Richard Dawkins

Thats fair enough Bart.

But I would like to make the following point.
I know who you are, and presumably you know me, through my previous posts and also because I have filled in my profile. Unlike some.
I would hate to see these boards hijacked by unknowns who would not fill in their profiles and use these boards for fundamentalism. The internet is a big pond and all the fish that swim therein are not all benign. I smell something fishy here and so will drop out of this dicussion. Again good luck to you as you usually talk a lot of sense and I agree with most of what you are saying. Adieu!

People don't need religion to tell them what's right or wrong.

so it IS an appeal to secular natural law! If it isn't them care to show me how to scientifically derive this woman's behaviour.

No, it is not an appeal to a secular natural law. It is a a simple observation of reality. There are plenty of people who do not believe in religion but who can still tell right from wrong.

So waht is the definition of "right2 and "wrong"? According to what principles? For example was what the NAZIs did to jews slavs and gypsies wrong? according to what principle was it wrong?

What you are making It IS an appeal to natural law.

Im just trying to point out two things.

1. the nature of scientism and the related assumption of the "certainty" of science.
2. christianity in particular (but mainstream religion in genersl) is NOT like kook cults juju or other such groups.

voyager wrote:

[If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

I get equally annoyed by all missionaries, regardless of what religion they are peddling. And yes, that includes atheism.

does it include missionaries for scientism?

ISAW,

How do you like being quoted out of context ??
You seem to have no trouble doing it yourself.

Really? where? have you any evidence to support this accusation/contention?

Lads,
Discussing religion here with a scientific slant is sightly off topic but will be allowed so long as people are respectful to each other.
Given the tempers religious debates can flare, I would suggest that those wishing to have a heated debate do so using PMS to each other and not be arguing in public,
or just agree to disagree !!

I have expressed NO religious opinion of my own. In fact my personal beliefs have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my points fr the purpose of this debatw. I have only asked those who claim religion is "juju" the defend their claims of science being a superior philosophy and superior way to look at the world. Nor did I insist god has to come into it but "natural law" (whether secular or faith based) does come into it.

i will add that some people get annoyed when astrologers say things like "we all know and can take for granted that..."

ISAW - Most people here introduce themselves, and contribute to astronomy, if that is not your intention then what is..........

When you can't deal with the issues do you always resort to ad hominem?

What my intentions are have already been made clear and I HAVE posted before. I havent come back for some time. I dont see the need to establish any bona fides since I do not argue from authority!