Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The logic of evolutionary cause-and-effect
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Ray Martinez
May 20, 2013, 3:15:14 PM5/20/13
to
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
> > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
above.
> You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> was an argument from authority.
I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
> Above, you present something
> of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> the deluded set.
Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
reverse, in "The God Delusion."
> Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> the argument is a sign we are deluded.
Again, quite astute.
> It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> sensible (= logical).
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> nonsensical (= illogical).
You need to address.
Ray
> > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
above.
> You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> was an argument from authority.
I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
> Above, you present something
> of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> the deluded set.
Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
reverse, in "The God Delusion."
> Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> the argument is a sign we are deluded.
Again, quite astute.
> It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> sensible (= logical).
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> nonsensical (= illogical).
You need to address.
Ray
Ray Martinez
May 20, 2013, 4:26:20 PM5/20/13
to
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
> OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
"5. Philosophy .
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
of).
So your unorthodox claim is not true.
> Because a
> while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> (implying that intuitive = logical).
Yes.
> If that's the case, then you are
> using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> equivalent.
Yes, generally true.
> You're free to use words as you like, but you can hardly
> be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
or that which is observed; and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
effect scheme is admittedly random, reliant on inference and not
directly observed, and since effects are acknowledged by all as
ordered or organized, I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
Ray
> OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
"5. Philosophy .
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
of).
So your unorthodox claim is not true.
> Because a
> while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> (implying that intuitive = logical).
Yes.
> If that's the case, then you are
> using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> equivalent.
Yes, generally true.
> You're free to use words as you like, but you can hardly
> be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
or that which is observed; and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
effect scheme is admittedly random, reliant on inference and not
directly observed, and since effects are acknowledged by all as
ordered or organized, I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
Ray
Bill
May 20, 2013, 4:53:59 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 3:26�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> of).
>
> So your unorthodox claim is not true.
>
> > Because a
> > while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> > (implying that intuitive = logical).
>
> Yes.
>
> > If that's the case, then you are
> > using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> > equivalent.
>
> Yes, generally true.
All I can say is Wow!
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> of).
>
> So your unorthodox claim is not true.
>
> > Because a
> > while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> > (implying that intuitive = logical).
>
> Yes.
>
> > If that's the case, then you are
> > using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> > equivalent.
>
> Yes, generally true.
>
> > You're free to use words as you like, but you can hardly
> > be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
>
> Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
> or that which is observed; and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
> effect scheme is admittedly random, reliant on inference and not
> directly observed, and since effects are acknowledged by all as
> ordered or organized, I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
> counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
>
> Ray
argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
Ray Martinez
May 20, 2013, 5:13:56 PM5/20/13
to
in "The God Delusion." In this book he says Darwinian evolution
enabled science to escape the ancient God delusion, that is, the
delusion that has infected the masses since time immemorial.
I know from reading your posts that you believe all theistic religion
to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
evolution].
Ray
Ray Martinez
May 20, 2013, 5:18:41 PM5/20/13
to
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>
> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
"noninferential knowledge." So if X is counterintuitive X is counter
to what is seen and thus illogical. The evo cause-and-effect scheme is
counterintuitive, that is, it runs counter to what is seen; the
effects or what is seen (order or organization) contradict terms used
to describe the causal agencies, which are, of course, inferred or not
seen.
Ray
> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>
> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
"noninferential knowledge." So if X is counterintuitive X is counter
to what is seen and thus illogical. The evo cause-and-effect scheme is
counterintuitive, that is, it runs counter to what is seen; the
effects or what is seen (order or organization) contradict terms used
to describe the causal agencies, which are, of course, inferred or not
seen.
Ray
Burkhard
May 20, 2013, 5:41:44 PM5/20/13
to
with lots of interlocking parts, and a highly sophisticated fuse that
explodes it at a set time, and it then explodes into million random
pieces,causing havoc.
In the strange world that you are inhabiting, the above is impossible
and illogical, since according to you, the antonyms order and disorder
must never be part of a causal explanation. In the world that I'm in
habiting, people build bombs all the time,
Bob Berger
May 20, 2013, 6:16:05 PM5/20/13
to
In article <8dbba1d7-fb25-49c7...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez says...
Interesting. Are you claiming absolutely that 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV) is
making a specific reference to evolution? Or is that just your opinion? And if
your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
deluded?
>Ray
>
Ray Martinez says...
making a specific reference to evolution? Or is that just your opinion? And if
your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
deluded?
>Ray
>
Roger Shrubber
May 20, 2013, 6:20:33 PM5/20/13
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
>> OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
>> unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> of).
>
> So your unorthodox claim is not true.
It's the logical equivalent of MC Escher's "relativity" with some
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
>> OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
>> unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> of).
