Tsk, tsk, you must learn you admit when you are had my friend.
Let's start here.
"<<If you don't think
it's idolizing someone to go out and have a celebration in there honor you
are a fucking moron.>>
I agree with you there... although I
wouldn't have phrased it so forcefully, for fear of seeming a rhetorically
violent lout. Not that you do; it would just be my
If you agree with me on this point, that
contradicts you in so many other things you said in this email. I don't even
know whether to continue to argue with you on all the other places where you
show the opposite sentiment or accept this as a concession. Do you or do you
not feel that's "it's idolizing someone to go out
and have a celebration in there honor"
?"<<You are making to contradictory arguments. In one paragraph
you sing the priases of Darwin and why he is great and important and
deserves recognition and in the next you claim you aren't worshiping him.
Honestly, it's so transparent it's almost humorous.>>
I didn't make such claims as you attribute to me, so,
What???? Are you kidding me? Denial will not
strengthen your case here.
"It was the particular contribution Darwin made to
the credibility of secularism that so many atheists are concerned with him.
And the particularly charismatic nature of his research topic that attracts
so many admirers, in general: compare "the grandeur and beauty of the
diversity of life" to "the mathematical description of the gravitational
relationships among bodies in motion," "the ineffably dualistic flavor of
fundamental particles," or "the benefit of heating milk before drinking,"
and you'll have answered your own question about why the average
scientifically literate citizen likes Darwin but is typically indifferent
toward Newton, Bohr, and Pasteur. To put it briefly, people like
That is you, singing the priases of Darwin. You are
clearly argueing there for his significance and greatness.
invite anyone to a worship service, and am quite outspoken in my opinion
that such deification of human heroes is dangerous and
That is you saying you aren't worshiping the man. I
don't think this could be any clearer.
"<<No source just
pulling shit out of my ass as I mentioned earlier. Again though, I think
your defensiveness towards this dead man is awfully telling.>>
is telling about you fabricating facts?"
I'll tell you
what this MISTAKE tells me about myself. It tells me that I don't give a
damn about the personal life of Darwin, which is true, and general holds
well in my argument about not idolizing him. You can say the same thing
about me not recognizing your qoute from origin of species which I will
happily admit to having never read. I'm deeply familiar with the
evolutionary theory which is covered by many more up to date and relevant
sources. If you would like me to explain the evolutionary process to you I
would be happy to and I'm sure you would find my understanding of it is
quite accurate to the modern scientific understanding.
"<<"2. To call theism "a fairy tale" is to fail to
realize the many good reasons many theists believe in gods. Of course, none
of them are quite good enough..." uhh... I disagree.>>The
whole point of my flipant response to this point was that it is just an
opinion. By the way, Yes, I'm reffering to the first part and "I disagree it
that it is fallacious to call theism a fairy
tale". How do you possibly purpose to argue this point? It's exactly a
matter of opinion. You mentioning reading your explanation but I see none,
you just saying it's not a fairy tale. It's a fictional story, I hope we
that it is fallacious to call theism a fairy tale, or with my observation
that there are no good-enough reasons to believe in a god? Whichever it is,
again, I'm willing to exchange views on the topic, but I won't get into a
spitting match. If you can't be bothered to explain what you mean, I won't
waste your time by asking you to read my own explanation."
What are you even getting at here? You say good reasons
but not good enough? These are obviously just statements of opinion. Your
attempt to make this a point of contention is laughable.
I should probably stop here but I'll pick one more bone.
"5. To conclude one's argument with the suggestion that we
"screw" the one with whom we disagree suggests that as one lacks the
confidence in the intellectual credibility of one's argument, one must
resort of physical acts of intolerance and antagonism.
<<I wasn't literally
suggesting digging up his body and having intercourse with it. It's
just a figure of speach there buddy, calm down.>>
Such figures work
against your credibility, for those who care about civility and the
assumption of good faith."
You said physical acts?? So,
what else were you talking about? I think my crass nature does undermine my
credibility to some extent, but it makes it all the more satisfying when I'm
able to thoroughly evicerate your arguement dispite that handicap. So in
that sense you could say I'm way overconfident. Not to mention it's more
By the way, I admit inserting the golden calf
reference was stupid and confusing to my point. I do know the original moral
of that story and was not saying that was the moral here, just trying to use
the story to make some other point. Yeah, didn't really work to well
Please Note: If you hit
", your message will be sent to everyone
on this mailing
list ([address removed]
This message was sent by
Doug ([address removed]
Baltimore Atheists Meetup Group
To learn more about Doug, visit
his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list
hereMeetup Support: [address removed]
Broadway, New York, NY 10012 USA