Stephen Meyer - Discovery Institute

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

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.

Yes it likely is but we really don’t know, we can’t, the papers were published in peer reviewed journals after being peer reviewed.

@Randomhero1982

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

I don’t dispute that either, but we must be cognizant of the limits science is subject too, after all no amount of science can help you choose from the available interpretations of quantum physics. These are very different models of reality yet they are all equally consistent with observation.

I don’t have a negative opinion of science, only of those who misrepresent it and I see that here from time to time.

@Randomhero1982

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.

You raise several contentious points here. I don’t know what you mean by “backward step” I agree there are historic views expressed by authoritarian people (in the name of God) that were simply wrong, but that’s all because it was the interpretation of those people that was wrong.

Galileo for example (and even senior Catholic officials at the time) saw no conflict between observation and the Bible, the only conflict was between observation and some people’s interpretation of the Bible.

As for “explanatory power” I agree we can’t use a Bible to send a man to the moon, but why is that a criteria here? The intent of the Bible is not physical or material in nature, there’s no reason to even make a comparison in terms of predictive capabilities.

@Randomhero1982

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.

Well God reveals that people - of their own nature - do not welcome a God at all, humanity is generally hostile to God. The evidence is plain, clear as day to me and many others but many people cannot perceive it or strive to discredit far beyond what is reasonable.

I asked the very serious question about what EXACTLY could an atheists do with evidence to decide if it is or is not actually evidence for God. Only one person answered sensibly (I can’t recall who) but everyone else here attacks me for just asking the question!

@Randomhero1982

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.

I’m sorry to hear that, I can’t really imagine the feelings I’d have if a loved one did that. My view today is that there are two distinct realms, the spiritual and the physical. Scripture is revelation purely about the spiritual realm. The physical realm is rationally intelligible and we are equipped to explore it and develop some understanding of it.

The spiritual realm is inaccessible to us, it has to be revealed to each of us in our own time. The “real” world is in fact the spiritual one, the physical is temporary, fleeting, and absolutely irrelevant when it comes to our reason for existing.

But I digress.

@Randomhero1982

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.

Your mind is evidence the presence of a vast universe together with its profound mathematically abstruse descriptions and laws is evidence, the information revealed in the New Testament is evidence, the existence, longevity and relative textual stability of the scriptures is evidence.

You won’t find “obvious” material pointers to God, science cannot decide the question for us because science deals only with the material, when we try to shoehorn reality into a purely material worldview we get problems.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes it likely is but we really don’t know, we can’t, the papers were published in peer reviewed journals after being peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed in name, yes. But the initial publication was rushed through the peer-review process, without a thorough review.

Given the importance of their results, the U.S. editor of the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry — and personal contact of Pons — offered to get Pons and Fleischmann’s paper through the review process quickly. By setting tight deadlines for the reviewers and agreeing upon revisions between themselves (instead of sending them back to reviewers for approval as is customary), a process that normally takes months took just nine days. Then, before their work was published — before it could be reviewed by the scientific community as a whole — they held a press conference to announce their results.
[…]
The elements of this story that deviate from scientific norms involve the researchers’ behavior: Bypassing the feedback of the scientific community, ignoring evidence, and not trying to find evidence that contradicts a pet hypothesis are behaviors antithetical to the goals of science.

So is it science? This case demonstrates science’s fuzzy borders. The research ended up producing scientific information (even if just about what doesn’t happen in a particular situation), but the investigators’ behavior carried the study away from the solidly scientific.

The science checklist applied: Cold fusion - Understanding Science

[Sherlock-Holmes]

This website is overdue for its midday crash, I’ll return later, much later…

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes it likely is but we really don’t know, we can’t, the papers were published in peer reviewed journals after being peer reviewed.

Possibly, but the point stands, it’s not a one off event.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I don’t dispute that either, but we must be cognizant of the limits science is subject too, after all no amount of science can help you choose from the available interpretations of quantum physics.

Currently.

As time passes and more breakthroughs are made, this will change and the prevailing ideas will come to light, will be altered, will be tested etc… this again is the beauty of science and why it is massively clear of any other methodology.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You raise several contentious points here. I don’t know what you mean by “backward step”

For clarity, what i mean by ‘backwards step’ in where theology has made a claim regarding reality or the universe etc… its on the whole been wrong about a lot of things.

Be that a global flood or evolution etc… take your pick really.

@Sherlock-Holmes

As for “explanatory power” I agree we can’t use a Bible to send a man to the moon, but why is that a criteria here? The intent of the Bible is not physical or material in nature, there’s no reason to even make a comparison in terms of predictive capabilities

Well if at least had something regarding germ theory, or something note worthy, it would be impressive… imagine if the last line was a key part of the equation to discovering something like dark matter etc… years before we could ever understand.

But it doesn’t.

Even from a moral perspective… why not have one of the commandment be, “dont own slaves”.

It just doesnt strike me as a lay person as even remotely impressive.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I asked the very serious question about what EXACTLY could an atheists do with evidence to decide if it is or is not actually evidence for God. Only one person answered sensibly (I can’t recall who) but everyone else here attacks me for just asking the question!

Thats a fair question, to which i’d answer, i don’t know.

I dont even know what would convince me there is a god, but im sure if this god is as all powerful, all knowing etc… they should know what it would take to convince all and do so… but thats just my subjective opinion.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I’m sorry to hear that, I can’t really imagine the feelings I’d have if a loved one did that.

Thank you, Bi Polar is horrific.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Your mind is evidence the presence of a vast universe together with its profound mathematically abstruse descriptions and laws is evidence

That is purely a subjective view.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

For clarity, what i mean by ‘backwards step’ in where theology has made a claim regarding reality or the universe etc… its on the whole been wrong about a lot of things.

Be that a global flood or evolution etc… take your pick really.

This is a good point and one that goes to the heart of biblical theology. Scripture is always interpreted as is evidence. We interpret scripture initially so as to reconcile it with our existing views. Naturally people make errors. Galileo pointed out that his interpretation of observations was not at odd with scripture it was at odds with a particular interpretation of scripture.

When people try to interpret scripture in some literal physical sense, it is that interpretation that’s the often the source of problems not the scripture itself.

@Randomhero1982

Well if at least had something regarding germ theory, or something note worthy, it would be impressive… imagine if the last line was a key part of the equation to discovering something like dark matter etc… years before we could ever understand.

But it doesn’t.

But it does:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature —have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It is clear too but not if you are shackled to a materialist worldview. Much of scripture’s language reflects ideas and abstractions that were common thousands of years ago, this is true though:

He hangs the earth on nothing.

That is correct, but surely a primitive uneducated people would never write that, it’s nonsensical, how can it be suspended on nothing, it would fall! No human mind would ever say the earth is hanging on nothing, it is contrary to everyday experience - yet there it is, written a long time ago.

We can see too from observation that the universe had a beginning, winding the clock back to the initial “big bang”. People have always understood that the universe is described as beginning, starting to exist at some point in the past. Yet for years the universe was believed to be static, there was no speculation that it was expanding.

It was Einstein who first saw that his general relativity theory implied an expanding universe. He hacked the equations to eliminate that, at the time it was to all intents and purposes undisputed that the universe was static.

Later in the 1920s it became evident that it was in fact expanding, it was not static. Einstein removed the hack from his equations and was appalled at himself for not having trusted the theory at the time. Had he done that though (before there was evidence of expansion) his theory would have been rejected by many.

@Randomhero1982

Even from a moral perspective… why not have one of the commandment be, “don’t own slaves”.

We’re back to interpretation again though and that involves our interpretation about what physical existence means, why we exist at all. I mean which definition of slave do we use? The NT describes humans as being “slaves to sin” all of us are slaves, but what can it mean?

@Randomhero1982

It just doesnt strike me as a lay person as even remotely impressive.

