tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post4514906184786452695..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: A Response for Charlieneopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-77554027426598085202016-02-11T18:40:23.771-08:002016-02-11T18:40:23.771-08:00| As long as (Barnes) is an impeccable scientist...| As long as (Barnes) is an impeccable scientist, his views are no problem<br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />I'll leave the rest of your comments to stand for themselves. I have no concern that others will be unable to read between the lines and see you for what you are, Charlie.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-29562925868022396462016-02-11T17:57:41.944-08:002016-02-11T17:57:41.944-08:00Neo/n30 has finally come up with a response. Is it...Neo/n30 has finally come up with a response. Is it adequate? <br /><br />Sadly, no. This response is replete with bare assertions. For a thinking atheist this response is inadequate and unimpressive. It is also unsurprising. The hapless fundamentalist atheist position, as it turns out, is just not one you can provide good evidence for. Let's see why.<br /><br />But first, a preface. There are two or three issues I will cast aside due to their irrelevance to the discussion. I won't address the history of Neo's nicknames, and I won't go into the details of my belief. A sound argument and good science holds regardless of one's nickname or ideology. <br /><br />So where do we begin on Neo's litany of errors? Let's start at the beginning.<br /><br />You'll notice Neo's first charge is that his agitation at Barnes' alleged Templeton funding is reasonable. No explanation, no evidence, no justification. Just a bare assertion. It has as much substance as an air guitar. Are we supposed to take him seriously? I think not.<br /><br />Second, Neo comes after me, and Barnes, who I defend on the Templeton issue. Neo is hysteric at the idea that Barnes doesn't respond to his allegations. Why is he hiding, Neo demands to know!<br /><br />But once again Neo shows his failure at doing due diligence: He hasn't considered the possibility that he (Neo) hasn't come up with a coherent problem for Barnes to address. Not every rambling and confused screed is worth responding to, let's recall. Not because Neo is small fry but because he's toeing the fundie atheist line, the intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denial.<br /><br />It's not just the fundamentalist atheism that's wholly distasteful about n3o's campaign, its the fundamental misunderstanding of basic maths. As a flimsy defense of his Templetonphobia, Neo cites a list of people who are also unhappy with Templeton. But the astute reader will notice that almost everybody else on this list is also a fundie. Dawkins? Coyne? Dennett? This is an obvious con, a white supremacist citing other white supremacists. No thinking atheist will be persuaded by this ruse. <br /><br />The thing to notice here is how the extreme wing of atheism ends up sabotaging social progress by importing unnecessary and divisive anti-religious prejudice. No adequate defense of such an intolerant and bigoted approach has been forthcoming.<br /><br />Science works best when people aren't bickering unnecessarily. There is absolutely no need to foment illusory divisions with people of other views. Let it remain on the fringes where it belongs.<br /><br />Barnes, in doing his work, need not answer to or negotiate with the extremists. As long as he is an impeccable scientist, his views are no problem to me and most atheists. We need more atheistic moderation in the mainstream.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com