SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Greg or e who wrote (16232)2/8/2004 1:34:05 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
"Diaz is engaging in a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. That's a fact. Get over it."

You have not shown that. So YOU get over it. It is your belief and your hang-up.

"I am a somebody and I have accused science of desperation, so you are wrong aren't you?"

Now you are carping. I don't think that your particular "accusations" belie the meaning of my statement.

"People like yourself are so desperate to deny the moral claims that God has on their behavior that they have a vested interest in the outcome of "scientific inquiries"."

Another good example of your "ad hominem" method of "argument". Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing...(with apologies)

"In fact he painted one side as "motivated" and his side of being "free" to follow the evidence. If it's fair to bring up motives on one side then it's also fair to point them out for the other side as well."

Which is essentially correct. But where a scientist does have an overt bias stemming from some emotional disturbance, it should indeed be acknowledged.

""Science" may claim that it is a neutral system of inquiry but science is done by humans who have motives. Failing to recognize this is not only arrogant, it is stupid."

The "motive" for becoming a scientist is normally a desire to seek the objective truth of things. Motives are not bad or questionable in and of themselves. You may re-consider the rest of your sentence without my assistance.

"Why not just be honest about it?"

More ad hominem. Marvellous argument.

"There is plenty of historical evidence for actual existence of Jesus, His death by crucifixion and His resurrection, while there is none for Zeus."

That is simply not a fact. There were many named "Jesus" (it was a common name). There may even have been a loose connection to a particular man by those whom brought together some of the pagan myths alongside of Judaism into Christianity. But there is not one single solitary shred of historical evidence for the Jesus referred to in the myth stories--no more than there is for Apollo or Zeus. Indeed, the fabled character of the bible (like all bibles), and the historical evidence for a mythological and transcultural/historical sharing of folklore and myth, is additional evidence as to the nature of these stories. All cultures have such stories and many have far larger compendiums of dogma than do the rather fragmented and sparse stories of the Christian movement. You might wish to consider these mythologies thoughtfully and sincerely in the company and context of other mythologies. It might help you to take a more objective and balanced view of the matter...

maryforrest.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News