Evolution? How?

spendius wrote:

timber wrote-

Quote:

Again, what you offer is not argument, it is ignorance, fear, and superstition. Once more, demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith, particularly the specific religious faith you appear to endorse, be differentiable from superstition.

I have done that for you timber. To do so I gave a short version, as best I could, of Kingsley Davis's explanation. (Berkeley). It's in Human Society published by The Macmillan Company of New York. It's clear cut.

I submit, spendi, no such condition pertains. I assert your claim per that regard is erroneous, in that, in the cited work, Davis (on pages 509 & 510 of the copy I have to hand) unambiguously describes the "rationalistic approach" to religion and matters religious as a major fallacy, explicitly declaring "religious behavior is not rational". By way of expansion, I refer you to the 1959 Address Delivered by Davis (note: 16 page .pdf document), "The Myth of Functional Analysis As A Special Method In Sociology and Anthropology", wherein Davis at length and in detail shreds any basis for the notion you've presented.

RexRed wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Rex...all that training, yet no rationality. Maybe you should get a reality check and pick up a nice hobby like golf.

Science has so many holes as it is and rationality is a legitimate process for creating more holes.

I submit, Rex, that what is "full of holes" is not science but rather is your flawed perception of science.

I submit, spendi, no such condition pertains. I assert your claim per that regard is erroneous, in that, in the cited work, Davis (on pages 509 & 510 of the copy I have to hand) unambiguously describes the "rationalistic approach" to religion and matters religious as a major fallacy, explicitly declaring "religious behavior is not rational". By way of expansion, I refer you to this 1959 Address Delivered by Davis (note: 16 page .pdf document), "The Myth of Functional Analysis As A Special Method In Sociology and Anthropology", wherein Davis at length and in detail shreds any basis for the notion you've presented.

RR would monkey (sic) around with golf as well. He'd be certain that the ball would be better hit if he held onto the head of the club and hit the ball with the handle. He'd tout that the physics are much more ideal and that professional golfers have holes in their playing technique.

Oh, boy, ya picked up on my double entrendre and then had to explain it to others. You take the cake.

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking?

We were talking about the difference between the two words,religion and superstition.

I never said that the beliefs of religious people are rational. If they were rational they wouldn't be beliefs.

2000 year old words still have meaning today.

Quote:

2000 year old words still have meaning today.

Some do, but then some of them are pretty dumb.

Nope, I believe I exist, and most would consider that axiomatic and rational, nonetheless it's a belief.

An antiquated book that has spawned more than a few movies, most of them mediocre films. Could it be the material isn't really that good? I watched "Samsom and Delilah" again a few months ago and it was howlingly awful. The production values were there, they had decent actors but that script! Then we had "The Bible" where John Huston basically but the last nail in the coffin on Biblical epics. If this is such great material and it had John Huston at the helm, why was the movie so boring? The answer: they are stories that fascinate children -- unfortunately, of all ages.