>
> So your unorthodox claim is not true.
Roger Dean floating islands, rendered in chalk on a cobbled walkway,
or perhaps it was before the rain.
It's still amazing what is attempted with with only black and white.
I'd use a more pedestrian sort of deconstruction to expose
the flaws of the above claim but it's clear we don't share
a common language.
Bob Berger
May 20, 2013, 6:50:51 PM5/20/13
to
In article <827d1f03-0183-4509...@h9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez says...
small particles are passed through a double slit in a barrier and produce on a
screen on the other side an interference pattern? In case you missed it, here
are a couple links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
or since you don't like wikipedia, try
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
or any of the hundreds of other links a Google search will return.
Now tell me, is the production by the two slits of the interference pattern
counterintuitive to you? Does it seem to you logical that such a pattern is
generated by the two slits? Does your intuition tell you there's no problem with
those individual objects passing through not just one but both slits at the same
time?
By the way, you'll notice that the interference pattern produced is orderly, and
can be predicted/reproduced based on the slit size and spacing, beam composition
and intensity, etc.
I submit that a predictable/repeatable pattern is a sign of order.
Yet that pattern orininates from a non-ordered (random, if you will) flow of
particles/waves as the result of the presence of the barrier and its slits.
In this case simple slits produce order from disorder.
Ray Martinez says...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
>I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
>"noninferential knowledge."
>So if X is counterintuitive X is counter to what is seen and thus illogical.
Ray: Have you heard of or studied the "double slit experiment" in which light or
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
>I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
>"noninferential knowledge."
>So if X is counterintuitive X is counter to what is seen and thus illogical.
small particles are passed through a double slit in a barrier and produce on a
screen on the other side an interference pattern? In case you missed it, here
are a couple links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
or since you don't like wikipedia, try
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
or any of the hundreds of other links a Google search will return.
Now tell me, is the production by the two slits of the interference pattern
counterintuitive to you? Does it seem to you logical that such a pattern is
generated by the two slits? Does your intuition tell you there's no problem with
those individual objects passing through not just one but both slits at the same
time?
By the way, you'll notice that the interference pattern produced is orderly, and
can be predicted/reproduced based on the slit size and spacing, beam composition
and intensity, etc.
I submit that a predictable/repeatable pattern is a sign of order.
Yet that pattern orininates from a non-ordered (random, if you will) flow of
particles/waves as the result of the presence of the barrier and its slits.
In this case simple slits produce order from disorder.
Ray Martinez
May 20, 2013, 7:06:30 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 3:16�pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8dbba1d7-fb25-49c7-89c1-0557ceb24...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
No, I'm not. The context refers to those who reject salvation in the
risen Christ. Yet many reject the miracle of the Resurrection based on
the alleged truth of natural evolution.
> Or is that just your opinion?
I offer these verses to affirm the general claim of fact that God uses
delusion as a punishment on those who reject the reality of Biblical
truth. These verses provide the real reason why very many persons
reject Christianity and other supernatural claims as preserved in the
Bible.
> And if
> your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
> deluded?
The Bible advocates dualism: every aspect of reality is under the
constant control of either God or Satan. So the answer is yes: those
who oppose Biblical truth are either temporarily or permanently
deluded and/or deceived.
Ray
> In article <8dbba1d7-fb25-49c7-89c1-0557ceb24...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
risen Christ. Yet many reject the miracle of the Resurrection based on
the alleged truth of natural evolution.
> Or is that just your opinion?
delusion as a punishment on those who reject the reality of Biblical
truth. These verses provide the real reason why very many persons
reject Christianity and other supernatural claims as preserved in the
Bible.
> And if
> your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
> deluded?
constant control of either God or Satan. So the answer is yes: those
who oppose Biblical truth are either temporarily or permanently
deluded and/or deceived.
Ray
Roger Shrubber
May 20, 2013, 7:50:52 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 4:15�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> above.
I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> above.
inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
> > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > was an argument from authority.
> I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
> > Above, you present something
> > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > the deluded set.
> Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
> reverse, in "The God Delusion."
> > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
> Again, quite astute.
> > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
> The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
that either with correct. But as I say that, the problem is that you
have private definitions of both of those things so that they are, in
the special case of your mind, continually redefined to be mirror
images. That this images in your mind do not correspond to any
commonly recognized reality is something you will refuse to
comprehend.
> >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > sensible (= logical).
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You need to address.
world
of absolute dichotomies that are continually redefined and rescoped to
rescue your perspectives. That style of gibberish was exposed and
replaced by the Greeks. Your reinvention of it provides a certain
lesson
in why logical thinking was developed and how the human psyche can
develop its own black-hole from which there can be no escape. The
lesson is for each and everyone who views your trap to take a few
steps
back, and ask if they might have created some similar trap for
themselves.
How can they escape and challenge their preconceptions?
In this you provide a valuable service Ray because it is so very
very hard to find things that will get anyone to ask those difficult
questions of themselves.
Bob Berger
May 20, 2013, 8:02:58 PM5/20/13
to
In article <c7b224f4-c5bf-4daa...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
My post above consisted of three questions. The third depending on if you
answered either of the first two "yes". You specifically answered the first
question "no", which (since you answered the third question) implies your answer
to the second question was "yes". (Your statement about 2Thessalonians 2:11,12
(KJV) was just your opinion).
Therefore, your response to my third question is that EVERYONE who disagrees
with your opinion is deluded. As I said before: interesting.
>Ray
>
answered either of the first two "yes". You specifically answered the first
question "no", which (since you answered the third question) implies your answer
to the second question was "yes". (Your statement about 2Thessalonians 2:11,12
(KJV) was just your opinion).
Therefore, your response to my third question is that EVERYONE who disagrees
with your opinion is deluded. As I said before: interesting.
>Ray
>
*Hemidactylus*
May 20, 2013, 8:06:38 PM5/20/13
to
If something is counterintuitive it contradicts one's initial hunch or
gut feeling. This realization comes with further reasoning and/or deeper
observation. Have you ever gotten nonverbal cues from someone leading
you to assume they would act in "such and such" a way yet soon found you
were mistaken?
Johnathan Haidt covers intuitionism in his book _The Righteous Mind_. As
much as Hume based his moral ideas upon sentiment instead of reasoning,
he was an intuitionist. Haidt's big insight is that we tend to have a
gut feeling about something and construct post hoc rationalizations
after the fact.
Haidt illustrates the "seeing that" nature of intuition as set against
"reasoning why" by means of a visual illusion (Muller-Lyer) borrowed
from Howard Margolis. Look at what Lindsey Lohan (noted Wikipedia
scholar) has done for the Muller-Lyer illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion.svg
Your gut feeling may be that the lines are different lengths. Thus your
"intuition" is wrong. The fact that the lines are the same length is
something akin to counterintuitive.
Or put another way intuition derives from the brain acting on
nonconscious autopilot:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200405/trusting-intuition-0
Reasoning is more deliberate and active.
Here's Lohan's take on "counterintuitive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintuitive
Assuming a flat earth or geocentric model could form the basis of your
intuitive worldview. The Earth as globe or revolving around the sun
would then be counterintuitive. For a Paleyian immutabilitist who takes
the appearance of species on his limited timescale to be static or
permanent, the Heraclitian reality of genetic and morphological flux
beneath the surface of his perceptions is very counterintuitive (=hard
to accept).
Here's a
definition:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterintuitive
And used in a sentence: "It may seem counterintuitive, but we do burn
calories when we are sleeping."
Things thus violate expectations. It may be intuitive that we are in
conscious control of our thoughts and actions and act as a authoritative
homunculus, but the counterintuitive truth is that we are fed our
perceptual illusions of self-efficacy from our brain.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 20, 2013, 8:20:16 PM5/20/13
to
Christians had rival worldviews to counter? Their ideological rivals
must be deluded and will receive justified punishment in the end.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Paul J Gans
May 20, 2013, 8:29:01 PM5/20/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> above.
>I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
[more snip]
Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
PS: I'm not singling out Roger. Sadly, his post made me
think of this, but I know that he's one of many.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
>On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> above.
>I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
PS: I'm not singling out Roger. Sadly, his post made me
think of this, but I know that he's one of many.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
jonathan
May 20, 2013, 8:36:59 PM5/20/13
to
"Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
> argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
> strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
> of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
> simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
> feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
> arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
> you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
> delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
> creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>
cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
has to do with effect.
And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
can be no such thing as an objective reality.
s
Dana Tweedy
May 20, 2013, 9:12:59 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 1:15�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>
> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> above.
Note that Dawkins' claim is an opinion, just like yours. Neither of
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>
> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> above.
you can offer objective evidence of such a delusion.
> > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > was an argument from authority.
>
> I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
your position might be flawed?
>
> > Above, you present something
> > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > the deluded set.
>
> Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
> reverse, in "The God Delusion."
one rejecting God, whereas your position requires one to reject
reality.
>
> > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
>
> Again, quite astute.
>
> > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
>
> The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
science.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > sensible (= logical).
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You need to address.
What's to address? Your definition of logic is unique to you, and
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > sensible (= logical).
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You need to address.
depends on your own lack of knowledge.
