Stephen Meyer - Discovery Institute

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

When it comes to medical care, I go by an idea called “evidence-based practice.”

As does France, Italy, Spain, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland…

The US has a circumcision rate far closer to the primitive superstitious Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Chad and so on, not like all the other scientifically literate societies.

As the article I posted explains, circumcision became prevalent in the US decades before HIV appeared and has its roots in beliefs about Jews and their overall health as a race.

The US is the odd man out, ignoring the consensus we see globally in the healthcare profession. The US has a very inward looking view about itself. People in the US mostly see the rest of the world as deficient in some way, yet here in the US health care is close to unaffordable for many, guns are becoming easier to buy as mass shootings rise, homelessness and drug abuse are worse in the US than comparable western nations, the population is obese, type II diabetes is rampant.

The TV news in the US has close to zero news about other nations, the only mention they do get is if they have some relevance to US “interests”, consequently most people in the US know almost nothing about how their country compares to others.

[Kevin_Levites]

I would have to review numbers and statistics before changing my position, but if EBT demostrates that circumcision is detrimental, then I will not support it in my professional capacity.

In fact, I would campaign against its use.

In fact, I’ll even go a step further: The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world. Even nations like Ecuador and Panama do better than us in infant mortality. So does Cuba.

So I will acknowledge that it’s more than reasonable to question all of our birth practices, which includes circumcision.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

I would have to review numbers and statistics before changing my position, but if EBT demostrates that circumcision is detrimental, then I will not support it in my professional capacity.

In fact, I would campaign against its use

Well if you choose the appropriate evidence you’ll be able to justify circumcision, its just a matter of sifting the data to suit one’s goal.

Regarding the HIV claim, read this:

From: here.

[Kevin_Levites]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Well if you choose the appropriate evidence you’ll be able to justify circumcision, its just a matter of sifting the data to suit one’s goal.

Please don’t suggest that I “cherry-pick” which evidence I like to guide my professional practices.

I know the basics of judging the validity of peer-reviewed work.

As in my example with the cuddle cot (a few posts back), I am able to set aside my personal feelings and biases in favor of a loftier goal . . . such as reducing infant mortality.

If circumcision plays even a small part of increasing infant mortality (and it might, as hospital-aquired infections are notoriously resistant to antibiotics, for example), then I would campaign against it in my nursing practice.

I work very, very hard to make sure that my feelings and biases don’t get in the way of EBT . . . and that includes making sure that I don’t cherry-pick the material that only supports my cultural and/or spiritual beliefs.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

Please don’t suggest that I “cherry-pick” which evidence I like to guide my professional practices.

I did not do that and apologize if it looks like that to you. I am claiming the US advocates for this do cherry pick, not you personally but the institutions that advocate it.

@Kevin_Levites

I work very, very hard to make sure that my feelings and biases don’t get in the way of EBT . . . and that includes making sure that I don’t cherry-pick the material that only supports my cultural and/or spiritual beliefs.

This is admirable and again no offense was intended.

[Kevin_Levites]

Thank you. 20 characters.

[Kellii]

Circumcision was apparently quite the debate in the early Christian church. Jesus would have been circumcised, as would have been his Jewish disciples. It would have been quite the barrier to recruiting male converts if circumcision were a requirement, so eliminating that requirement would have contributed to the rise of christianity. I wonder what the rate of complications was for the procedure before they understood the importance of having sterile instruments and clean hands? It really didn’t gain popularity in the US until the 20th century.
Of course practitioners of the christian religion have had arguments over which church
processed Jesus foreskin. That holy of holies, and no doubt a big draw for religious pilgrims. What a lousy vacation that would be.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Kellii

Of course practitioners of the christian religion have had arguments over which church
processed Jesus foreskin.

There ya go Kelly, and as a plus you can drink Italian wine while looking!

Foreskin relics began appearing in Europe during the Middle Ages. The earliest recorded sighting came on December 25, 800, when Charlemagne gave it to Pope Leo III when being crowned Emperor. Charlemagne claimed that it had been brought to him by an angel while he prayed at the Holy Sepulchre, although a more prosaic report says it was a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irene. Its authenticity was later considered to be confirmed by a vision of Saint Bridget of Sweden,[3] who confirmed that it was somewhere in Rome.[4] The Descriptio lateranensis Ecclesia, written shortly before 1100, indicated that a cypress chest commissioned by Leo III and placed under the altar in the Chapel of St. Lawrence held three caskets. One of the caskets contained a gold jeweled cross. The document stated that in this cross was the foreskin and umbilicus of Jesus.[5]

David Farley recounts how the foreskin was then looted during the Sack of Rome in 1527. The German soldier who stole it was captured in the village of Calcata, 47 km (29 mi) north of Rome, later the same year. Housed in Calcata, it was venerated from that time onwards, with the Church approving the authenticity by offering a ten-year indulgence to pilgrims. Pilgrims, nuns and monks flocked to the church, and “Calcata [became] a must-see destination on the pilgrimage map.” The foreskin was reported stolen by a local priest in 1983.[6] Wiki.

Edited to wear cricket cup.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Kellii

It would have been quite the barrier to recruiting male converts if circumcision were a requirement,

Which is exactly what “paul” realised. That is the reason for the great schism between the ‘jewish’ christians (Followers of the way) and what later became mainstream christianity.

Hi get baptised! Eternal Life!
Good deal! Water? Dont mind if I do!
Prostrate yourself before the risen god:
Hmm yeh ok…Oh proSTRate…fine no probs bro
Now, we just need to cut a teensy bit off your peni…hey!!! where you going?

Edit to remind Kelli to read my piece on the Ebionites.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Nothing can be empirically proven though, that’s why you’ll often hear “science doesn’t do proof” in these kinds of forums

Science and empiricism are not mutually exclusive.

We can use various methods to validate or invalidate claims.

And i sure as hell wont be bogged down by semantics just so people can dodge a bullet and not demonstrate evidence to the contrary.

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s a false statement too, if you can quote someone from the ID community who expressed that view I’d like to see it.

I honestly cannot be bothered to go through what dozens of others have prior to myself and dig up more and more crap spouted by intelligent design proponents.

But a simple study of the wedge document and who authored it and what their beliefs are, is sufficent enough for now.

Also, as stated earlier… minute 20 to min 23 roughly on Mayer’s appareance on joe rogan.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Which make a change from the usual naturalism of the gaps crutch we see so often here

Not really, naturalism is at least part of our reality and evidenced, as oppose to god of the gaps which is completely unproven, untestable etc…

@Sherlock-Holmes

It’s a fact though, any claim about probabilities being high or low must be accompanied by data that supports the claim, which is this a contentious point?

Its also a fact that you’re trying to dodge, by adding something that likely doesnt exist and cannot be quantified or tested and lacks and evidence to prove its real, would massively increase the odds.

You dont need a calculator or advanced mathematics to know this.

We can use very basic reasoning to asign probabilities, if i say to you that i am the father of my child, its very reasonably.

If i say ‘old man’ on here may be the father despite them not having a great resemblance, we could say, unlikely but a slim chance.

Now if i was to say an invisiable pan dimensional goat is the father, youd think i was a fucking idiot.

Get the jist?

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Randomhero1982

If i say ‘old man’ on here may be the father despite them not having a great resemblance, we could say, unlikely but a slim chance.

You leave my jist out of this…oh wait jisT, sorry. Carry on.

Edit: to examine a load of bolloacks.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

any claim about probabilities being high or low must be accompanied by data that supports the claim

@Sherlock-Holmes

The proposition “The earth was created six thousand years ago with an inbuilt appearance of being much older” cannot be proven false using scientific arguments.

Any data to support it?

@Sherlock-Holmes

I’d not venture an opinion about probabilities without some metrics to support it.

Oh really, lets take a look at your track record on that:

@Sheldon

1. How is a deity possible?
2. Where did this deity come from?
3. How is the supernatural power to create a universe possible?
4. Where does the supernatural power to create a universe come from?
5. How did a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe.

@Sherlock-Holmes

1. How is a deity possible? [Which part are you struggling with]
2. Where did this deity come from? [I don’t know]
3. How is the supernatural power to create a universe possible? [Why is anything possible]
4. Where does the supernatural power to create a universe come from? [From outside the universe]
5. How did a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe. [By the use of will]

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

unless we have an initial belief we cannot develop new beliefs.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

where does that initial belief come from?

I have no idea…

@Sherlock-Holmes

we can conclude that the human mind must hold at least one initial belief, …it cannot be based on some other belief because it is the first belief.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

where does that initial belief come from?

I have no idea,

That’ll do for now.

[Kevin_Levites]

@Kellii

Circumcision was apparently quite the debate in the early Christian church. Jesus would have been circumcised, as would have been his Jewish disciples. It would have been quite the barrier to recruiting male converts if circumcision were a requirement, so eliminating that requirement would have contributed to the rise of christianity.

Did you hear the story about the Jewish moyel who saved all the foreskins to make a wallet?

When he rubbed it . . . it would turn into a suitcase.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

We can use various methods to validate or invalidate claims.

Yes, but first we must define what constitutes “validation” science relies on repeatability, if a result cannot be repeated by others then its deemed invalid but does that prove that one-off events cannot occur in nature?

@Randomhero1982

Not really, naturalism is at least part of our reality and evidenced, as oppose to god of the gaps which is completely unproven, untestable etc…

So how did you prove that there’s nothing other than naturalism?

@Randomhero1982

Its also a fact that you’re trying to dodge, by adding something that likely doesnt exist and cannot be quantified or tested and lacks and evidence to prove its real, would massively increase the odds.

What do you mean “dodge” I stated a fact, look in any book on probability and statistics these terms have formal definitions in a science oriented discussion. Go ahead though, show me the “logic” the reasoning that shows that God creating the universe is “less likely” than it having existed always.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes, but first we must define what constitutes “validation” science relies on repeatability, if a result cannot be repeated by others then its deemed invalid but does that prove that one-off events cannot occur in nature?

Can you first provide a one off event?

@Sherlock-Holmes

So how did you prove that there’s nothing other than naturalism?

I don’t believe i made that claim, did I?

What i would claim however, is that naturalism is by far the best explanation and best methodology for the world and reality we share.

If you have a better idea, have at it…

@Sherlock-Holmes

What do you mean “dodge” I stated a fact, look in any book on probability and statistics these terms have formal definitions in a science oriented discussion. Go ahead though, show me the “logic” the reasoning that shows that God creating the universe is “less likely” than it having existed always

Sure, first demonstrate that god exists.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

Can you first provide a one off event?

The detection of cold fusion.

@Randomhero1982

What i would claim however, is that naturalism is by far the best explanation and best methodology for the world and reality we share.

Except for the fact that it cannot logically serve to explain the presence of naturalism itself, that’s the rub.

@Randomhero1982

Sure, first demonstrate that god exists.

You mean show you some evidence that you’ll accept? is that what you want me to do?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Randomhero1982

Not really, naturalism is at least part of our reality and evidenced, as oppose to god of the gaps which is completely unproven, untestable etc…

So how did you prove that there’s nothing other than naturalism?

Straw man fallacy, and you can stick all the question marks you want, he clearly didn’t say what you’re asking him to prove.

@Sherlock-Holmes

What do you mean “dodge” I stated a fact, look in any book on probability and statistics these terms have formal definitions in a science oriented discussion.

I seriously doubt those methods violate Occam’s razor, like adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic. Why not use that methodology and show your calculations for the probability of a deity, I’m sure if you asked nicely @Nyarlathotep will take a look.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Go ahead though, show me the “logic” the reasoning that shows that God creating the universe is “less likely” than it having existed always.

Glad to, your comparison of something you cannot explain or demonstrate any objective evidence is even possible, with something we know exists as an objective fact, is clearly a false equivalence fallacy.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

The detection of cold fusion.

Last i read, the two scientist who reportedly made the claim of detecting cold fusion hadn’t actually deteced any nuclear reation.

There were also faults within the testing.

I may be wrong and happy to be corrected.

But for now, i would imagine this would not count as a one off event.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Except for the fact that it cannot logically serve to explain the presence of naturalism itself, that’s the rub.

Then offer a better alternative! For now, it works very well and accounts for itself rather well.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You mean show you some evidence that you’ll accept? is that what you want me to do?

Sure, otherwise you’re essentially asking me to provide probability and logic to something that has zero evidence of being true.

*typo

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

Last i read, the two scientist who reportedly made the claim of detecting cold fusion hadn’t actually deteced any nuclear reation.

That’s the current interpretation yes.

@Randomhero1982

There were also faults within the testing.

Yes, that might be a better explanation but…

@Randomhero1982

But for now, i would imagine this would count as a one off event.

Yes it could be, they might very well have detected true cold nuclear fusion and for reasons we can’t grasp it is truly hard to repeat. Or - more worring - might it be true that one-off events can and do happen and science uses blinkers to pretend these never really happen.

@Randomhero1982

Then offer a better alternative! For now, it works very well and accounts for itself rather well.

That’s exactly what the theist does, they posit a better explanation but at the cost of making a fundamental change to one’s worldview. If one is willing to make the change they can accept and consider the alternative explanation, if that cost is just too high, if the worldview is just too precious then one must live with the paradox (or as some do, convince oneself there is no paradox and attack anyone who dares to say otherwise).

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes it could be, they might very well have detected true cold nuclear fusion and for reasons we can’t grasp it is truly hard to repeat. Or - more worring - might it be true that one-off events can and do happen and science uses blinkers to pretend these never really happen.

And again, its more likely that they did not, given the glearing errors, the fact nuclear reaction were not detected.

I dont believe science uses blinkers to pretend things never happen, i do believe science or better said, scientists may make mistakes.

But the beautiful thing is that it is heavily scrutinised within its own field.

They’re many great theistic as well as atheistic scientists and if one off events or gods or anything else were proven to be true, then im sure theyd demonstrate that.

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s exactly what the theist does

But it doesn’t, does it?! Theism has progressively taken backward step after backward step as science has unravelled the universe we reside in.
Lets be fair, for explanitory power, its not even remotely close.

@Sherlock-Holmes

If one is willing to make the change they can accept and consider the alternative explanation, if that cost is just too high, if the worldview is just too precious then one must live with the paradox (or as some do, convince oneself there is no paradox and attack anyone who dares to say otherwise).

I’ll speak planely here, for most (at least that ive spoken to) if there was any decent objective, empirical eveidence, then most would welcome it and change their views and opinions.

For me, as many here know, my father commited suicide 3 years ago (he was spiritual, but not a follow of a particular religion, but he admired budhism)… now, i would love nothing more then to meet him again one day and tell him its fine and embrace him.

If there was proof/evidence to support the god/heaven hypothesis, id be delighted… but theres not, so i have to deal with that best i can.

Atheism is one who is without theism, or unconvinced of the claim.

Id say you folks need to do a far better job.