the extreme rhetoric.
This is from the introduction to his book "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution"

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

It always amazes me when I see people that can be so intelligent and basically throw it all away by using their talents as a weapon. Then again, the biggest slimes in history only get that title because they had enough followers to make them noticeable. Without a crowd you're just an eccentric a$$hole!

[Tripe]

Here's a little of it:

Dude, you're killin' me!    I feel like a junkie in need of a fix.

Thing is, that was just put up a couple of days ago, I wonder if he'll be posting more of it.

Romer really is a great presented of ideas, do you want to see his bit about pagan iconography?

[DarthChimay]

Just to dirty up the water a little further, I thought I might mention A rather prodigious and definitely controversial author, Harun Yahya, a "Turkish Intellectual". Most all of his works are freely available from his website: http://www.harunyahya.com/
Most of his material will probably rub you the wrong way, but the man is not stupid. He does raise some interesting points... if you can wade past all of the extreme rhetoric.
This is from the introduction to his book "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution"

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

It always amazes me when I see people that can be so intelligent and basically throw it all away by using their talents as a weapon. Then again, the biggest slimes in history only get that title because they had enough followers to make them noticeable. Without a crowd you're just an eccentric a$$hole!

I dunno. After reading a couple of chapters in that Collapse of Evolution book, I have to say that I do find the man to be stupid. He's using arguments that have been soundly debunked for years, even a century for a couple of them. It made my brain hurt. I don't want to hijack the thread with an evolution/creationism discussion - someone can start a separate thread for that and I'll be more than willing to join in - but I will say that I do sometimes wish creationists came up with some new arguments instead of just trotting out the same old tired garbage they've done for the past century.

[basselope]

I dunno. After reading a couple of chapters in that Collapse of Evolution book, I have to say that I do find the man to be stupid. He's using arguments that have been soundly debunked for years, even a century for a couple of them. It made my brain hurt. I don't want to hijack the thread with an evolution/creationism discussion - someone can start a separate thread for that and I'll be more than willing to join in - but I will say that I do sometimes wish creationists came up with some new arguments instead of just trotting out the same old tired garbage they've done for the past century.

hehehe...
I felt the same way... still do, really. It's not easy to wade through that kind of drivel without wanting to slap him in the back of the head and shout "IDIOT!" The majority of his arguments are, as you said, tired garbage, but he does manage to hit on a few things that make you think.

Maybe it's the "Jackass the movie" syndrome for me. It's not that I particularly enjoy it, but those "you've got to be kidding me!" moments keep me hanging on. Hmmm... come to think of it, that might explain why I keep collecting scientology crap and, to a lesser extent, Dawkins... among others.

[DarthChimay]

hehehe...
I felt the same way... still do, really. It's not easy to wade through that kind of drivel without wanting to slap him in the back of the head and shout "IDIOT!" The majority of his arguments are, as you said, tired garbage, but he does manage to hit on a few things that make you think.

Maybe it's the "Jackass the movie" syndrome for me. It's not that I particularly enjoy it, but those "you've got to be kidding me!" moments keep me hanging on. Hmmm... come to think of it, that might explain why I keep collecting scientology crap and, to a lesser extent, Dawkins... among others.

Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

[BathTub]

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

[basselope]

Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

[Tyrant]

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

  Although I'll admit he's a staggeringly brilliant individual with many good arguments for this and that, I find him to be of an overall arrogant and condescending attitude towards anyone who has different opinions than him. I've always thought scientists should be more open-minded than that. I'm amused about the tiny molecule of doubt he's got towards his (lack of) beliefs. None of us can ever be 100% sure of ANYTHING (science is the first to admit this), and Dawkins is just barely sliding under that fence with his tiny molecule so he's not a hypocrite amongst his own. 

[Tripe]

Actually one of my most abiding memories of Dawkins is from the Faraday lectures he gave back in 1991.

He was telling an anecdote about how he was asking his (I think 3 or 4 year-old at the time of the story) daughter why she thought flowers presented so many colours. She'd answered "to make the world pretty daddy".

He said "So I had to tell her she was wrong"

I remember thinking, I hope you didn't phrase it exactly like that, sounds a bit blunt really.

[torgosPizza]

I would rather be told that directly than have some made-up answer. "You're right! It's because the world needs to be pretty!"

Kind of like, at the beginning of god is Not Great, Hitchens relays a story about a teacher who said that the world is green "because that color is easy for our eyes to look at." Well, no, Hitch says. Our eyes are adapted to the color of nature, not the other way around.

To me, the honest answers are the best answers, regardless of bluntness.

[Tripe]

No it's not the telling her she's wrong it's the way you phrase that. That's what I meant, I thought it was funny.

See I can tell my daughter that that's not why the flowers are all those colours in ways that are less blunt and flat as "your wrong!"

See that is the thing about Dawkins he is very bright but he's also a quintessential science nerd/Mr. Logic at times, or at least that's sometimes the image he has. It's kind of amusing.

And really Honesty may be the best answer in some situations but Blunt and Honest do not have to go hand in hand. In fact just saying "your wrong" isn't even the best way to communicate that fact