The above is just an assertion of your own subjective opinion.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
May 20, 2013, 9:19:54 PM5/20/13
to
On 05/20/2013 08:36 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
>> argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
>> strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
>> of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
>> simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
>> feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
>> arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
>> you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
>> delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
>> creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>>
>
>
> In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> has to do with effect.
If evolution is a change in allelic frequencies in a population over
> "Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
>> argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
>> strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
>> of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
>> simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
>> feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
>> arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
>> you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
>> delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
>> creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>>
>
>
> In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> has to do with effect.
time, how can anything be more evolved than another apart from
differences in frequencies? Are humans "more evolved" than earthworms?
We and earthworms have diverged from a common ancestor. That is all.
Our brains are more organized or complex than the "brain" of an
earthworm. Thus the nexus is far more complex, but neural causation and
cognitive/behavioral effects still obtain nonetheless.
> And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> can be no such thing as an objective reality.
solipsistic tissue of experience, but there's an objective reality out
there that is dimly seen through the tiny stained glass windows of
sensation. And our neural/sensory apparatus (ie-prison) is itself a part
of objective reality which itself generates our subjective experience.
Next time you stub your toe on a rock, tell me about the lack of an
objective reality, even if you and the rock are transient objects that
happened to connect in an instant. Would you wear shoes next time? Since
there's no objective reality, why should you?
And if there's no objective reality, what do you base that
self-defeating argument upon?
--
*Hemidactylus*
Dana Tweedy
May 20, 2013, 9:38:10 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 2:26�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
The difficulty is, of course that " knowledge" without inference is
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> "5. Philosophy .
>
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> previous cognition of the same object.
>
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
only useful when one has already gained that knowledge from somewhere
else. In this case, you lack any relevant knowledge, so your
intuition is worthless.
>
> The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> of).
>
ones own conclusion. You can't practice discernment if you lack even
the most basic understanding of the situation.
Suppose for a moment, you were trapped on a deserted island, with a
person who was brought up in an area where all tree fruits were
eatable. Neither you, or the person have any idea if the local
fruits are toxic.
Would you trust this person's intuition as to which fruits are safe?
> So your unorthodox claim is not true.
>
unique ways.
> > Because a
> > while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> > (implying that intuitive = logical).
>
> Yes.
logic are completely separate ways of thinking.
>
> > If that's the case, then you are
> > using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> > equivalent.
>
> Yes, generally true.
>
> > You're free to use words as you like, but you can hardly
> > be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
>
> Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
> or that which is observed;
sufficient background knowledge), it is not inference itself.
> and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
> effect scheme is admittedly random,
element of randomness.
> reliant on inference and not
> directly observed,
because for intuition to be useful, and not lead to disaster, someone
had to have made a correct inference from it, at one time, to base
that intuition on.
Evolution is based on millions of observations, and depends entirely
on observation to be maintained.
> that and since effects are acknowledged by all as
> ordered or organized,
Which is a property of natural processes, even ones that have an
element of randomness.
> I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
> counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
delusion of competency with logic, sense, or intuition. It would be
as foolish to accept your thoughtless intuition on this subject as it
would be to eat berries from a bush you don't recognize.
DJT
Robert Camp
May 20, 2013, 9:44:17 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 5:36�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You may not be certifiably nuts, like Ray, but your argumentation is
disappointingly similar. You see everything through an ideological
prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
level Ray understands theology.
So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
> "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
disappointingly similar. You see everything through an ideological
prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
level Ray understands theology.
So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
Dana Tweedy
May 20, 2013, 9:44:27 PM5/20/13
to
the point, he is just stating his opinion.
>In this book he says Darwinian evolution
> enabled science to escape the ancient God delusion, that is, the
> delusion that has infected the masses since time immemorial.
allowed science to shake off religious trappings is the scientific
method. That predates Darwin by centuries.
>
> I know from reading your posts that you believe all theistic religion
> to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
> rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
>
> 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
>
> "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> should believe a lie:
>
> That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
> evolution].
>
denial of evolution is the lie. You have swallowed it hook, line and
sinker.
DJT
Roger Shrubber
May 20, 2013, 9:52:55 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 9:29�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
I don't think it is OK in the first case but for myself, if you've
actually read much of what I've written lately and don't think
I've show uncommon restraint I'd like to hear it said. Above
you see frustration leaking through but it is more than just
an insult. It is a prod towards reflection.
And if there's a distinction, I have not singled out Ray for
the express purpose of insulting or ridiculing him. I worked
very hard to dig at the core of how he manages to stand
by his rather unique perspective. In broad terms it all fits
to the obvious pattern but I do think some fascinating
elements of structure were revealed along the way.
While others make a point of responding to people in ways
that are in the majority vitriolic. In one case it honestly
conjures up images of spittle flying from his mouth while
hammering away at the keyboard. I don't even mind a
good flame now and then but multiple times a week or
even multiple ones in a day? To that there are 3 "sins".
The first is simple hostility which is something we should
all try to contain.
The second is that it is boring. The only way to rescue
it from being terminally boring is if you are so hostile
to the one party that you take pleasure in any attack
on them.
The last is that it is counter-productive. The human brain
commonly has an emotional reaction to two people
continually squabbling. On average, the emotional response
will win out over a calculation of who is in the right. So
if you are in the right, you degrade your own position
by engaging in a way that will be recognized as bickering.
So go ahead and tell me that my recent exchanges with
Ray looked like bickering and I will be suitable chagrined.
actually read much of what I've written lately and don't think
I've show uncommon restraint I'd like to hear it said. Above
you see frustration leaking through but it is more than just
an insult. It is a prod towards reflection.
And if there's a distinction, I have not singled out Ray for
the express purpose of insulting or ridiculing him. I worked
very hard to dig at the core of how he manages to stand
by his rather unique perspective. In broad terms it all fits
to the obvious pattern but I do think some fascinating
elements of structure were revealed along the way.
While others make a point of responding to people in ways
that are in the majority vitriolic. In one case it honestly
conjures up images of spittle flying from his mouth while
hammering away at the keyboard. I don't even mind a
good flame now and then but multiple times a week or
even multiple ones in a day? To that there are 3 "sins".
The first is simple hostility which is something we should
all try to contain.
The second is that it is boring. The only way to rescue
it from being terminally boring is if you are so hostile
to the one party that you take pleasure in any attack
on them.
The last is that it is counter-productive. The human brain
commonly has an emotional reaction to two people
continually squabbling. On average, the emotional response
will win out over a calculation of who is in the right. So
if you are in the right, you degrade your own position
by engaging in a way that will be recognized as bickering.
So go ahead and tell me that my recent exchanges with
Ray looked like bickering and I will be suitable chagrined.
Dana Tweedy
May 20, 2013, 9:55:18 PM5/20/13
to
evolution, Ray. Whoever told you it was sold you a bill of goods.
>
> > Or is that just your opinion?
>
> I offer these verses to affirm the general claim of fact that God uses
> delusion as a punishment on those who reject the reality of Biblical
> truth.
rejects Christ's message. you are the one who claims the book of
James is heresy. you are the one who suggests one can't use the
intellect that God gave humans
> These verses provide the real reason why very many persons
> reject Christianity and other supernatural claims as preserved in the
> Bible.
>
someone like you made them choose rationality over blind slavish
devotion to a particular interpretation, one that is flawed.
> > And if
> > your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
> > deluded?
>
> The Bible advocates dualism: every aspect of reality is under the
> constant control of either God or Satan.
> So the answer is yes: those
> who oppose Biblical truth are either temporarily or permanently
> deluded and/or deceived.
>
DJT
Robert Camp
May 20, 2013, 10:01:39 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 5:29�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> >> above.
> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> [more snip]
>
> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> >> above.
> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> [more snip]
>
> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
Robert Camp
May 20, 2013, 10:03:48 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 6:44�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 5:36�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
> > > argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
> > > strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
> > > of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
> > > simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
> > > feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
> > > arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
> > > you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
> > > delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
> > > creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>
> > In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> > cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> > has to do with effect.
>
> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
> On May 20, 5:36�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
> > > argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
> > > strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
> > > of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
> > > simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
> > > feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
> > > arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
> > > you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
> > > delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
> > > creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>
> > In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> > cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> > has to do with effect.
>
> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
> level Ray understands theology.
>
> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
[*I've remove a comma that, in my original post, reversed my meaning.]
> level Ray understands theology.
>
> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
Paul J Gans
May 20, 2013, 10:45:07 PM5/20/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And if there's a distinction, I have not singled out Ray for
>the express purpose of insulting or ridiculing him. I worked
>very hard to dig at the core of how he manages to stand
>by his rather unique perspective. In broad terms it all fits
>to the obvious pattern but I do think some fascinating
>elements of structure were revealed along the way.
Well, over the years I've tried that with my fella too.
I'm sure you've noted some interesting contradictions in
his points of view. Not that we all don't suffer from
the same thing. But then, for instance, I don't deny
that I'm inconsistent in some things.
>While others make a point of responding to people in ways
>that are in the majority vitriolic. In one case it honestly
>conjures up images of spittle flying from his mouth while
>hammering away at the keyboard. I don't even mind a
>good flame now and then but multiple times a week or
>even multiple ones in a day? To that there are 3 "sins".
True. But there are times when extreme frustration sets
in, at times just when you think you are about to get
something nailed down.