I agree, I was once a very vocal atheist and would decimate theists, quite cruelly too. But since that time I’ve grown to understand the interpretation issue, we - each and every human - interprets scripture and I am now at the point where I think there might be multiple distinct valid intepretations, we each see what is shown to us, there is no “objective” Christianity, not at a fine granular level anyway.

Years ago when I looked at scripture or heard it quoted I knew only one way to interpret it - as claptrap, the ramblings of primitive tribes of nomads fantasizing about Gods because they understood so little about the world.

Later after some years of struggle I began to grasp that scripture is not at odds with science at all, it is only interpretations that are at odds with the right interpretation there is no conflict.

@Randomhero1982

I dont even know what would convince me there is a god, but im sure if this god is as all powerful, all knowing etc… they should know what it would take to convince all and do so… but thats just my subjective opinion.

Well it is written “his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. It says its clear, why do so many of us not see it? It’s because we have chosen a worldview, chosen one that suits our own selfish desires and egos.

If a person can step back - right back and have no worldview at all - and then start afresh, consider the options, rank them, compare them and choose a worldview from a point of intellectual neutrality, they might then be able to see.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

This is a good point and one that goes to the heart of biblical theology. Scripture is always interpreted as is evidence. We interpret scripture initially so as to reconcile it with our existing views. Naturally people make errors. Galileo pointed out that his interpretation of observations was not at odd with scripture it was at odds with a particular interpretation of scripture.

A further issue arises in that we don’t know who actually wrote any of this, or large parts… i.e. matthew, mark etc… and some of the stories for example, the resurrection are conflicting, which is odd at the very least.

@Sherlock-Holmes

It is clear too but not if you are shackled to a materialist worldview.

The immaterial is yet to be demonstrated to be possible, let alone true.

So whilst you may consider me ‘shackled’, i consider myself grounded.
And content with what we experience within reality, rather then essentially wishing or believing for something unproven to be true.

@Sherlock-Holmes

He hangs the earth on nothing

The earth doesnt sit on nothing.

@Sherlock-Holmes

We can see too from observation that the universe had a beginning

Thats not known, and still a highly debated topic within cosmology and other academia.

@Sherlock-Holmes

We’re back to interpretation again though and that involves our interpretation about what physical existence means, why we exist at all. I mean which definition of slave do we use? The NT describes humans as being “slaves to sin” all of us are slaves, but what can it mean?

Well from my personal perspective, i feel the owning of any human is completely immoral, if a god in any way condones it, then i say im more moral then that god.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Years ago when I looked at scripture or heard it quoted I knew only one way to interpret it - as claptrap, the ramblings of primitive tribes of nomads fantasizing about Gods because they understood so little about the world.

An interesting take, i myself would consider them as efforts by ancestors to try and make sense of the world they saw.

Much like the vikings did with Odin, and the romans did with their gods… the greeks and so on…

@Sherlock-Holmes

Later after some years of struggle I began to grasp that scripture is not at odds with science at al

And yet here we are, where the vast over whelming majority of scientists would disagree and there is not a sindle shred of scientific evidence to support any god(s).

Thoughy id concede that i would imagine Jesus may have been an historical person.

@Sherlock-Holmes

If a person can step back - right back and have no worldview at all - and then start afresh, consider the options, rank them, compare them and choose a worldview from a point of intellectual neutrality, they might then be able to see.

Which I do, along with most atheists.

I look at my world view and its one where im very easily able to step away and view the bigger picture.

For me it comes down to probability and im not talking from a mathematical position requiring streams of data, i simply cannot be bothered to try and attempt it.

But i look at what is more plausible?

And a theistic world view just doesnt cut the mustard and answers very little.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

The immaterial is yet to be demonstrated to be possible, let alone true.

Think about this, what you wrote. It shows that deep down you perceive of the supernatural as if it should be have naturally. You expect it to be “demonstrated” but that is only meaningful for a mechanistic system that adheres to laws.

This is why so many go astray with atheism, they don’t see how they’ve been trained to only perceive the world as mechanistic, they then want the non-mechanistic to be demonstrable using the mechanistic.

You’re asking the same kind of question as those who seek proof of free will, how can free will be demonstrated? It’s all part of the paradoxical nature of reality.

[Randomhero1982]

No, i perceive the supernatural as a very clever ‘cop out’, a get out of jail free card if you will.

Is it not odd that in order to have any merit in a conversation and to avoid scrutiny, these are the cards you must play?

Magic, spiritual, outside of the universe, supernatural, immaterial.

It strikes me as deeply sad that people will pin their entire being upon something that is completely vague.

And yet, for generations we’re told, god came to mary and gave her a child, jesus ascended to heavan etc… all these claims where the supposed immaterial or supernatural interacts with reality and again… no proof, no evidence, where there ought to be.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

The earth doesnt sit on nothing.

It is unsuspended though, “hangs on nothing” is a euphemism used to convey the concept of a large heavy object (the world) not falling. Centuries before any knowledge of Newton’s theory of gravitation we have a text acknowledging that the world isn’t suspended in any way, that’s a very unnatural idea for a bunch of uneducated hicks wandering around with their sheep five thousand years ago.

@Randomhero1982

Thats not known, and still a highly debated topic within cosmology and other academia.

I don’t think that “there was no big bang” is a view held by many cosmologists though.

@Randomhero1982

Well from my personal perspective, i feel the owning of any human is completely immoral, if a god in any way condones it, then i say im more moral then that god.

As you wish.

@Randomhero1982

And yet here we are, where the vast over whelming majority of scientists would disagree and there is not a sindle shred of scientific evidence to support any god(s).

Is this some kind of argument from authority? Why is it odd too that people educated in a largely secular country will hold secular opinions? Why too would we expect a person educated in the sciences to have any grasp of spiritual matters?

@Randomhero1982

But i look at what is more plausible?

Here’s the rub though, the definition of “plausible” is “something that’s consistent with an already held worldview”. So flight was plausible because a suitable structure could be envisaged that could leverage the airflow affect of a wing’s dihedral.

You cannot define plausible other than by reference to what you already believe and if you believe there’s no supernatural you will obviously see the supernatural as not plausible, it is just an exercise in conformation bias.

No, you can’t start using “plausibility” until you’ve chosen a worldview, it’s the worldview that’s key here, tell me, what process would you use to change your worldview? (You can’t use “plausibility” because that is tied to an existing worldview, we can’t use a worldview to justify a worldview).

See, none of this has anything to do with science, absolutely nothing, that’s a lie designed to make us choose between science and God, but there’s no basis for such a choice, there’s no incompatibility at all.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

This is why so many go astray with atheism, they don’t see how they’ve been trained to only perceive the world as mechanistic, they then want the non-mechanistic to be demonstrable using the mechanistic.

@Sherlock-Holmes

that’s a lie designed to make us choose between science and God, but there’s no basis for such a choice, there’s no incompatibility at all.

So a deity is non-material / supernatural and can’t be demonstrated as it offers no data, but believing it exists is not in any way incompatible with the scientific method which can only deal with mechanistic / natural data?

Funnier and funnier.

Quick question do you believe, as the Genesis creation myth asserts, that the earth existed with vegetation before the sun was “created”? Do you believe humans were created in their current form as that creation myth asserts?

Those claims are incompatible with scientific facts.

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

You cannot define plausible other than by reference to what you already believe and if you believe there’s no supernatural you will obviously see the supernatural as not plausible, it is just an exercise in conformation bias.

More stupidity. Birds flew. Insects flew. It was perfectly plausible for man to imagine he too could fly. ‘Archytas (428–347 BC) was reputed to have designed and built the first artificial, self-propelled flying device, a bird-shaped model propelled by a jet of what was probably steam, said to have actually flown some 200 meters around 400 BC.’

What supernatural are you referencing? Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided. What evidence do you have for anything at all supernatural? Things that fly do not require our belief to fly. Our belief is based on direct observation. Tell me what process do you use to demonstrate anything supernatural?

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

It is unsuspended though, “hangs on nothing” is a euphemism used to convey the concept of a large heavy object (the world) not falling.

Why not say how its really is? Why the euphemism? Why the vagueness that can be literally spun to mean anything.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I don’t think that “there was no big bang” is a view held by many cosmologists though.

I never claimed it was.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Is this some kind of argument from authority? Why is it odd too that people educated in a largely secular country will hold secular opinions? Why too would we expect a person educated in the sciences to have any grasp of spiritual matters

No, its response to when you say scripture isnt at odds with science… becuase if scripture makes a claim, lets take Noah’s ark, and science proves the global flood story is bollocks, then we have a conflict.

If religion stayed in its lane of spirituality then theyd be less issues for it, but it tends often to speak upon things regarding nature and reality, to which science can certainly speak upon.

@Sherlock-Holmes

if you believe there’s no supernatural

I believe there is no good reason to believe that it is true.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Here’s the rub though, the definition of “plausible” is “something that’s consistent with an already held worldview”

Thats not the definition of plausible.

But again, we’re back to sementics.

Plenty of atheists have become theists, and visa versa, they clearly decided what was more plausible to them… no?

@Sherlock-Holmes

You cannot define plausible other than by reference to what you already believe and if you believe there’s no supernatural you will obviously see the supernatural as not plausible, it is just an exercise in conformation bias.

Again, my belief is that i have no good reason to believe in the supernatural.

@Sherlock-Holmes

what process would you use to change your worldview?

I don’t know, but perhaps something that meets the burden of proof of the claim being made in any particular situation.

@Sherlock-Holmes

See, none of this has anything to do with science, absolutely nothing, that’s a lie designed to make us choose between science and God, but there’s no basis for such a choice, there’s no incompatibility at all.

Lunacy.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Cognostic

More stupidity. Birds flew. Insects flew. It was perfectly plausible for man to imagine he too could fly.

Ermm…that’s why I used it as an example of something plausible…

@Cognostic

What supernatural are you referencing?

God, God’s will and intent as opposed to mechanistic agencies.

@Cognostic

Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided.

And evidence is evaluated for its plausibility and plausibility depends on the worldview and naturalism is a worldview.

@Cognostic

What evidence do you have for anything at all supernatural?

You’re asking me - as a believer that nature can be explained naturally - for evidence of non-natural agency? Can’t you see! Whatever is shown to you will always be interpreted as having a natural explanation so of course if that’s one’s worldview then they never will accept evidence for the supernatural, you CHOOSE to interpret everything you experience within the naturalism worldview.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

Why not say how its really is? Why the euphemism? Why the vagueness that can be literally spun to mean anything.

We all interpret written text, you have your interpretation and have mine. But you reveal more of your weakness here. You say “Why not say how it is really” but that is a valid explanation given the culture and language of the time.

No explanation in science is ever “how it really is” go on, give me one, prove me wrong.

@Randomhero1982

No, its response to when you say scripture isn’t at odds with science… because if scripture makes a claim, lets take Noah’s ark, and science proves the global flood story is bollocks, then we have a conflict.

No we do not have a conflict - we only have a conflict with an interpretation, if you want conflict then fine if you want to avoid it then find an interpretation that makes the conflict vanish. The New Testament tells us that scripture is a two edged sword, it has two aspects one physical and the other spiritual, Jesus underlined this several times by explaining parables.

The Genesis Flood has to be interpreted too, if a simplistic literal physical interpretation leads to genuine inconsistencies with observations then we can dismiss it. But if there are other interpretations then we should consider those, he book might be revealing profound insightful knowledge about something and we mistake it for deranged ramblings of primitive tribes.

@Randomhero1982

Thats not the definition of plausible.

If you say so.

@Randomhero1982

But again, we’re back to sementics.

Yes, what a drag that we must be clear on what we’re talking about, I’m such a killjoy.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

We all interpret written text, you have your interpretation and have mine. But you reveal more of your weakness here. You say “Why not say how it is really” but that is a valid explanation given the culture and language of the time

No, thats a very poor excuse.

@Sherlock-Holmes

The Genesis Flood has to be interpreted too, if a simplistic literal physical interpretation leads to genuine inconsistencies with observations then we can dismiss it. But if there are other interpretations then we should consider those, he book might be revealing profound insightful knowledge about something and we mistake it for deranged ramblings of primitive tribes.

Or… they were using other made up stories from other tribes and passing them off as their own, only making their version more special.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes, what a drag that we must be clear on what we’re talking about, I’m such a killjoy.

You are not though, are you?! Its the same old apologetics… lets twist everything and anything in order to not be pinned down on anything.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

No, thats a very poor excuse.

So why did this question go unanswered?

@Sherlock-Holmes

No explanation in science is ever “how it really is” go on, give me one, prove me wrong.

I think we both know why!

[Calilasseia]

So basically, he’s continuing to peddle the mendacious nonsense, that our taking account of observational data as the basis for our inferences purportedly makes us “biased”, but his treating a merely asserted cartoon magic man as real, for reasons he claims to possess but never actually reveals (probably because they’ll end up boiling down to the usual farce that is “my mythology says so”) is purportedly “reasonable”. This time laced with a heavy leavening of duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications aimed at trying to discredit science and the peer review process, because neither will roll over and accept mythological bollocks.

This display of banal dishonesty on his part isn’t even point and laugh material any more, it’s just fucking sad.

We have vast mountains of evidence, informing those who treat the relevant matters honestly, that virtually every part of the world we see around us is the product of testable natural processes, that are themselves the subject of precise, quantitative scientific theories enjoying an unprecedented level of hard experimental backing. Yet he, and a lot of others like him, want to shoe horn into the picture, an imaginary cartoon magic man that has only ever been asserted to exist, and within the pages of a Bronze Age mythology littered with absurdities at that, with absolutely zero genuine justification.

Of course, we know the real reasons for this desire to shove a cartoon magic man down our throats. Some are just too stupid to understand basic science, and regard anything more advanced than the wheel as magic. Others want the world to be run by a cartoon magic man, but only if that cartoon magic man shares their prejudices, and their dark desires to see people they don’t like suffer hideous fates. Others are simply reprobates who want to jump on the political control bandwagon involved for personal gain, and don’t actually care about the ideology being pressed into service for this end.

Finally, you have the hard core of “true believers”, who have made the ideology in question their entire identity, because they’ve been swayed by the music of the spheres of the relevant verbal diarrhoea, emanating either from the televisions inside their own heads, or the smoothly emotive yet ultimately vacuous oratory of some charismatic leader figure.

This final group are the truly dangerous ones - the ones who think any action is “justified” if they think their god wants said action to be performed, no matter how brutal, how malign, or even, from the perspective of their own ideology, how evil that action is. “Magic Man says so” has been an easy justification for nameless horrors, and the bigots and reprobates will happily encourage the true believers down the requisite paths because it serves their ends - until, of course, the tide turns and they ae on the receiving end, but then it’s too late.

Trouble is, aspects of the bigot and reprobate demongraphics end up corrupting the “true believers” as well, though in an insidious manner that they don’t notice at first, the phenomenon that can best be described as “blinded by piety”. That allowing oneself to be wedded in such a manner to an ideology, no matter how “benevolent” said ideology is presented to be, invariably results in selling one’s humanity for short change, is an observational fact with plenty of examples to choose for reference - indeed, pretty much every ideologue who became a dictator provides the relevant object lessons.

And once again, the corroding and corrupting factor, can be summarised as the business of treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact. Which, once begun, leads inxorably to all manner of duplicity, in a desperate attempt to recoup the investment squandered in the relevant discoursive pyramid scheme.

I, of course, await the usual specious accusations of “bias” for taking account of the relevant observational data …

[Randomhero1982]

Why would i answer something that ive not said?

I stand by what i said, which was that what you said was a poor excuse for why there isnt anything noteworthy.

You came with hangs on nothing, i told you it was bollocks. Fairly simple.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Calilasseia

So basically, he’s continuing to peddle the mendacious nonsense, that our taking account of observational data as the basis for our inferences purportedly makes us “biased”, but his treating a merely asserted cartoon magic man as real, for reasons he claims to possess but never actually reveals (probably because they’ll end up boiling down to the usual farce that is “my mythology says so”) is purportedly “reasonable”. This time laced with a heavy leavening of duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications aimed at trying to discredit science and the peer review process, because neither will roll over and accept mythological bollocks.

This display of banal dishonesty on his part isn’t even point and laugh material any more, it’s just fucking sad.

We have vast mountains of evidence, informing those who treat the relevant matters honestly, that virtually every part of the world we see around us is the product of testable natural processes, that are themselves the subject of precise, quantitative scientific theories enjoying an unprecedented level of hard experimental backing. Yet he, and a lot of others like him, want to shoe horn into the picture, an imaginary cartoon magic man that has only ever been asserted to exist, and within the pages of a Bronze Age mythology littered with absurdities at that, with absolutely zero genuine justification.

Of course, we know the real reasons for this desire to shove a cartoon magic man down our throats. Some are just too stupid to understand basic science, and regard anything more advanced than the wheel as magic. Others want the world to be run by a cartoon magic man, but only if that cartoon magic man shares their prejudices, and their dark desires to see people they don’t like suffer hideous fates. Others are simply reprobates who want to jump on the political control bandwagon involved for personal gain, and don’t actually care about the ideology being pressed into service for this end.

Finally, you have the hard core of “true believers”, who have made the ideology in question their entire identity, because they’ve been swayed by the music of the spheres of the relevant verbal diarrhoea, emanating either from the televisions inside their own heads, or the smoothly emotive yet ultimately vacuous oratory of some charismatic leader figure.

This final group are the truly dangerous ones - the ones who think any action is “justified” if they think their god wants said action to be performed, no matter how brutal, how malign, or even, from the perspective of their own ideology, how evil that action is. “Magic Man says so” has been an easy justification for nameless horrors, and the bigots and reprobates will happily encourage the true believers down the requisite paths because it serves their ends - until, of course, the tide turns and they ae on the receiving end, but then it’s too late.

Trouble is, aspects of the bigot and reprobate demongraphics end up corrupting the “true believers” as well, though in an insidious manner that they don’t notice at first, the phenomenon that can best be described as “blinded by piety”. That allowing oneself to be wedded in such a manner to an ideology, no matter how “benevolent” said ideology is presented to be, invariably results in selling one’s humanity for short change, is an observational fact with plenty of examples to choose for reference - indeed, pretty much every ideologue who became a dictator provides the relevant object lessons.

And once again, the corroding and corrupting factor, can be summarised as the business of treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact. Which, once begun, leads inxorably to all manner of duplicity, in a desperate attempt to recoup the investment squandered in the relevant discoursive pyramid scheme.

I, of course, await the usual specious accusations of “bias” for taking account of the relevant observational data …

One again you post a long winded anger tinged lecture, perhaps a draft of a TED talk you’d love to give to an admiring audience someday, I can tell, no “we” can all tell, you do love an audience don’t you…

If you disagree with a statement I made then quote me and state your issue. Don’t turn what is likely a simple disagreement into an abusive rant with you metaphorically frothing at the mouth because I refuse to accept your specious reasoning and vacuous philosophy.

[Calilasseia]

Given your recent excursions into the realm of bloated circumlocution, you’re in no position to lecture me on post length, or for that matter post quality, which in the case of your output has been excremental in the extreme.

How about you learn to exercise some fucking diligence for once?