Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (46000)	4/2/2002 3:05:04 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I didn't get that from his statement- the thing about the war" The only other alternative for me is to think that he is actually so stupid as to believe that all the philosophers through the ages whom have discussed the nature of god (even though their personal belief systems ran from pagan through atheist, Roman Catholic, etc.), were all doing so inappropriately. Likewise, everyone here on SI who discusses their belief in ANYTHING, is doing so inappropriately?? It is inappropriate that any of us discuss our beliefs in ANYTHING, and ridiculous to pursue reasons as to whether or not they are rationally justified. Getting back strictly to religious conversations: there are THOUSANDS of different religions in the world. Indeed, there are thousands of Christian sects. What could he have possibly meant by his gratuitous insult dismissing my right to respond to the content of posts which were made to me, and to the content of web sites quoting people such as Einstein...and my prerogative to share their opinions on the topic being discussed? For me to even be responding to his idiocy, and to pretend that his intrusion was anything other than an attempt to disrupt by introducing the irrelevant and the specious--this is to give his intentionally divisive comments far more time and attention than they are worth. But, unfortunately I have started, so I will finish. Nobody who is capable of getting through school is so stupid as to think that people may not hold opinions on religious matters, and that they may not reference the literature and the thoughts of people who have had opinions and thoughts on the matters under discussion. When I said he was trying to create a prejudicial battle between believers and non believers it was because I believed (and believe), that this is the only rational explanation for his intrusion. I do not mean it as a world quest, of course!:-) I am speaking of a tactic for disrupting a discussion; and changing an argument from rational footing to a swamp of confusion and chaos by tricking the undiscerning into approaching it as a feeling issue rather than as a thinking one. It is a common tactic of people with weak or non-existent arguments, when they feel they are being drowned by the facts, to misdirect the discussion from evaluation of facts to ad hominem allusions. In this case, he challenges my authority to have an opinion, and my right to quote the opinions of others--unless I first confess to believing in God. Can you imagine a university professor disallowing everyone in his class to have an opinion or to quote the opinions of scholars without they happened to hold the belief system of the professor--let us say, for instance--quakerism?? My professor of world religions really ought to have failed me instead of giving me the A! <ggg> What truly gave Hodkins away was his transparent pretence that I was attempting to tell Dithers what HE believed! In reality, we were discussing the meaning of terms used by scientists in web sites which had been posted by both of us--in particular, what the survey meant by the term "personal belief". In fact, they had defined it rather clearly, and, as well, it corresponded with other reference articles which clarified the matter. That we should even be discussing whether or not either Dithers or myself were entitled to pursue reason and understanding of this survey is astonishing! Absolutely astonishing! Maybe you are right, however. Perhaps he did not respond gratuitously and misleadingly for the reason that he wished the discussion to be at a prejudicial emotional level befitting his dislike of me. Perhaps, he was only insisting that I ought to "lose" any discussion about what the survey intended by "personal belief"--by default...strictly on the basis that I had no right to respond to the idea of what the survey meant. Perhaps he truly believes this? Do you think? By extension, I suppose we are to reject the survey, as well, because, the respondents did not know what it meant, and had no right to respond to whether or not they had a belief in a "personal god"?!! I wonder what Hodgkins would have responded if the survey had showed that 95 % of biological scientists believed in a personal God rather than that 95% did not belive in such?? Would he have intruded into any discussion of it and insisted that because we all had different religions beliefs, that we could not comprehend or discuss the beliefs of the survey respondents? I wonder if that is a sincerely held belief? The survey divided the questioning up into discreet elements (do you believe in immortality, etc.), so how was that unclear? For that matter, I don't believe in the likeihood of immortality (and many people who believe in God, do not believe in immortality), so are we too allow the Christophers of the world to disqualify us from discussing the issue, or from defining what it is that is meant by the term? Nobody was trying to force new definitions on anyone, and Hodkins knew that as well as anyone. Dithers and I were trying to clarify--for the sake of our ability to rationally interact--what was meant by the survey's use of "personal God". Hodgkins knew that as well as anyone. Hodgkins knew that I was not trying to tell a believer what they did or ought to believe; and he knew that Dithers was not trying to tell me what I did or ought to believe. Hodgkins very intentionally folded lies and misdirection into the discussion. And he did it in order to disrupt and obscure, because that is the manner in which he "argues". "He certainly has some misconceptions" It is not the misconceptions I am concerned with: it is the things he pretends to be so, while knowing full well that they ain't. In my opinion it goes beyond misconceptions. He intentionally tries to mischaracterize and to misdirect. And that to me is worthy of opprobrium. It is not at all in the same category as being mistaken or misinformed...