Gilbert, Sorry to say this. But I think all your responses in any thread on this and other issues stem from an inattention to or lack of understanding of the specifics of simple arguments. They invariably involve substitution of adhoc idiosyncratic views and cliches, in place of a cogent argument.
Let me illustrate what I mean by pointing out the absurdities in your last post in this thread. --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And thanks for telling us that atheism covers a wide >range from being a religion to a belief in nothing. > As Mario said, we do not really know the exact >situation till the atheist is arrested and >questioned under oath. > The above is nothing but gratuitous parroting of idiosyncratic prejudice against people with differing views to gain cheap sympathy from like-minded elements. > > The whole world concurs and has always concurred > with your second paragraph below. There is very > little scientific connection to God or a soul. > Garbage. Those who have understood what I have written would note that I have stated quite explicitly that science has a lot to say about the soul, but nothing to say about god. I have made a clear distinction between a belief in God and a belief in soul. You once again lump them together, and now claim that I have done such lumping. > > As our resident "scientist" ani "pro-logical" > expert, should you not just stay mum about Religion > and God? > No. I have every right to express my views on any matter under the sun. Trust me, there are many who wish that you would stay mum on almost every issue discussed on Goanet, but that would not be fair to you as a human being. > >With due respect, the only contribution of > good scientists to a religion thread should be: > "There is no scientific link to religion and its > theology." > What should be the contribution of radiation oncologists? Shouldn't they shut up by stating that "there is no radiation oncological link to goanet and its discussions"? > >And let the religionists continue to dialogue >religion in peace .... and on occasion ad > nauseam, ... though perhaps not on Goanet. > Who are the religionists? Do you consider yourself as one of them? Do you want to express your and your co-religionists' parochial views in a secular public forum without being challenged about your factual inaccuracies, self-righteousness, bigotry, etc.? > >Why are we inserting our scientific-selves into > something of which the scientific knowledge is > non-existent? > I have already pointed out that there is a lot of scientific knowledge that speaks to the non-existence of a soul. I have also provided statistical facts that refute your hackneyed notions about moral decay in the modern age. The conceptual foundations of constructs such as the soul and morality are well within the purview of mainstream biological and psychosocial sciences. That is why I am inserting myself in these specific discussions. > > Ani... yes, "Pure Nonsense" is also when agnostics >start writing about religion, and when believers >write about atheisms and their variants. > What about amateurish revised Goan history written by a radiation oncologist? Is that pure sense or nonsense? Cheers, Santosh _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
