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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (16251)	2/9/2004 12:48:38 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"The argument is NOT that such and such is false because so and so is irrational" That is precisely the argument he uses. The selective use of ellipses is a feeble attempt to bolster what is a weak argument. Look at the the first two paragraphs as a unit that contrasts two positions. Clearly Diaz maintains that his is the reasonable or rational position as opposed to the one which he is contrasting. The opposite of rational is irrational. I rest my case and will not waste anymore time reasoning with someone who refuses to listen to it. <<<<<"And on the first day God created..." Man, in his desperate search for answers,attempted to find an explanation to how he and his world came to exist. This was the motivation behind the many myths of creation that prevailed in human religions and cultures, of which the most remarkable and famous is the Biblical account ; which is simply that, a majestic and enlightening explanation that uses a creator’s power as a backdrop and is not supported by any reasonable evidence. Many religious believers firmly reject the evolutionary theory because of the faith they have in a belief that has been the foundation behind their perspective of life, but it is simply a tale created by a human group that tried to satisfy it’s search for answers and came to the point were they had to make them up. Science, in contrast, is in search of the ultimate and most reasonable explanation supported by the evidence, where beliefs are not an influence in the search for answers. This is the only way to obtain an objective explanation that is adept to reality.>>>>>> "The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor. Before Class: Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist." Jill: "Yeah." During Class: Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America." After Class: Bill: "See what I mean?" Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't." Examples of Poisoning the Well "Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel." "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart." You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted."