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 fear."
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, moving on.
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 animals."
That is you, singing the priases of Darwin. You are clearly argueing there for his significance and greatness.
"I didn't invite anyone to a worship service, and am quite outspoken in my opinion that such
deification of human heroes is dangerous and indefensible."
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.>>
What 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 both agree.
You disagree 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 entertaining.
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