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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9236)	10/13/2010 7:00:50 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The fact that you can use the word bird in two different ways has never been in dispute, so why you chose to make that the focus of your challenge to the observation that two mutually exclusive truth claims cannot both be true is just weird. A feathered bird and a plucked bird are not mutually exclussive, "I've no idea even what you are referring to about him being wrong, his logic is definitely biased and flawed on account of his letting his bias underly the truth essay." You do seem to be in some sort of fog. His main point is that two mutually exclusive truth claims cannot both be true and he openly admitted that one or both may very well be wrong. You have done nothing to address the central point of the article except to strangely deny that the truth claims in his example are actually mutually exclusive by talking about birds. Weird! "I have repeatedly presented his exact quote and represented it for what it is." "<<<At least you bothered to accurately quote him this time rather than putting words into his mouth that are not there.>>>" No you have not and I challenged you directly on it. <<<You seem to be reading your own issues into the text that are not actually there. Nowhere in the article does he conclude that: "you have an obligation to attack others based on his presumption of being right.">>> Message 26885126 You claimed that it was his conclusion that Christians: "have an obligation to attack others based on his presumption of being right" that claim is demonstrably false. His call was for reasoned dialog and to not be bullied by people like you who claim everybody is right (except those who dare to disagree with you and therefore must be some sort of "religious fanatic, someone so blinded by his narrow-minded convictions that he has no tolerance for other's beliefs").

To: one_less who wrote (9236)	10/13/2010 8:06:21 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<OK greg you have once again exhausted any benefit of doubt. No one does or should take you serious in a discussion on SI and you've just provided another example of why that is.> Same as it ever was. In Greg's world when one points out bigotry in action, YOU are the bigot for pointing it out... since (he claims) in trying to understand different viewpoints you are "bigoted" against the bigot! ROFLMAO! There are no "degrees" or "grey" in Greg's world... only black and white: youtube.com Spiritually a dreadful place to be. <Once again, the context of a statement is important.> Context is sadly the enemy to some folks... I think that's why they are so severe and judgemental. IMHO it often stems from a drilled in belief that the bible is "the word of God" and the words in it must somehow be absolutes. Scientifically speaking of course, words are "linear" and can't possibly contain anything near the information contained in any reality... let alone absolute truth. I thought everyone learned that from that old line about enjoying the sunset until someone opened their mouth and tried to describe it... guess not. DAK