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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14919)	3/23/2011 7:38:02 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 69300

You are like a breath of fresh air Jacques. Thank you for such a gracious response. I think it is I who should be apologizing to you, for being overly sensitive and not giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please forgive me. You know; I think I am actually going to take your sage advise and walk away from this feud with Solon. Thanks for your suggestion.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14919)	3/23/2011 8:14:53 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

I have suggested to him MANY times that he stop the personal attacks and deal with ideas and issues. If he does so, I will be pleased. BUT, if he continues to deal in ad hominems...I will keep kicking him. It is not my fault if he believes that the nature of his superstitions leaves him no defense other than personal attack. That is really not my problem and no reason for me to give him a free get out of jail card. If the kid talks decent and drops the personal libels and ugly lies about pederasty, wife beating, rape, bestiality, demon-worship, "your wife is a psycho" and other such psychotic shit..NO PROBLEM!! Just remember, that he can't..AND HE WON'T. You are a biologist--not a psychologist. Remember..your family is not being attacked and insulted by a completely indecent moron, so you might want to consider if that is an important consideration in how high a road even the best of us can take????? If you disagreed with me that Adam naming the animals was a myth and terribly silly, it would not require YOU to call me a pederast or a rapist in defense of your "argument". Or maybe it would?? So far, you have not shared with us if you think Adam actually named all those critters in one day while looking for a mate!

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14919)	3/23/2011 8:33:15 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

Actually, I would love to know how sincere you are and if you are willing to put some small effort behind your words. I am assuming you are fair, decent, and above board or I would not have even asked...so here goes: Will you (this thread only) take on for 30 days the task of reprimanding anyone in the agreement when they conflate personal attack or slur with actual issues? For instance, if I ask: "How does this biblical quote ("Blah, Blah, Blah") about people living for 900 years inform evolutionary theory" and some immoral mental midget says...the answer is "you're a frigging atheist pederast"...will you be willing and capable of doing what you are doing now--JUDGING whether or not that is ad hominem?? Because I would be very happy to have you make such judgements under fair and honest conditions! Can it be set up!! LOL! The only ones who can lose in such arrangements are liars and cheats! I hope you have some spare time to do this. I would not have the time to bother...

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14919)	4/5/2011 12:05:19 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 69300

Religion keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com I love this. There are two things that one might do when confronted with theism. The first is to examine the grounds of it. The second is to explain the causes of it. Only the first of these activities is philosophical in nature. Some atheists are so convinced of the falsity of theism that they believe the only worthwhile activity is to explain why so many people "fall" for it. But this strategy goes both ways. Atheism is no less a belief than theism is; it is merely the belief that God does not exist. Theists, therefore, can seek to explain why so many people "fall" for atheism. These explanations can be just as speculative and insulting as those tendered by atheists. For example, it is often said that theists are engaged in wish fulfillment. But as the author points out, at least one prominent atheist (Thomas Nagel) has said that he sincerely wants atheism to be true. Wish fulfillment! It is often said that theists long for a powerful father and therefore construct one (namely, God). But, as the author points out, many atheists have absent earthly fathers. How much of a stretch is it to think that these atheists hate their fathers for not being there for them and transfer this hatred to God? I could go on and on. As I said, explaining why people believe what they do is not a philosophical activity. It is a scientific activity. I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, so I'm interested in the grounds of people's beliefs. The point of this post is to show that if causal explanation is a legitimate activity, it is a legitimate activity for both belief and disbelief. (Don't confuse disbelief with nonbelief; the latter is the absence of belief, the former the presence of belief in the contradictory of what someone else believes, in this case, the proposition that God exists.) For every scurrilous explanation of theistic belief, there is a scurrilous explanation of atheistic belief. If theism is suspect because of its origins, then atheism is suspect because of its origins. Why don't we cease playing this stupid explanatory game and get on with the real game, which involves justifying one's beliefs?