>The first is simple hostility which is something we should
>all try to contain.
I perhaps seem more hostile than I actually am. I've been
around on Usenet perhaps too long.
>The second is that it is boring. The only way to rescue
>it from being terminally boring is if you are so hostile
>to the one party that you take pleasure in any attack
>on them.
You are right. A good rule is that by the time you are
repeating yourself for the third time, no matter what the
reason, it is time to stop responding.
>The last is that it is counter-productive. The human brain
>commonly has an emotional reaction to two people
>continually squabbling. On average, the emotional response
>will win out over a calculation of who is in the right. So
>if you are in the right, you degrade your own position
>by engaging in a way that will be recognized as bickering.
Yup.
>So go ahead and tell me that my recent exchanges with
>Ray looked like bickering and I will be suitable chagrined.
No, I won't. Mainly because I've not read them. I have,
for some reason, found that I'm immune to Ray's charms.
And please don't think I was picking on you. I wasn't and
am not. I had just realized that some Ray threads had
become immortal and would never end. Worse, practically
everybody was involved in one or the other of them.
Anyway, thanks for your input. Peace.
>On May 21, 9:29?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>> PS: ?I'm not singling out Roger. ?Sadly, his post made me
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>> think of this, but I know that he's one of many.
>I don't think it is OK in the first case but for myself, if you've
>actually read much of what I've written lately and don't think
>I've show uncommon restraint I'd like to hear it said. Above
>you see frustration leaking through but it is more than just
>an insult. It is a prod towards reflection.
Dealing with Ray is an institution around here.
>I don't think it is OK in the first case but for myself, if you've
>actually read much of what I've written lately and don't think
>I've show uncommon restraint I'd like to hear it said. Above
>you see frustration leaking through but it is more than just
>an insult. It is a prod towards reflection.
>And if there's a distinction, I have not singled out Ray for
>the express purpose of insulting or ridiculing him. I worked
>very hard to dig at the core of how he manages to stand
>by his rather unique perspective. In broad terms it all fits
>to the obvious pattern but I do think some fascinating
>elements of structure were revealed along the way.
I'm sure you've noted some interesting contradictions in
his points of view. Not that we all don't suffer from
the same thing. But then, for instance, I don't deny
that I'm inconsistent in some things.
>While others make a point of responding to people in ways
>that are in the majority vitriolic. In one case it honestly
>conjures up images of spittle flying from his mouth while
>hammering away at the keyboard. I don't even mind a
>good flame now and then but multiple times a week or
>even multiple ones in a day? To that there are 3 "sins".
in, at times just when you think you are about to get
something nailed down.
>The first is simple hostility which is something we should
>all try to contain.
around on Usenet perhaps too long.
>The second is that it is boring. The only way to rescue
>it from being terminally boring is if you are so hostile
>to the one party that you take pleasure in any attack
>on them.
repeating yourself for the third time, no matter what the
reason, it is time to stop responding.
>The last is that it is counter-productive. The human brain
>commonly has an emotional reaction to two people
>continually squabbling. On average, the emotional response
>will win out over a calculation of who is in the right. So
>if you are in the right, you degrade your own position
>by engaging in a way that will be recognized as bickering.
>So go ahead and tell me that my recent exchanges with
>Ray looked like bickering and I will be suitable chagrined.
for some reason, found that I'm immune to Ray's charms.
And please don't think I was picking on you. I wasn't and
am not. I had just realized that some Ray threads had
become immortal and would never end. Worse, practically
everybody was involved in one or the other of them.
Anyway, thanks for your input. Peace.
Paul J Gans
May 20, 2013, 10:47:11 PM5/20/13
to
Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
argue that with exceptions, I tried to keep my temper and
restrict myself to postings with content. Roger's point, if
I've got it right, is that such postings become buried in
the noise.
>> PS: ?I'm not singling out Roger. ?Sadly, his post made me
>On May 20, 5:29?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
I think that Roger, ih his response, dealt with that. I could
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
argue that with exceptions, I tried to keep my temper and
restrict myself to postings with content. Roger's point, if
I've got it right, is that such postings become buried in
the noise.
>> PS: ?I'm not singling out Roger. ?Sadly, his post made me
Robert Camp
May 20, 2013, 11:24:33 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 7:47�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
objectionable interaction with Nyikos and didn't mean to imply that
with my response.
> Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 20, 5:29?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> >> >> above.
> >> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> >> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> >> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> >> [more snip]
>
> >> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
> >> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>
> >> Inquiring minds want to know.
> >That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
> >between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
> >in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
>
> I think that Roger, ih his response, dealt with that. �I could
> argue that with exceptions, I tried to keep my temper and
> restrict myself to postings with content. �Roger's point, if
> I've got it right, is that such postings become buried in
> the noise.
For what it's worth, I never thought of you as one who was involved in
> >On May 20, 5:29?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> >> >> above.
> >> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> >> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> >> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> >> [more snip]
>
> >> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
> >> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>
> >> Inquiring minds want to know.
> >That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
> >between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
> >in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
>
> I think that Roger, ih his response, dealt with that. �I could
> argue that with exceptions, I tried to keep my temper and
> restrict myself to postings with content. �Roger's point, if
> I've got it right, is that such postings become buried in
> the noise.
objectionable interaction with Nyikos and didn't mean to imply that
with my response.
Mark Isaak
May 21, 2013, 2:55:02 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/13 2:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]
to Ray, all non-Christians are deluded. Now, non-Christians have always
been the minority of humanity and, for the vast majority of history,
have been its entirety. Thus "deluded" is humanity's natural state.
Why would God make humans so that they are, normally, deluded? And why
would anyone worship a god who does so?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> [...]
> I know from reading your posts that you believe all theistic religion
> to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
> rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
>
> 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
>
> "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> should believe a lie:
>
> That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
> evolution].
This raises a theological point I have often wondered about. According
> to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
> rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
>
> 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
>
> "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> should believe a lie:
>
> That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
> evolution].
to Ray, all non-Christians are deluded. Now, non-Christians have always
been the minority of humanity and, for the vast majority of history,
have been its entirety. Thus "deluded" is humanity's natural state.
Why would God make humans so that they are, normally, deluded? And why
would anyone worship a god who does so?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
May 21, 2013, 3:21:26 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/13 2:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>>> Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
> I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
> "noninferential knowledge."
Whereas logic is inferential knowledge, making logic and intuition
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>>> Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
> I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
> "noninferential knowledge."
disjoint sets. Therefore, everything that is logical is non-intuitive.
If (as seems reasonable), counterintuitive implies non-intuitive, then
all of logic falls within the counterintuitive set. And yet here you
say exactly the opposite:
> So if X is counterintuitive X is counter
> to what is seen and thus illogical.
something be counter one intuition but be in accord with another intuition?
> The evo cause-and-effect scheme is
> counterintuitive, that is, it runs counter to what is seen; the
> effects or what is seen (order or organization) contradict terms used
> to describe the causal agencies, which are, of course, inferred or not
> seen.
J. J. Lodder
May 21, 2013, 4:25:35 AM5/21/13
to
[snip]
Please don't break threads,
Jan
Please don't break threads,
Jan
Rolf
May 21, 2013, 4:39:28 AM5/21/13
to
The sad(?) fact is that, as Paul said:
"Dealing with Ray is an institution around here."
I tried to write a response to his OP but sometimes I have to surrender to
"Dealing with Ray is an institution around here."
reality: I am too far from being a Joseph Conrad. (Or even Damon Runyon.)
Ray is like Mao: He doesn't care about the color of the cat as long as it
catches mice. And, as we know, in distress the devil eats flies.
But anyway, Ray has admitted he is brainwashed by the Bible. I believe he
also suffers from a thorough brainscrubbing fram a certain Dr. Scott as
well. He is an ardent defender of Immanuel Velikovsky, have some aparte
ideas about the nature and origins of the Cheops Pyramid, and is disciple of
Ayn Rand.
What else?
Rolf
May 21, 2013, 5:00:30 AM5/21/13
to
"Bob Berger" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> skrev i melding
news:kned...@drn.newsguy.com...
truthfulness. Just replace the word "evolution" with whatever you want.
Isn't that a great example of how Ray employs his own peculiar way of
creating arguments?
What a madhouse this would be if everyone else did likewise.
eridanus
May 21, 2013, 5:13:32 AM5/21/13
to
El lunes, 20 de mayo de 2013 20:15:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez escribi�:
Everything in our brains are nothing but delusions. All that we fill
our brains are nothing but "received wisdom" from others. It is a sort
of inheritance. It never minds if you believe Hari Krishna is a real
god, or of the real god is Jesus the Christ, or if it is Hari Brahma,
or Jehovah. It never minds if our lord god is Darwin, or Lord Kelvin.
All are nothing but fake gods. The only fact is that we are here, and
the only real experience of our life is our trivial daily experience.
And it contains only trivial worries,
the problems to sleep when you are an old man, of the sexual frustrations
of a young man for Margaretta does not want to put up in the last few
weeks. Or I am thinking of other people in other lands could be worrying
about if they would hunt anything today, for the are sort of rather hungry,
and had eating only a few roots in the last five days. There are not
other gods that extreme heat or cold, not other gods than hunger, or a
full belly. For only these feelings are real.
