Australian Politics Forum - Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #150 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:16am

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:47am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:37am:

Mann is a shonky scientist whose Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked. He was part of ClimateGate and even now continues to push lie after lie after scientific lie.

There are literally handfuls of books written to debunk him and his junk science.

Really find me some examples of where a paper of his has been retracted? I'm willing to bet you can't because it's not the scientific community that largely has an issue with his behaviour.

ClimateGate, the the scandal that never was. A combined total of no less than 9 investigations by the UK government and independent ethics committees found no evidence of fraud or manipulation of data.

Selectively quoted emails by the media isn't better evidence than the investigations.

If you really want to debate this then I expect you to do some reading. Now, you are certainly one of the more credible debaters since you actually possess a brain and a degree of integrity. There are several books that debunk the Hockey Stick from a scientific basis despite all the efforts by Mann to frustrate them (in defiance of accepted scientific protocols). For instance, were you aware that his claim that the Medieval Warm period never existed is based literally on the evidence of the rings of a single north American tree? His statistical model has been repudiated by virtually everyone - including the world's top experts. When his statistical model was finally discovered it was found to be so 'robust' that no matter what data you put into it, a hockey stick was produced. EU exchange rates over 20 years produced... a hockey stick.

One of Manns co-authors has also said of late that the original report is fatally flawed.

And you might want to read the entire outcomes of the many investigations into Mann and the behaviour of his cohorts. They are not nearly as supportive as you think. One American enquiry that 'exonerated' him of fraud also said that his hockey stick was bad science. You only read that he was exonerated.

So, are you seriously up for a detailed debate? If so, so am I.

Just as a footnote, one author was sued by Mann for defamation when he said his HS was rubbish. It is now going to court. When the time came for amicus briefs to be submitted in support for each side, the author had dozens while Mann had literally none. Science it self might be happy to tolerate him but in a court of law, they want nothing to do with him. Even the IPCC has dumped the HS as has pretty much everyone else.

Thoughts?

I don't really know much about Mann per se. Basically just that he is a climate scientist. Scientists of course can be corrupt, or wrong or deluded. They are not super-human. The peer-review process, while imperfect is better than anything else we have.

My comments were more broadly focussed. Climate science, like all science continues to adapt to new information, but the overall conclusions have not altered for some time, even if the exact details have.

I don't really want to debate based purely on a person, but the overall state of climate science is controversial only politically. There are detractors of course, and the viewpoints they have should be considered like any other - via the scientific method. The idea the climate science is uniquely divided is a fiction.

Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?

I'll try to set aside some time, but he is only one scientist, so even if he has acted unethically it doesn't change the facts used to draw the current conclusions about climate change.

Don't be so sure. When you see how wrong he was, how obvious it was and how the world's scientists fell over themselves to support the insupportable, you will question their integrity as well as their ability. It took 15 years for this garbage to be effectively debunked and thrown in the bin. It should have taken 10 minutes. But it supported the agenda and so it was accepted uncritically. And there is the problem at hand - uncritical support of information that appears to support your cause. Science has suffered by the uncritical acceptance of some rather obvious rubbish notions.

You will find it very illuminating but also quite disturbing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #151 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:36am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?

Books are not scientific papers, so I'm somewhat sceptical of taking them at face value.

A brief look shows that the hockey stick has been criticised, but hardly debunked. The criticism have been refuted or at least challenged, and while the initial work wasn't perfect (there were issues with some of the statistics) the problems wouldn't have affected the conclusion.

I'm not sure what specifically you think is a problem with Mann's integrity. He feels that he has been defamed, which is why he is suing.

He has filed suit.
They tried to get the lawsuit dismissed under SLAPP - this was denied.
They appealed to a different Judge - this was also denied.
They have appealed again on the grounds of protected speech, with amicus briefs from various reporting / free speech organisations.

That's it as far as I can see to date.

There are lots of claims and counter claims, but little in the way of evidence.

Climate scientists seem to be largely happy with the Hockey Stick, even if not all of the public are. Why should we listen to the smaller group of dissenters over the majority of climate scientists?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #152 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:10pm

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?

Books are not scientific papers, so I'm somewhat sceptical of taking them at face value.

A brief look shows that the hockey stick has been criticised, but hardly debunked. The criticism have been refuted or at least challenged, and while the initial work wasn't perfect (there were issues with some of the statistics) the problems wouldn't have affected the conclusion.

I'm not sure what specifically you think is a problem with Mann's integrity. He feels that he has been defamed, which is why he is suing.

He has filed suit.
They tried to get the lawsuit dismissed under SLAPP - this was denied.
They appealed to a different Judge - this was also denied.
They have appealed again on the grounds of protected speech, with amicus briefs from various reporting / free speech organisations.

That's it as far as I can see to date.

There are lots of claims and counter claims, but little in the way of evidence.

Climate scientists seem to be largely happy with the Hockey Stick, even if not all of the public are. Why should we listen to the smaller group of dissenters over the majority of climate scientists?

Would you like me to list the statements by 100 eminent scientist (both warmists and sceptics) who reject the hockey stick as very bad science? These even include people who are climate hysterics.

Your statement (highlighted) is a bit disturbing as I don't know where you are getting your information from as it is very very wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #153 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:15pm

“Very few paleoclimatologists agreed to the shape of the curve.”

PROFESSOR PER HOLMLUND, PHD Professor of Glaciology at Stockholm University. Member of the national committee of geophysics at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and if the International Meteorological Institute. Former Director of Tarfala Research Station, and member of many expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic. Swedish member of the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the International Arctic Science Committee, the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, etc.

“I would never have expected anything similar in such a… peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed.”

PROFESSOR LENNART BENGTSSON, PHD Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre of the University of Reading. Recipient of the IMO Prize from the World Meteorological Organization and of the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre Former Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

In May 2014, Professor Bengtsson, a man whose contributions to science far outweigh Michael Mann’s, revealed that he was joining the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank for rational skepticism founded in London by Nigel Lawson. Retribution from the “climate community” was swift and merciless. Less than two weeks later the 79-year old Swedish scientist announced

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time. It has. For one thing, it's not “meteorology” anymore; it’s about saving the planet - and you can’t do that without breaking a few eggheads. After The Times of London ran a front page story on Bengtsson’s defenestration, Mann sneeringly Tweeted310:

REAL story via @NafeezAhmed ‘Murdoch-owned media hypes lone meteorologist's #climate junk science’" …# denial So to Michael Mann Lennart Bengtsson is now “junk science”? Over the years, the two of them have collaborated on scientific conferences311. But a half-century of distinguished service to climate science - the directorships, the prizes, all the peer-reviewed papers, the shared platforms with the great Dr Mann - is swept into the garbage can of history, and Bengtsson is now just another “denier” peddling “junk science”.
Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3522-3523). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #154 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:18pm

“Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch… They’re gravediggers of science.”

DANIEL S GREENBERG Founder of Science & Government Report, and former news editor of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Former Visiting Scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Department of History of Science, Medicine and Technology. Former columnist for The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Recipient of the Columbia University Medal for Excellence. Creator of the fictional character Dr Grant Swinger, Director of the Center for the Absorption of Federal Funds.

In 2010, Mr Greenberg, one of the most respected science writers, was invited to review a book for one of the most respected journals, Nature. Unfortunately, the author was one of Mann’s many enemies, and Greenberg was insufficiently hostile to it. So Mann, Paul Ehrlich and Stefan Rahmstorf felt obliged to remind Nature just who was boss

"In our view, Daniel Greenberg's book review of The Climate Fix by Roger Pielke Jr (Nature 467, 526– 527; 2010) does a disservice to your readership by besmirching the integrity of the climate-research community"

Interesting. Care to elaborate? Well, no. Time to move on to the ol’ #KochMachine #BigOil guilt-by-association shtick: Nature should have pointed out to its readers that Greenberg has served as a round-table speaker and written a report (see go.nature.com/ otwvz2) for the Marshall Institute (see go.nature.com/ 4u9ttd). Oh, my. As Mr Greenberg subsequently wrote to Professor Pielke308: Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They’re gravediggers of science… Below, my further exchanges with the low-life trio.

The “further exchanges with the low-life trio” concluded thus:

Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf, Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke’s book Climate Fix has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion. Furthermore, your insinuation of an undisclosed relationship between me and a conservative think tank is preposterous. In 2006, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Marshall Institute - as I have done with numerous other organizations… Nor did I, as you allege, write a report, or anything, for the Marshall Institute. The panel’s words were transcribed and published by the Institute. I wrote nothing for them. You guys are the devil’s gift to the Tea Party and other climate-change and evil “deniers” and “denialists”.

I find these terms and the entire context for discussing my work offensive. I am not a “denialist” and my recent paper305 attributes about 40 per cent of recent warming to human activity… What I would deny is that tree rings are good thermometers, but this is a scientific view based on my knowledge of trees, not a political view… I have never received money from fossil fuel interests, as Mann states is true of all sceptics… My disagreements with the use of tree rings (by anyone, not just Mann) have nothing to do with a conspiracy, are not organized or directed by anyone, and are not personal. I just think tree rings (especially strip bark) are not valid more than about 100 years back in time… In his book, Mann also writes: By contrast with the hockey stick studies - and every other peer reviewed scientific article on the subject - Loehle claimed that medieval warm period temperatures were warmer than ‘20th century values.’ “Every” other article? Mann has just declared there is not one paper finding the MWP as warm or warmer than the present. That’s evidence of either insanity or a man trapped in his own impenetrable bubble. As Dr Loehle concludes: Mann’s setup for discussing my work is borderline libel… It is unacceptable to portray those who disagree with you scientifically as evil and politically motivated. Science is full to the brim with disagreements about everything, from which treatment is best for coronary blockage to whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best. By Mann’s logic, we should all be using slanderous language to refer to anyone who disagrees with us. I don’t think so.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3494-3519). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #155 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

“The work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies.”

DR DAVID DEMING, PHD Geologist, geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma. Associate Editor of Petroleum Geoscience and Ground Water. Author of peer-reviewed papers published by Science and other journals, and of “Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear”, published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration.

The Medieval Warm Period - when Greenland got its name and was extensively farmed, and vineyards flourished in much of England - was a matter of uncontroversial historical record. But, once you’ve decided to “repeal” it, it’s amazing how easy it is. On December 6th 2006 Dr Deming testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works52: I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. 53” The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the Little Ice Age took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages. The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.” In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “hockey stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph. Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 752-768). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #156 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:54pm

Maria, I know you are caught up in a climate debate, but I was wondering if you are going to respond to my previous post about why the gospels are not primary sources?

If you are interested in how the gospels came to be, I recommend looking yourself into the Gospel of Mark (anonymously written), which is generally accepted to have had sections taken from it when the gospels of Luke and Matthew were written. As mentioned, the author of Luke does not claim to be any kind of eyewitness either, but having learnt from Paul.

John's author was given a title ("the Disciple whom Jesus loved"), but no specific name, and there are many differing ideas on who actually this may be referring to.

So, in summary.

Mark (anonymous)
Matthew (derived from Mark, anonymously written, no claim to being an eyewitness account)
Luke (no claim to be a primary source in the first place)
John (title given, no name, many differing theories on authorship)

So I feel I have to ask again, who do you think wrote these books, and why do you believe they are eyewitness accounts, despite the fact the books themselves disagree with you? You mentioned there were other accounts too I believe, who are they?

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #157 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:57pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:10pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?

Books are not scientific papers, so I'm somewhat sceptical of taking them at face value.

A brief look shows that the hockey stick has been criticised, but hardly debunked. The criticism have been refuted or at least challenged, and while the initial work wasn't perfect (there were issues with some of the statistics) the problems wouldn't have affected the conclusion.

I'm not sure what specifically you think is a problem with Mann's integrity. He feels that he has been defamed, which is why he is suing.

He has filed suit.
They tried to get the lawsuit dismissed under SLAPP - this was denied.
They appealed to a different Judge - this was also denied.
They have appealed again on the grounds of protected speech, with amicus briefs from various reporting / free speech organisations.

That's it as far as I can see to date.

There are lots of claims and counter claims, but little in the way of evidence.

Climate scientists seem to be largely happy with the Hockey Stick, even if not all of the public are. Why should we listen to the smaller group of dissenters over the majority of climate scientists?

Would you like me to list the statements by 100 eminent scientist (both warmists and sceptics) who reject the hockey stick as very bad science? These even include people who are climate hysterics.

Your statement (highlighted) is a bit disturbing as I don't know where you are getting your information from as it is very very wrong.

I don't really need a list of 100 people, but at the very least some of the leading organisations in climate research. I was just reading the Wikipedia page on the controversy, and look at its sources.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30090
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #158 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:03pm

____ wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 9:19pm:

Paul Ehrlich on qanda

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/coming_up.htm#PAUL_EHRLICH

Stated teaching children fictional religions is child abuse.

So why is this child abuse acceptable?

Because there are too many votes in it from the god gobbers and their brainwashed followers !!

Not only that they should pay tax on their takings just like any other business !!

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #159 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:54pm

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:57pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:10pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Do yourself a favour and read a couple of the books on the Hockey Stick. Mann is (or was) a major player in the ACC movement and yet his intellectual and personal integrity is disgraceful. Ultimately, neither of us are scientists 'in the know'. We need to rely on what we are told. And to trust that we need scientists of absolute integrity and capability. You will find that Mann is neither and one Professor stated that his Hockey Stick work is so bad that the University should revoke his PhD!

Just do yourself the favour of reading up on Mann and the hockey stick. There are a couple of great kindle books on Amazon. What you read will disgust you and probably shatter your impressions on the ACC movement. If the con that Mann pulled off took 15 years to be finally rejected - while being obviously wrong - then what are others doing?

You up for it?

Books are not scientific papers, so I'm somewhat sceptical of taking them at face value.

A brief look shows that the hockey stick has been criticised, but hardly debunked. The criticism have been refuted or at least challenged, and while the initial work wasn't perfect (there were issues with some of the statistics) the problems wouldn't have affected the conclusion.

I'm not sure what specifically you think is a problem with Mann's integrity. He feels that he has been defamed, which is why he is suing.

He has filed suit.
They tried to get the lawsuit dismissed under SLAPP - this was denied.
They appealed to a different Judge - this was also denied.
They have appealed again on the grounds of protected speech, with amicus briefs from various reporting / free speech organisations.

That's it as far as I can see to date.

There are lots of claims and counter claims, but little in the way of evidence.

Climate scientists seem to be largely happy with the Hockey Stick, even if not all of the public are. Why should we listen to the smaller group of dissenters over the majority of climate scientists?

Would you like me to list the statements by 100 eminent scientist (both warmists and sceptics) who reject the hockey stick as very bad science? These even include people who are climate hysterics.

Your statement (highlighted) is a bit disturbing as I don't know where you are getting your information from as it is very very wrong.

I don't really need a list of 100 people, but at the very least some of the leading organisations in climate research. I was just reading the Wikipedia page on the controversy, and look at its sources.

Why not? They are not just 'people' but eminent scientists in the field. Excuse me for saying so, but that sounds like fishing for a reason to debunk something rather than searching for the evidence.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #160 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:01pm

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:54pm:

Maria, I know you are caught up in a climate debate, but I was wondering if you are going to respond to my previous post about why the gospels are not primary sources?

If you are interested in how the gospels came to be, I recommend looking yourself into the Gospel of Mark (anonymously written), which is generally accepted to have had sections taken from it when the gospels of Luke and Matthew were written. As mentioned, the author of Luke does not claim to be any kind of eyewitness either, but having learnt from Paul.

John's author was given a title ("the Disciple whom Jesus loved"), but no specific name, and there are many differing ideas on who actually this may be referring to.

So, in summary.

Mark (anonymous)
Matthew (derived from Mark, anonymously written, no claim to being an eyewitness account)
Luke (no claim to be a primary source in the first place)
John (title given, no name, many differing theories on authorship)

So I feel I have to ask again, who do you think wrote these books, and why do you believe they are eyewitness accounts, despite the fact the books themselves disagree with you? You mentioned there were other accounts too I believe, who are they?

Look, to be honest I don't have a great desire to do this debate with you because I've heard it all before and I know how it ends up. Despite the Gospels being accepted a generally reliable records, you will constantly claim they are not. Matthew was a disciple. He was there. He was an eye-witness. The Apostle Peter likewise was an eye-witness and in his writings (letters from peter) confirms the record and in places quotes from it. And on we go. The crux of the problem is that you will always find a reason to reject it and largely for bogus or subjective reasons, not rational ones.

I will state right now that there is no chance you could prove the historical existence of Julius Caesar using the methodology you employ for Jesus. I will simply cast aspersions on the accuracy of every claim you make including the non-existence of any eye-witness accounts.

The difference between the historical claims of Caesar and Christ is that only one made supernatural claims and that alone is why you reject the entire historical record. Because you reject any supernatural or religious commentary you feel you are right to therefore reject everything. It is bad scholarship and the reason why most historians do not dispute the historical Jesus.

Back to top

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #161 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:03pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Why not? They are not just 'people' but eminent scientists in the field. Excuse me for saying so, but that sounds like fishing for a reason to debunk something rather than searching for the evidence.

Well frankly because it's a lot of work going through a list of 100 people, but if you want to provide the list, I won't dismiss it out of hand.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30090
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #162 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:06pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:54pm:

Maria, I know you are caught up in a climate debate, but I was wondering if you are going to respond to my previous post about why the gospels are not primary sources?

If you are interested in how the gospels came to be, I recommend looking yourself into the Gospel of Mark (anonymously written), which is generally accepted to have had sections taken from it when the gospels of Luke and Matthew were written. As mentioned, the author of Luke does not claim to be any kind of eyewitness either, but having learnt from Paul.

John's author was given a title ("the Disciple whom Jesus loved"), but no specific name, and there are many differing ideas on who actually this may be referring to.

So, in summary.

Mark (anonymous)
Matthew (derived from Mark, anonymously written, no claim to being an eyewitness account)
Luke (no claim to be a primary source in the first place)
John (title given, no name, many differing theories on authorship)

So I feel I have to ask again, who do you think wrote these books, and why do you believe they are eyewitness accounts, despite the fact the books themselves disagree with you? You mentioned there were other accounts too I believe, who are they?

Look, to be honest I don't have a great desire to do this debate with you because I've heard it all before and I know how it ends up. Despite the Gospels being accepted a generally reliable records, you will constantly claim they are not. Matthew was a disciple. He was there. He was an eye-witness. The Apostle Peter likewise was an eye-witness and in his writings (letters from peter) confirms the record and in places quotes from it. And on we go. The crux of the problem is that you will always find a reason to reject it and largely for bogus or subjective reasons, not rational ones.

I will state right now that there is no chance you could prove the historical existence of Julius Caesar using the methodology you employ for Jesus. I will simply cast aspersions on the accuracy of every claim you make including the non-existence of any eye-witness accounts.

The difference between the historical claims of Caesar and Christ is that only one made supernatural claims and that alone is why you reject the entire historical record. Because you reject any supernatural or religious commentary you feel you are right to therefore reject everything. It is bad scholarship and the reason why most historians do not dispute the historical Jesus.

Now show us a Jesus coin Wink

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #163 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:06am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:48am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

By the way, Plato is a myth.

Well the evidence of his existence is as valid as that of JC or Mo at least.

Actually, the evidence for plato is several orders of magnitude LESS than for Jesus. You can't have it both ways.

No it isn't, that's the point. The overall belief about both is based on consensus by academics due to the lack of hard evidence.

Now, that said, consensus is apparently a contentious issue. After all the comments about consensus in the context of the climate change argument (it is nothing like a debate after all), as such, it is you who can't have it both ways.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Religious Teaching Is Child Abuse.
Reply #164 - Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:19pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:08am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:52am:

Religious teaching is child abuse, well, at least that is the stated opinion of one person...

Others may agree with this too.

The same person said though that people beliefs should be respected - he stated his beliefs, they might appear disrespectful, however, he is not making threats, censoring, shutting down or berating believers, simply putting his point of view... Isn't that his right?

I think organised religion is our biggest failing as a sentient species - if people chose to follow their myth so be it. I also have this idea that live and let live is not a bad philosophy.

And yet, religion is what has founded nations, schools, health, art and music. Today, the majority of social work is done by the Church, especially in foreign countries.

No it isn't, it was not because of religion that Australia was founded, certainly organised religion was along for the ride, but not the driver.

Nations, schools, health, art and music occur regardless of organised religion, in fact, often times throughout history in spite of it.

I think you present a very myopic view to be blunt.

As to the "social work" how that actually works is that Organised Religious groups get funded, however, a significant share of the actual face to face workload is done by people of no specific religious affiliation, as it should be.

Your clear lack of acknowledgment of the serious flaws, problems and hardships caused by the various groups of organised religious sects is very telling (and myopic).

I don't say religion is necessarily flawed, I say that organised religion is problematic - I say that based on history, both modern and ancient. Humans have and continue to do heinous inhumane acts to each other in the name of their organised religion... That is a flaw of our species as such.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:08am:

I think describing it as a failing is more than a bit harsh. In many way, I hate to imagine what an atheist society would be like - except that I don't. USSR and communist China are some examples to look at.

That is a somewhat polarised position - so, we either have organised religion or we have an atheist society...

To ignore the harm that organised religion is responsible for is yet another flaw - that said, you are welcome to your opinion that my stated position on this is a bit harsh - I disagree, I think it very moderate and honest. After all, I am not demanding it be stopped, I am not calling for people who practice a faith of an organised religious group be exiled, imprisoned or penalised in anyway - I am simply saying I think it is a flaw that we may need to get over one day...

I think it is more than a bit harsh after all for people who preach a faith to demonstrate, articulate and in some instances act on discriminatory opinions against those who either do not share their faith or are preachers/practitioners of another faith...

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged