Some of you may remember that Marilyn Vos Savant wrote a while back that she didn’t think America would never let an Atheist be president since Atheists’ morals come from themselves, and not some external force.Some of us got a bit miffed at the statement. Some of us wrote to the author, and here’s her response:
Dave Silverman, National Spokesperson, American Atheists, writes:Marilyn: You wrote, ?Americans prefer to elect Presidents whose value systems grow from their religious beliefs. (That’s why an atheist?whose values are chosen, not established?has never been elected)? [read article].It?s time we started getting along, Marilyn, and that means we stop demonizing or degrading people with whom we disagree. Your comment was a step in the wrong direction, and I ask you to retract the statement.Marilyn responds:Dave: I?ve reread my comment half a dozen times, both in context (where it made more sense?I wasn?t writing about atheism, you know) and out of context, and I can?t find anything derogatory in it! I heard from other atheists, too. (See below.) Readers may find it instructive to see the ways in which people who are extremely sensitive can find problems where none exist. All of the following atheists wrote about the comment that atheists choose their own values:Richard Hewetson of San Francisco, Calif., writes:Marilyn: As an atheist, I was totally offended by your comment that atheists have no values.Dan Kelleher of Kalispell, Mon., writes:Marilyn: In what way are ?established? values superior to ?chosen? ones?Tim Pace (city unknown) writes:Marilyn: You think your values are somehow superior to mine because yours are divinely inspired and I chose mine. Well, I have news for you. … You are a sheep. Or a lemming. I?ll continue to leave the mythology to seventh-grade teachers.Marilyn responds:Readers: I think you four need a course in reading comprehension! (And Tim, why do you think my values are divinely inspired? I didn’t write anything about myself.)In fact, when my comment is read in context, it?s a simple statement of fact. When read thoughtfully, it?s a compliment. But certainly not to you guys!
Forgive me, Marylin, but if you make a comment about a group of people, and a whole bunch of people from that group say it was offensive, doesn’t that make the statement offensive by definition? I’m glad you didn’t mean any offense, but do you think it may have been better to write “sorry, didn’t mean it that way” instead of accusing a whole bunch of people of overreacting?I’d be the first to admit to overreacting sometimes, but separating out groups of people with blanket moral statements based solely on religious belief is wrong — and incorrect.I guess that America will never allow an advice columnist to be President either.
jcc,HZ,mxracer:
Pardon for butting in here, but I’m getting the distinct impression that youse guys are getting confused about the word ‘theory’.
Y’all might want to agree on the definition before you go any further.
It seems that jcc (& my pardon if I’m off here) is using this 1: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”
Whereas MXracer & HZ are using this 1: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
I’m sorry, I fail to see how that statement is germane.
jcc,
And you seem to have missed the point that gravity is a poor example. To all intents and purposes it is always an attractive force, but if we are being precise it has been shown that is not ALWAYS an attractive force.
HNZ,
Brian Greene wrote a fantastic book in 2004 “Fabric of the cosmos” I think is what it is called. It delves into QM and the cosmological effects, including superstring and M-theory, with a little brush up of general relativity at the beginning. It’s all qualitative, with a notes section in the rear if you want to dig deeper into the math. A must read IMO.
jcc,
I did miss your “effects” part, my apologies. But your statement:
is misleading at best, as I pointed out, the effects of gravity are not consistent, especially at the quantum scale.
I did see what you were getting at with the absolutes, in terms of science, and trying to back your opinion. The point I think you may have missed is that there aren’t any absolutes, merely statistical improbablities. I do believe we have danced around this before, and there may be no need to further our discussion on this particular subject, as it appears we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The only thing I ask is that you don’t use gravity as a generalized example of a scientific absolute.
mx,
Currently ‘reading’ it via audio book in my car. I’m about 80% through, but I know I am going to have to ‘read’ it again. Wonderful book.
Everybody,
Let’s not let this argument stray into quantum physics. Let’s go back to the stupidity of the Ark idea.
We’ve heard a tiny portion of the evidence AGAINST the Ark, now let’s hear some evidence FOR it!
DD:
Well, Ingersoll laid the Arc to rest (ergo, to waste) in ‘Some Mistakes of Moses’ (which you can get for free at infidels.org).
I’d much rather see jcc’s take on the Tower of Babel, meself.
Ah yes, the Tower itself. Let’s do it!
Or not. . . this thread is dead!