It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level.
By the way, it must be thought that Liberals, 0bamatrons, RINOs, and other Repubics in general, would have some difficulty in discerning the subtle distinction to be found in the bottom two levels (Ad Hominem and Name-calling) of the pyramid (clearly, another reason for referring to all Liberals as “bottom feeders”). They all seem to mix the two levels apparently without regard for their subtleties.
The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with nothing more than a whimper - if even so much as that). Put simply, a fight over money and control of our backsides. Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives. Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides. Why don’t you address your objections to them?
“The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.”
Something about which I’ve been trying to convince my antagonists for years now . . . without success. I’ve had little trouble with my Judeo-Christian friends; they understand the point, that Science is science. It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value-judgments with which we must deal. The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.
“Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.”
Don’t be insulting and disingenuous. Dawkins certainly can say whatever he wishes. It is, indeed, just him talking. That is not, however, how he represents himself to the public (which you should well know and understand). Dawkins presents himself (deservedly) as an eminent evolutionary biologist and presents (undeservedly) his “opinions” as authoritative and definitive (verily canonical), therefore requiring unquestioning acceptance. Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid? Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager, lest you experience the modern version of the public stoning.
Public stonings no longer remain the sole province of the religious. While Moslems still indulge in the real thing as well as the virtual (and perhaps other religions . . . I am not a fanatical follower of the practice and therefore cannot say), Judeo-Christians have abandoned both the literal tradition (let him without sin cast the first stone) and the less violent but no less brutal scandal-mongering version. But the virtual, if not the literal, practice has been taken up with enthusiasm by 0bamatrons (and by Liberals generally) and by Scientists panicked at the thought of the loss of federal grant money, or the loss of the control of other public money.
“But many other scientists are not atheists . . . ”
So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science. Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations. Dawkins counts on his eminence to let him skate free from any consequences for his scientific heresies, as do many another like him. And skate free they do.
“your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.”
You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied.
A lot of big words get thrown around on these threads, and one is "ad hominem", so I thought I should look it up to see just exactly what it refers to.
Well, it didn't take long.
This site defines "ad hominem", and credits the chart to Paul Graham.
YHAOS: "It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level."
Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)
YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Why don’t you address your objections to them?"
First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term, "natural-science", which is a sub-branch of "natural-philosophy" which ranks beside "theology", the "queen of sciences".
This understanding dates back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.
So I thought I might help you out by noting that liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking "scientifically".
Don't blame "science" or "Darwinism" for liberal political agendas.
YHAOS: "Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid?
Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager,"
You got me there -- I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?
So I address problems I see here, and one of them is that many posters (including YHAOS?) get confused when they hear of a scientist giving his/her personal opinions on matters religious or philosophical, etc.
They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.
Well, the fact is that religious opinions are not scientific, regardless of who gives them.
YHAOS: "So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science.
Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations."
Every scientist is entitled to hold and express his/her personal philosophical or religious opinions.
And, so long as they don't claim those opinions are science itself, there's nothing dishonest about it.
In the Dawkin's quote above, he says:
I think Dawkins is expressing his non-scientific opinion, which is obviously wrong and should be dismissed as inappropriate and out of line.
Of course the media loves to lionize such people, but believers need a raincoat to go out in the media-storm anyway.
Dawkins' idea is just one more wind-blown water drop to roll off our backs.
YHAOS: "You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied."
I'll take that as a sincere denial and rejection of the false impression your words leave, and thank you for it, FRiend.