Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID

[RJT]

PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, OK. Fair enough.

I must say though, that if any of you understand what DS is talking about with his "scale", you also accept it in some way. You can't have one without the other (talk to chezlaw about logic, "meaning", etc [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). It is pretty clear that Bluff is rather proud with this statement by this guy from the vatican, i.e, he thinks it does matter in some way where exactly you stand on DS' "nuts/less" ladder (for instance, in comparison to protenstants, or other religion). Otherwise I can't see why post this at all.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, OK. Fair enough.

I must say though, that if any of you understand what DS is talking about with his "scale", you also accept it in some way. You can't have one without the other (talk to chezlaw about logic, "meaning", etc [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). It is pretty clear that Bluff is rather proud with this statement by this guy from the vatican, i.e, he thinks it does matter in some way where exactly you stand on DS' "nuts/less" ladder (for instance, in comparison to protenstants, or other religion). Otherwise I can't see why post this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM,

The only thing we believers agree to when entering into the discussion here on the forum is to use the “language” of the person talking. This does not mean because we accept the vernacular for discussion purposes that we concede to any premises. If neither side agrees to start at some point then there is no discussion.

Bottom line is that we believers think atheists are nuts and visa versa. Sure, we can stop there and say then there is no point in going further. What does that serve? (Of course, there is no point, per se, to all this discussion.) The good the discussion does, as I see it is two fold: To come to a better understanding of others and to partake in the “journey of life" more fully.

If we look at it from your point then it is all nonsense. As is all philosophy nonsense then. So too then is cosmology and things of that sort. I mean what do we really expect to find in the cosmos - are we going to find some key to unlock the doors of perception? Perhaps, I am naïve but I fund that not bloody well likely.

The only thing that Bluff is proud of is in Dr. Coyne’s genius. It is not evident from the short article, but the guy is no dummy. Do you really think that the director of the Vatican Observatory doesn’t have a clue to cosmology? If that is the case (that you think he has no clue) then Bluff posting the link is more important than I am sure he originally thought.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that Bluff is proud of is in Dr. Coyne’s genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, do you honestly want me to believe that that is "the only thing that Bluff is proud of?". No offence, but you must be kidding (kidding yourself and others). Dr. Coyne's genius? for saying that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms? I know many 12 years old who think and would say the same. Actually, most "normal" people, IMO, think so. Where exactly is the genius here?

And seriously, who cares about this particular dude? who cares about whether he has a clue in cosmology or not? Clearly, it was posted in order to "prove" something with regard to catholicism (Bluff also specifically used the word "proof"). Dr whatsisname that I have never heard about is just playing a role here, a role in a general argument about the "nuts"-iness of catholicism as opposed to other religions.

[RJT]

PM,

I obviously do not know Bluff’s actual intent of the post (how could I?) I’ll let Bluff speak for himself. I was merely expressing what seemed obvious to me.

What I am saying and did in fact say is that Coyne is no dummy. If you read my post you will see that I told you that one cannot tell from this short article that he has smarts. I assumed from your other posts (you being no dummy) that you would realize that since we know that Coyne is the director of the Vatican Observatory, one should be about to deduce that he has something going for himself. Perhaps I should have told you what else I assumed was evident, that is the Vatican Observatory isn’t some villa in the hills outside of Rome with a guy in a black robe and a Tasco telescope.

You are correct that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that ID isn’t Science. I did not say that because Coyne say so, therefore he is a genius. Indeed I have not the wherewithal to label him such even if I knew him personally. That distinction is not something I am smart enough to determine.

You also missed my point in Bluff’s vocabulary. Too reiterate, he is using the vernacular of David. Bluff’s words are not his own original choice of words. He could very well have simply posted the link to the article. He chose to segue from David’s earlier post is all.

You might be right in one thing though - posts and discussion like these are perhaps a waste of time. I may have misunderstood you (from your earlier posts) regarding your interest in rational discourse. It is ironic that really you appear (now at least) to be only interested in “pontification”.

RJT

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this at all. If you accept this strange categorization of "very much nuts"-"nuts"-less nuts"-not nuts" etc, as you seem to do and very happily so, why not just try to stop being nuts altogether by quitting catholicism? This will clearly put you closer to a "no nuts" spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a toungue and cheek reference to a post Sklansky made awhile back saying that he considered Catholics to be the least nuts among Christians.

****oops, didn't see RJT beat me to it....gotta learn to read these threads in their entirity*****

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this at all. If you accept this strange categorization of "very much nuts"-"nuts"-less nuts"-not nuts" etc, as you seem to do and very happily so, why not just try to stop being nuts altogether by quitting catholicism? This will clearly put you closer to a "no nuts" spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a toungue and cheek reference to a post Sklansky made awhile back saying that he considered Catholics to be the least nuts among Christians.

****oops, didn't see RJT beat me to it....gotta learn to read these threads in their entirity*****

[/ QUOTE ]

Daddyio,

Perhaps, you are correct BigDaddy. He might not know the reference. Either that or he doesn't know what the word vernacular means.

RJT

[PrayingMantis]

Well I wasn't too sure about how much it was a toungue in cheek post with reference to DS's "scale" (Of course I am aware of this "scale"). It sounded quite a bit too proud in order for it to actually be "toungue in cheek", especially since it was coming from an opinionated catholic. In any case, if it was indeed tongue in cheek and nothing more then clearly my replies here were irrelevant. Perhaps I'll never know for sure, unless the OP will say something about it.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'll never know for sure, unless the OP will say something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only silence from any poster that I think is interesting here is David S.’s. After all his talk about geniuses/atheists and the assumption being that they are somewhat logical “outside of the classroom” is shown time and again here on the forum to be a fallacy.

Of course there is no indication that PM is a genius. I am simply saying that post like these, where the poster brings his bias to the discussion does not lead one to conclude that smart atheist have a clue, let alone a better clue than believers.

Whether it was tongue in cheek or only an allusion to David’s terminology, nothing from the post leads to anything more.

RJT

p.s. This somewhat attack of you by me is not meant to be personal - it is strictly business. The unchecked arrogance of some atheist here on the forum is getting tiring. (Perhaps it is that the Religion topic has run its course - or maybe it‘s me.)

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The only silence from any poster that I think is interesting here is David S.’s. After all his talk about geniuses/atheists and the assumption being that they are somewhat logical “outside of the classroom” is shown time and again here on the forum to be a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how is this paragraph related to this thread, or specifically to my posts here.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there is no indication that PM is a genius. I am simply saying that post like these, where the poster brings his bias to the discussion does not lead one to conclude that smart atheist have a clue, let alone a better clue than believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow you here at all. What bias are you refering to? Also, FWIW, I'm not defining myself as an "atheist", nor as "religious" in a normal sense. Another point is that I have never agreed with any of DS' points with regard to being religious/non-religious and logic "outside of the classroom".

(I won't be able to reply in the next 15 hours or so, just to let you know... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )