Forum:The divine conspiracy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Look at this site, oh my !

And this

I have no words, but these - Reason save man! - (not god save the queen) Gianga23 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. What does it say interesting? Zero (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The PDF linked is Anthony Flew's "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind". I wonder what's it copyright status. :)
The site itself appears to be a pretty standard Christian apologetics site with side forays into science denialism (evolution, AGW, etc.) and "liberal"-bashing. The first three paragraphs from the About page:

Solid Rock Ministries (now The Divine Conspiracy) got its start in the early days of the internet, primarily as a means of publishing debates between Christians and atheists, and then quickly evolved into an apologetics site.

Over the years this site has gone through many changes, and the often contentious debates between believers and unbelievers, which was once a site hallmark, have long since disappeared. Instead, the material has slowly and gradually moved in a more scholarly direction. Perhaps, this trend has been parallel to the journey my own life has taken over the past six or seven years. (You can read about some of my journey in a paper I wrote for an Intro to Philosophy class here.)

As I state on the Home page, the goal of The Divine Conspiracy is to present the highest quality material found anywhere on the internet (and especially in one site.) I can say that without boasting because the overwhelming quantity of things found here were not written by me. Most are written by professors and scholars that are specialist in the various areas this site lists under its topics.

Has some token contrary views, but without going much deeper into the site than my free time allows, I can't say whether it's a poor attempt at intellectual integrity, false balance or plain old tokenism.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So I clicked the links and so what?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought it would be cool to express my feelings about a christian site, which nontheless talks about a conspiracy. When freetought and rational thinking has always been the victim of the real "divine" conspiracy. That's all. As for Flew's case I think it should need a serious debunking, maybe making a page about Schroeder's idiotic claims could be good for the wiki. Because I believe we shouldn't let "famous atheists" and "physics" get away with pseudophilosophical choices and psuedoscientific claims without a little fight! :) -- Gianga23 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what claim of Schroeder's you are referring to but I've always thought that Flew's case was quite interesting because of it's rarity. As we know, a vast number of theists and even clergymen have switched from theism to atheism. So many in fact that it doesn't really invite much comment.
Which is what makes the Flew case interesting. Even theists seem to be (rightly) surprised by an occasional intellectual outliner going in the other direction.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It was to Gerald Schroeder's ideas on physics that Flew appealed to describe why he suddenly changed his mind. The fact is that they were debunked by Vic Stenger and Mark Perakh, but here there are ( comments which state the rightness (or the likeliness) of these theories. A layman like me wonders and asks you what's real about this thing. "Joe from Mesa AZ said...

As an engineer myself (educated as an atheist in a former communist dictatorship) I took the time & effort TO VERIFY mathematically Dr.Schroeder's reasoning/ conclusions, and... THEY ARE CORRECT! Following closely this debate one has to conclude that the "evolutionists" are turning more and more into religious fanatics, and - like all fanatics - when running out of arguments they tend to become violent, in this case (foul) language-wise. Whoever is unable to pursue a dialog in civilized terms is abrogating his/her right to participate in the debate." Gianga23 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

2 + 2 = 4! Checkmate, atheists! --Ymir (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)