Response to Taboggle

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

As a reference, readers should check Taboggle's comments in the thread
that addresses AnnaAgainstAtheists's comments about Hitler and Natural
Selection.

On Jan 30, 1:55 am, Taboggle <p01ntl3ssp3ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon my intrusion, but I couldn't help but notice that there was a
> Debating YouTube Theists channel and I would like to join.

This is no intrusion, as I have often cited the existence of the group
and invited others to join and post comments.

> It appears that despite claiming to focus solely on debating,
> you often regress into merely insulting Anna and various other
> participants of the debates.

I'm fairly certain that there has been no explicit claim that there
exists only debate. In fact, since the group has only had one such
debate, in any real sense, because religious people have been very
reluctant to debate, it has mostly been my soapbox.

My criticisms of Anna and those like her may be deemed as insults, and
some probably are; but the valid criticisms cannot be waved off simply
as insults and, quite frankly, I've been very gentle with Anna in that
regard. She has posted her claims and they have been rebutted and
refuted. She certainly views that an insult, and it is not surprising
that someone who shares those views would view them in the same
manner.

> You have insulted Christians and the Christianity itself, which I take
> offense to.

Well, that's is one of the things you will simply have to get over, as
you have no inherent right to not be offended. No one does.
Christianity deserves to be insulted. It is a foolish belief system
based on no evidence and perpetuated, in large part, by incredulity.

When Christians behave badly, as they often do, that will be pointed
out and addressed. Christians do not like to be challenged or
questioned, and so this, too, is viewed as an insult. That, too, will
simply have to be accepted as a normal part of the discussion.
Christians have no inherent right to behave as they will without being
criticized any more than any other person.

> You may have your opinions concerning the validity of our
> claims, but please don't go on ranting against the "stupidity" and
> "blindness" of those who follow the religion, you'd save yourself
> quite a bit of typing.

I'm fairly certain that I have never ranted. However, There isn't
much that I can say about this comment without some kinds of
specifics. I'm also not sure if I have used "stupidity" very often,
if at all, but I do know that I have used "delusion" and, perhaps,
"blindness," as that is demonstrable on the part of religious people.
And since it is demonstrable and I have demonstrated it, I don't
consider it a waste of typing to post it.

> Also, stop discriminating against users based on their age. If you
> look at it from a psychological perspective, your fluid intelligence has
> most likely decreased, while your crystallized intelligence increased. This
> implies you can draw information from a wider variety of resources and
> previous knowledge to solve problems, but those younger than you
> (after having gone through intellectual maturation) have greater
> capability in using raw brainpower to solve problems. In short, don't insult age.

I am quite within my rights, here, as well, to point out that those
who have not matured in years will lack considerable ability to think
beyond the superficiality nature of a given concept. You, yourself,
make a concession when you write about those younger going "through
intellectual maturation," about which I do comment and, of course,
about which I have every right to comment. Age and maturity *are*
often issues in these exchanges, so they will draw comment.

Your very general comments about "crystalized intelligence" versus
"fluid intelligence" address an area of psychological study that I
know quite a bit about. To clarify for the readers, these are
concepts used in some studies by some workers to delineate variances
in practical uses of intellgence between members of academic
communities and of the "real world," and there is much said about how
those who have high academic intelligence perform well in those venues
while not performing so well in practical situations.

What I find amusing about the very few religious people who do bring
this up is this: The implication is that we academics don't really
have much capacity to deal with the "real world," where these
religious people live and in which they must operate. Implied by
association is that these religious people are better capable of
dealing with and understanding "real world" concepts and discerning
reality. The line of logic is especially entertaining because it is
then often implied or claimed that these people tend to believe in God
and, therefore, God must be real.

At no time is any real, direct evidence for God ever presented. What
happens, instead, is that intellectuals and academics are effectively
scoffed at and dismissed, presumably because they live in intellectual
"ivory towers" and have no concept of the real world.

I'm not saying that this argument is necessarily being made in your
comments, but I'll also save you the trouble if you intend to "go
there."

There is considerable controversy about the idea that academics and
intellectuals are somehow not as capable as "regular folks" (a term
I'll use) to operate effectively in the "real world." The fact is
that they do, quite often, and quite well. The fact is that lots of
"regular folks" don't do nearly as well. It is always difficult to
generalize in this way about such groups of people, but it also makes
no difference to the basic topics under discussion.

> To carry out this forums purpose those involved would need to focus only
> on facts- not insults.

Forums such as this involve the participation of human beings, who
will act as they will. This is not a *formal* debate forum and, even
if it were, it's not unusual for debates to contain commentary that
could at least be viewed as insulting. As I have said, Christians
have no inherent right not to be offended or insulted, and they are
often so sensitive that any questioning of their beliefs or their
persons is consider to be an insult. I have not kept track of
everything said to a Christian, so I'll grant that I've probably
insulted a few. But you used no specific example in which I insulted
*Christianity*, and so it's hard to determine if it should be viewed
by an objective person as an insult or as a legitimate conclusion or
comment based on some form of evaluation that was reasonable. For
example, I have said that Jesus almost certainly never existed.
Christians will certainly view that as an insulting statement. The
fact that it's supportable never enters into it, because they won't be
specific.

> Now I shall move past my rant concerning off topic behavior (how
> ironic).

One might even say "hypocritical."

However, as I have said, this is not a formal debating forum and, even
if it was, the very nature of the discussions means that religious
people will be inherently insulted by much of the commentary.

> I see there are two major topics: Hitler's use and misuse of natural
> selection and religion, and the subject of evolution.
>
> I agree that Hitler did in fact use Docial Darwinism, as opposed to
> the theory of natural selection as one of his motives for the
> genocides he committed.

Have you corrected Anna on this, then? That is, after all, what
prompted much of the commentary?

At this point, I will end this particular comment and continue my
response in another message, a little later.