SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (36831)5/31/2013 4:50:10 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
[yt]j5Lk3DgT5v0#![/yt]



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (36831)5/31/2013 4:50:24 PM
From: Blasher4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300
 
'Cautious_Optimist' . . it seems like all you do is attack.
Instead of reacting to the non-religious ideas put forth,
you just name-call those who put them forth.
I think we're just trying to have a discussion here.
The fact that some don't believe in man-made climate change
doesn't mean they believe in statues.
You keep claiming "science" in your diatribe, yet never produce any scientific statements that back your beliefs.
The too latest topics which you have not scientifically responded to or discussed in any way are:
1 - Atheism has a set of "beliefs" not unlike Religious institutions
2 - man-made climate change is a hoax to further a movement / belief system
I happen to believe that those two statements are true . . .
you apparently do not.
Would you like to discus why you do not ??
If you do, I'll be glad to reply with my reasons for why I do.



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (36831)5/31/2013 5:45:19 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Climate change is a fact of life and unstoppable. But I think you mean climate change caused exclusively by human use of fossil fuels. Yes, that is a myth.

The Church has always tried to find a way to bridge the "creator" of all, the all powerful and knowing God as engineer and gather, with science. It doesn't work. One system requires evidence to draw conclusions, its as simple as that.

That's an ignorant viewpoint that simply supports your irrational biases.

One system requires evidence to draw conclusions

Yet you're unable to cite any evidence to support your bigotries. A characteristic one observes among liberals.

Some religions do teach tolerance, usually liberal; they reject the literal biblical foundation but live by the Golden Rule and see Jesus story as as one about the Prince of Peace; not American Exceptionalism or assault weapons

Wow, can you get any more intolerant and bigoted?

they can be atheist and still have secular human values that are much higher on morality than your typical Evangelicals

I hate to tell you this but Arthur Brooks, among others, has done extensive social research on this. He finds liberal secularists are inferior in morality to conservatives, especially religious conservatives. That is, they're less generous, more likely to cheat on their taxes, donate blood less, even hug their children less:

Bleeding Heart Tightwads
Message 28854749

Conservatives even donate more blood than liberals. Studies show conservatives give much more to charity than liberals.
Message 28854745

Liberals more likely to cheat on taxes and commit felonies:
Message 28664307

.... Liberals, Schweizer writes, are, in the aggregate:

... less honest. Liberals are more likely to believe that it's okay to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on their taxes (and their spouse),
keep money that doesn't belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.

... more selfish. Liberals are much more likely to think about themselves first and less willing to make sacrifices for others. They are less interested in caring for a physically ill or elderly family member, and more concerned with ensuring that their own needs are met.

... more focused on money. Liberals are much more likely to report that money is important to them, that they don't earn enough money, and that money is what matters in a job. They are also more likely to be envious of others.

.....
Message 28664309



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (36831)5/31/2013 7:29:56 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Melanie Phillips (in the UK) explains why she moved from liberalism to conservatism:

.....

As a university-educated young woman with hippie-style hair and an attitude, I, too, generally toed the standard Leftist line in the late Seventies and early Eighties.

Poverty was bad, cuts in public spending were bad, prison was bad, the Tory government was bad.

The state was good, poor people were good, minorities were good, sexual freedom was good.

And pretty soon I had the perfect platform for those views when I went to work as a journalist on The Guardian, the self-styled paper of choice for intellectuals and the supposed voice of progressive conscience.

The paper and I fitted each other perfectly. If I had been a character in one of the Mister Men books, I would have been Little Miss Guardianista.

Those of us who worked there had a fixed belief in our own superiority and righteousness. We saw ourselves as clever and civilised champions of liberal thought.

I felt loved and cherished, the favoured child of a wonderful and impressive family.

To my colleagues, there was virtually no question that the poor were the victims of circumstances rather than being accountable for their own behaviour and that the state was a wholly benign actor in the lives of individuals.

It never occurred to us that there could be another way of looking at the world.

Above all, we knew we were on the side of the angels, while across the barricades hatchet-faced Right-wingers represented the dark forces of human nature and society that we were all so proud to be against.

.............

Trudging round godforsaken estates as the paper’s special reporter on social affairs, I could see the stark reality of what our supposedly enlightened liberal society was becoming.

The scales began to fall from my eyes. I came to realise that the Left was not on the side of truth, reason and justice.

Instead, it promoted ideology, malice and oppression
. Rather than fighting abuse of power, it embodied it.

Increasingly, I saw how journalists on highbrow papers write primarily for other journalists or to impress politicians or other members of the great and the good.

They don’t actually like ordinary people — especially the lower middle class, the strivers who believed in self-discipline and personal responsibility.

They dismiss them as narrow-minded, parochial and prejudiced (unlike themselves, of course).


But I always wrote with ordinary people in mind.

Just as they were sceptical of intellectual abstractions, fantasies or Utopian solutions, so was I.

Bit by bit, I saw through the delusion of the Left’s supposedly ‘progressive’ politics.

Increasingly, I turned away from their stupidity, hypocrisy and moral blindness.

They, of course, dismissed me as contemptibly ‘Right-wing’, as if that was sufficient to destroy my argument.

........

The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution.

By the late Eighties, it was glaringly obvious that families were suffering a chronic crisis of identity and self-confidence.

There were more and more divorces and single parents — along with mounting evidence that family disintegration and the subsequent creation of step-families or households with no father figure at all did incalculable damage to children.

‘Too many children lack a consistent mother or father figure,’ researchers told me.

Poverty, the Left’s habitual excuse, could not be the culprit since middle-class children were also not receiving the parental attention they required.

For me, the traditional family is sacred because it embodies the idea that there is something beyond the selfish individual.

..........

From Zelda West-Meads of the marriage guidance counsellors Relate, I learned that, though many single mothers did a heroic job, it was the absence of the father that did such terrible damage to their children. So I described how fathers were vital to the emotional health of children.

Fatherless families were also at least partly responsible for a national breakdown in authority and rising levels of crime.

My view was backed in 1992 when three influential social scientists with impeccable Left-wing pedigrees produced a damning report.

From their research, they concluded that children in fractured families tend to suffer more ill-health, do less well at school, are more likely to be unemployed, more prone to criminal behaviour and to repeat as adults the same cycle of unstable parenting.

But instead of welcoming this analysis as identifying a real problem, the Left turned on the authors, branding them as evil Right-wingers for being ‘against single mothers’.

Their sanity was called into question. ‘What do these people want?’ one distinguished academic said to me.

‘Do they want unhappy parents to stay together?’

Eventually, he admitted that the authors’ research was correct. But he said it was impossible to turn back the clock and wondered why there was so much concern about the rights of the child rather than of the parents.

He turned out to be divorced — revealing a devastating pattern I was to encounter over and over again. Truth was being sacrificed to personal expediency. Evidence would be denied if the consequences were inconvenient.

Self-centred individualism and self-justification ruled, regardless of the damage done to others.

Surely, though, the essence of being ‘progressive’ was to protect the most vulnerable?

Yet these ‘progressives’ were elevating their own desires into rights that trumped the emotional, physical and intellectual well-being of their children — and then berated as heartless reactionaries those who criticised them!

The more this was being justified, the more it was happening. Rising numbers of people were abandoning their spouses and children, or breaking up other people’s families, or bringing children into the world without a father around at all.

Yet I, of all people, knew at first-hand what damage and anguish could be inflicted when a father’s influence was missing, even within an apparently model family like mine.

My roots were in a typical post-war British Jewish family that originally came to Britain from Poland and Russia around the turn of the 20th century.

My Father, Alfred, was a dress salesman and my mother ran a children’s clothes shop.

We were not overly religious, but my parents had strong Jewish values of family obligation, a fierce sense of right and wrong and the unquestionable assumption that the more fortunate among us had a duty to help the worse-off.

My mother Mabel — witty, elegant, capable, intelligent, sensitive and beautiful — was the formative influence on my life. I was an only child and we were inseparable.

I adopted her views, her mannerisms, her likes and dislikes. She was the largest thing in my life, the sun that blotted out all other planets. She poured everything she had into me. She made all the decisions about my life.

It was she who decided that, despite the family’s modest income, I would be educated at private schools. It was she who gave me a love of books and of reading. It was she who imparted the values by which I have lived my life.

........

Having experienced how the absence of proper fathering could screw up a child for life, I believed I was doing no more than stating the obvious when I deplored the explosion of lone parenting, female-headed households and mass fatherlessness.

But, to my amazement, at The Guardian, I found that over this and many other issues, I was branded as reactionary, authoritarian and, of course, Right-wing.

The result was social ostracism. One of the mentors I had looked up to — a thoughtful person, independent-minded and intellectually curious, or so I had thought — simply walked off rather than talk to me about these issues.

All this was very painful. I was accosted angrily by someone I had previously thought of as a friend.

‘How can you possibly say that family breakdown hurts children?’ he spat out at me.

‘The worst damage to a child is always done by the traditional nuclear family!’

I could only gaze at him, defeated by the stupendous shallowness of such an attitude.

The ones who were the most aggressive and offended, I noticed, were those who had walked out on their families or were cheating on their spouses.

This revealed another sad truth about the Left. What matters to them above all is that they are seen to be virtuous and compassionate. They simply cannot deal with the possibility that they might not be.

They deal with any such suggestion not by facing up to any harm they may be doing, but by shutting down the argument altogether.

That’s because the banner behind which they march is not altruism, as they kid themselves. It is narcissism.

It was increasingly clear that the Left, the movement whose goal was to create a better society, had lost the moral plot — and not just over the family. It embraced the doctrine that all lifestyles were equal and none could be deemed to be better than any other.

The more those around me demonised those of us who were clinging to moral precepts based on duty rather than self-interest, the more important it became to me to try to open people’s eyes to what was thus being ignored, denied or misrepresented.


I was particularly aghast when, in May 1993, a single mother of a six-year-old boy, who had been treated with a fertility drug, gave birth to sextuplets.

I wrote of the ‘reckless amorality’ of a society in which there was general jubilation among the NHS staff involved ‘for the brilliant masterstroke of creating a single-parent family of seven’.

There were whole communities where committed fathers were almost totally unknown. Children as young as five were becoming highly sexualised from the example of their promiscuous mothers.

Family breakdown was dissolving the bonds of society and civilisation itself.

According to teachers, doctors and social workers I spoke to, young men were fathering children indiscriminately and children were growing up in unbridled savagery and lawlessness to despise their mothers and disdain men and all authority.

What really horrified these professionals was these disastrous consequences were being ignored.

The idea that a woman could be mother and father to her children — more, that it was her ‘right’ to choose such a lifestyle — led directly to the hopeless plight of often inadequate women struggling to raise children while the men who fathered them were, in effect, told they were free to do their own thing.

I was as perplexed by this as I was appalled. I had been brought up to believe the Left stood for altruism rather than selfishness, community rather than individualism, self- discipline rather than the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest.

Instead, society was worshipping at the shrine of the self, and this was causing a rising tide of juvenile distress, crime, emotional disturbance, educational and relationship failure.

The fact that I continued to write along these lines regardless of all the abuse hurled to shut me up seemed to drive the Left nuts.

Yes, they espoused a doctrine of being tolerant and non-judgmental, but not when it came to me. I was branded a ‘moraliser’, which appeared to be a term of abuse.

Most of the time, those hurling insults provided no contrary evidence or even arguments, just blanket denials and gratuitous abuse.

Those of us who inhabit the world of intellectual combat should not be too surprised by the missiles that are hurled our way.

But I believe my experience is symptomatic of what has happened to British society and western culture as a whole over the past 30 years.

Our cultural and political elites have simply turned truth and justice inside out and, with argument replaced by insult and abuse, taken leave of reality itself. They have destroyed rational discourse, polarised opinion and thereby undermined the possibility of finding common ground.

The result is that there are two Britains — the first adhering to decency, rationality and duty to others, and the second characterised by hatred, rampant selfishness and a terrifying repudiation of reason.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters--revels--family-breakdown-.html#ixzz2UcZI6JHg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (36831)5/31/2013 11:42:56 PM
From: Greg or e3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300
 
Are Theists the Only People Who Have the “Burden of Proof”?

As an atheist, I rarely found it necessary to defend my position when talking with friends who believed in the existence of God. After all, my Christian friends were the ones who were making a claim about an invisible Being; certainly the burden of proof belonged to them rather than me. I simply held the “default” position: There’s no need to defend the absence of something that appears to be absent! From my perspective, theists alone were the ones who needed to make a case. My position as an atheist was self-evident. This approach almost always put my Christian friends in a defensive position. They found themselves struggling to assemble the evidence while I simply criticized the validity of each piece of their case. I never stopped to think that I might also need to make a case for what I believed, and my Christian friends were unable to demonstrate my responsibility to do so.

Today, as a Christian who has been involved in the examination of evidence for the past 25 years, I understand that atheists also have a burden of proof. All of us, in attempting to explain the world around us, move from a plethora of questions to a single responsibility:

There Are Many Questions
Atheists and theists both agree that the big questions of life are numerous. How did the universe come into existence? Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world? While atheists and theists have their own list of unanswered questions, we all agree that there are many important issues that need to be examined.

There Are Only Two Kinds of Answers
In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two simple categories: Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view I held as an atheist), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view I now hold as a theist). Atheists maintain that life’s most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of a supernatural, Divine Being). Theists argue that the evidence often leaves naturalism ‘wanting’ for answers while the intervention of an intelligent, transcendent Creator appears to be the best inference. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to infer a supernatural cause.

There Is Only One Shared Responsibility
Both groups share a singular burden of proof. If theists are going to posit God as the answer to some (or all) of the questions I’ve described, we are going to have to argue for His existence and activity. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. In either case, both groups (if they are honest with themselves) will have to shoulder the burden of proving their case. The burden of proof is not limited to the theist; all of us need to be able to make a case for our choice of answers. One side defends supernaturalism, the other defends philosophical naturalism.

The nature of the questions (and the limited categories of potential answers) ought to motivate all of us to decide which of the two explanatory possibilities is most reasonable. While atheists are sometimes un-persuaded by the arguments for God’s existence, they are still woefully unable to provide coherent and adequate answers to the most important questions of life related to the cause of the universe, the appearance of design, the origin of life, the reality of human free will and the existence of transcendent moral truth. Theists aren’t the only ones who have to answer these questions. If naturalism is true, naturalists have their own unique burden of proof.