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: Greg or e who wrote (19511)	3/17/2005 4:11:48 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"You twisted that into saying he was unable to think straight!" That is not even proximally tue. I gave an entire post to present the evidence that he was "unable to engage in sound science or philosophical inquiry". It seems convenient for you to "forget" the evidence and the summary of same. Instead you pretend that my assertion relates only to one of the several points I made! You are as transparent as all Hell! _____________________________________________ Message 21111612 "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." (direct quote from Mr. Flew)! He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject (an accurate and logical inference by Carrier)! “I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder."…"it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics“ (another direct admission by Flew)! “Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims).“ (another accurate and logical inference by Carrrier)! “As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field“ (another accurate and logical report from Carrier of a published admission by Flew to Carrier, the London Times, and the Humanist Network News)! Flew strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," (an admission by Flew about his doubts about his impersonal God as an omnipotent spirit)! "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit." (an admission by Flew that at 82 years old he is unable to engage in the major effort of philosophical enquiry)! Together with his admissions of errors noted above, and the commentary regarding his sloppy reliance on others…it makes my statement as accurate and as logical as one could wish for. So when I said that: "Mr. Flew is 82 years old and is increasingly unable to engage in sound science or philosophical inquiry." I was clearly not misrepresenting anything, but rather stating the obvious…much of it in the words of Mr. Flew--both stated and implied in direct conversation and correspondence by Carrier and others. So your claim that I disparaged his stature “casually” is ignorant--whether willfully so or as a result of your natural limitations..." ___________________________________