Skip to main content

#39. from the skeptic handbook"

39. Put together a handout on local “haunted history” legends and their likely explanations for your town’s historical society, or develop a skeptical “ghost” tour.
■Historical groups are interested in folklore, but they deal in fact and are sensitive to our aims and objectives. Work with them

They are messin' with halloween, NO CANDY!!<<TURNS DOWN LIP>>
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

number one in the skeptic handbook,

Why am I not surprised. Tithing.


cover art for the full panel discussion version
1. Donate money to skeptical organizations.
■Skeptical organizations have their eyes on many worthy projects they can’t afford.
■Many skeptics groups are registered nonprofits and able to accept tax-deductible donations. Donate now to the Skeptics Society, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly called the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal, or CSICOP).
Excerpt from Skeptic
evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, has penned the following analysis of Dawkins’ theory of religion, which he feels is wide of the mark based on the evidence.

Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory. We share an interest in culture as an evolutionary process in its own right. We are both atheists in our personal convictions who have written books on religion. In Darwin’s Cathedral I attempted to contribute to the relatively new field of evolutionary religious studies. When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. Hence this critique of The God Delusion and the larger issues at stake.


At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.
quote:
Originally posted by buffalo:
At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.


I know someone on this forum that is a very angry "Christian" & vents his own personal opinion if you don't agree with him or if he thinks you are not in his version of the "correct" religion.
quote:
Originally posted by buffalo:
Excerpt from Skeptic
evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, has penned the following analysis of Dawkins’ theory of religion, which he feels is wide of the mark based on the evidence.

Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory. We share an interest in culture as an evolutionary process in its own right. We are both atheists in our personal convictions who have written books on religion. In Darwin’s Cathedral I attempted to contribute to the relatively new field of evolutionary religious studies. When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. Hence this critique of The God Delusion and the larger issues at stake.


At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.


That is an excerpt from Skeptic Magazine, to which I subscribe.

You have quote mined a criticism, without context nor response. Your post is an example of Fundie dishonesty.

There is no other word for it.

If you must resort to this sort of rhetorical and logical dishonesty, we may assume with good reason that you are compensating for the inadequacies of your arguments against Evolution, which is, after all, Dawkins' topic of expertise.

We win again. We always do. Truth is on our side.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
quote:
Originally posted by buffalo:
Excerpt from Skeptic
evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, has penned the following analysis of Dawkins’ theory of religion, which he feels is wide of the mark based on the evidence.

Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory. We share an interest in culture as an evolutionary process in its own right. We are both atheists in our personal convictions who have written books on religion. In Darwin’s Cathedral I attempted to contribute to the relatively new field of evolutionary religious studies. When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. Hence this critique of The God Delusion and the larger issues at stake.


At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.


That is an excerpt from Skeptic Magazine, to which I subscribe.

You have quote mined a criticism, without context nor response. Your post is an example of Fundie dishonesty.

There is no other word for it.

If you must resort to this sort of rhetorical and logical dishonesty, we may assume with good reason that you are compensating for the inadequacies of your arguments against Evolution, which is, after all, Dawkins' topic of expertise.

We win again. We always do. Truth is on our side.


nsns


Deep , what do you do with your old issues of SKEPTIC magazine?

If they accumulate in the toilet and substantial numbers of pages remain unused I suggest the following from the SKEPTIC handbook:

64. Donate skeptical books, DVDs, and magazine subscriptions to local and school libraries — especially material suitable for kids!
Some libraries dislike adding books one at a time. Check with your local librarian for the best way to contribute.
Consider funding a five- or ten-year run of a skeptical magazine.
WorldCat can give you a precise list of libraries in your area that have specific skeptical books.
DVDs are more likely to be accepted than books
Hahaha slim, get home I’ve been wantin’ to enter you in the fair.lol

Check this out. From the Skeptic atheist hand book. #34


34. Get a booth at community fairs and events and fill it with information about being a skeptic.
This can be a great organization builder — and fun for members.
Look at the booths and materials other groups use, and learn from those.
Remember to make it fun! Keep text to a minimum. Have stuff like Red FaceBigfoot tracks to handle and get the conversation started. Have flyers for local skeptical groups

Bigfoot tracks???? Eeker Where does one get a pack??? Roll Eyes

LINK to lots of fun <snicker>

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×