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 : Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy of Death, Disease, Depravit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (4)	9/13/2015 3:00:02 PM
From: Greg or e	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 D.Austin Respond to of 1308

Welcome aboard Brumar! Can I post this type of material here, Greg? It's absolutely appropriate to post that here. Sanger's Malthusian Eugenics was bolstered by a social Darwinian view of natural selection and "Favored Races". 'It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.' (Sanger, "What Every Girl Should Know" 1920, p. 47).

To: Brumar89 who wrote (4)	9/13/2015 4:22:47 PM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 1308

Dawkins Neuters Logic and Reason Posted on September 7, 2015 by Michael Richard Dawkins defined himself and his fans with the following words: even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield……a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space. This, of course, is powerful evidence of Dawkins’ closed mind. Yet there is something far more interesting to this exchange that a demonstration of Richard’s closed mind. Dawkins is telling us that “even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory,” reason and logic would compel us to deny this as evidence for God and instead look to some other naturalistic explanation. As one of Dawkins’s fans said in the comment section of my previous blog entry, “Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume any contact with earth would be ET life?” Now, rather than argue whether or not it would be more reasonable and logical to attribute the Second Coming of Christ to God or space aliens, let’s assume Dawkins is correct. That is, reason and logic would indeed compel us to attribute such miraculous displays to a naturalistic cause. If Dawkins and his fans are correct, then it means that when it comes to issues of God, reason and logic are guaranteed to generate false negatives. That is, if Jesus did indeed return in the Second Coming, reason and logic would have us deny this. If there was indeed evidence for God, reason and logic would tell us there was no evidence for God. If God existed, reason and logic would tell us otherwise. If Dawkins and his fans are correct, then logic and reason break down when it comes to the existence of God. Reason and logic can only deliver a negative conclusion regardless of the nature of reality. All of this means the New Atheist position continues to collapse into irrationality. First, when they demand evidence, they are demanding a Gap, even though they simultaneously insist God of the Gaps reasoning is inherently flawed. Then, it turns out, even if such a Gap did exist, and existed because of divine intervention, they still feel obligated to contradict their previous posturing and insist that reason and logic obligate us to always choose a natural explanation over God. At this point, it then becomes clear they have split reason and logic away from the question of God’s existence since reason/logic are no longer responsive to what would be part of reality if indeed God was part of that reality. Put simply, the New Atheist posture has rendered reason and logic both flabby and useless when trying to determine if God exists. One can only imagine the intensity of the psychological investment for a New Atheist not only to destroy his credibility with his two-faced positioning on Gaps, but to also turn reason and logic into something that could never possibly detect the existence of God.