Then, as we have mostly with our bellies full of fat all around us, we have
little worries that to think of imaginary gods that other people is telling
us.
The fact is that I never had met any god whatever in my whole life, or had not seen him in action but in the movies of Cecil B. DeMill. As I remember those were bad movies, and I never believed a shit about them.
Then, the most believable of all gods to me are the scientists. Types like
Darwin, or even Lord Kelvin that I had criticized here a few times. These
were really true men-gods, and many others. I am in fact polytheist. But
all my gods are dead in part, and his bodies were buried underground to
avoid the bad smell of their corpses. But their doctrine and dogmas are
alive in the hearts of many people, me included. Even if we are sort of
heretical and do not believe in all the elements of their dogmas. Science
is a constantly changing "religion". All it is about delusions and
imaginations and theories. Some elements of these delusions will be deemed
wrong tomorrow. Some others would last a while longer than tomorrow.
There not any true gods but scientists. But even then, even being true
gods, they are mortal, and are somewhat forgettable. Some of them are invisible, for they are behind other gods that are still present in our
brains. The fact is that we cannot remember everything, and so we can
not retain all the names and the faces of all our gods of science.
But are they real gods? Not sure. For they were complex gods, part
human, part delusions, part fake prophets. But a few of their words
still retain a ringing in the brain of the believers.
I watched once a video about three persons that were sailing in a yacht for
pleasure. They were at some distance from land, but it was a good yacht.
Then a hurricane carried the yacht very far off land into the Atlantic.
The worse thing was that the yacht sunk. They had time to save on an
inflatable raft. They passed the days in an inflatable raft in the
middle of the Atlantic. They finished all their food, but worse than
this, they finished with their reserves of water. The weather become
hot and sunny and they were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic far
away from all shipping lanes. They started to become affected by thirst.
This is rather a nasty way of dying. After some point, your kidneys
began to work slowly, for there it not enough fluid in the blood.
The person starts to get intoxicated with their own inner residues in
the blood stream. The person began to feel itches, and some red blotches
in the skin. You cannot stop scratching your skin, for you are feeling
itches everywhere. Your skin began to bleed in some parts, begins to
break in some parts. If a drop of salt water falls over the ripped
skin parts, it stings a lot. There is not any way you can have mood
to pray god of a relieve; for god is totally deaf to your suffering.
Do you think one can starting contemplating any fake god in such a
situation? When you are very thirsty for days, you began to have
hallucinations. You can see that a big ship is coming very near in
a collision course with the raft, or you can see a giant shark that
is menacingly showing its open jaws to you. You can suddenly see
land in the middle of the Atlantic, and jump over the raft and start
swimming desperately and drowned or end being devoured by the sharks.
This is the best thing that can happen to you in such a dramatic
situation.
Then, there is not any trace of god. Not any god can save you of this
situation. Not Jesus the Christ, not Lord Krishna, not Yahweh, not Lord
Kelvin, not Charles Darwin. You are going to die, and that would stop
all your worries.
I cannot understand we are still argumenting about this pile of horse
manure.
Eridanus
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
>
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
>
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
>
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
>
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
>
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> >
>
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
>
> > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
>
> > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
>
> > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
>
> > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>
> >
>
> > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>
>
>
> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>
> above.
>
>
>
>
> above.
>
>
>
> > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
>
> > was an argument from authority.
>
>
>
> I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
>
>
>
> > was an argument from authority.
>
>
>
> I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
>
>
> > Above, you present something
>
> > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
>
> > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
>
> > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
>
> > the deluded set.
>
>
>
> Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
>
> gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
>
> > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
>
> > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
>
> > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
>
> > the deluded set.
>
>
>
> Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
>
>
> reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>
>
>
> reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>
>
>
> > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
>
> > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
>
>
>
> Again, quite astute.
>
>
>
> > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
>
> > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
>
>
>
> The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
>
> and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
>
>
>
> > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
>
>
>
> Again, quite astute.
>
>
>
> > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
>
> > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
>
>
>
> The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
>
> and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
>
>
> >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
>
>
>
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
>
> > sensible (= logical).
>
>
>
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
>
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
>
>
> You need to address.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
>
>
>
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
>
> > sensible (= logical).
>
>
>
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
>
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
>
>
> You need to address.
>
>
>
Everything in our brains are nothing but delusions. All that we fill
our brains are nothing but "received wisdom" from others. It is a sort
of inheritance. It never minds if you believe Hari Krishna is a real
god, or of the real god is Jesus the Christ, or if it is Hari Brahma,
or Jehovah. It never minds if our lord god is Darwin, or Lord Kelvin.
All are nothing but fake gods. The only fact is that we are here, and
the only real experience of our life is our trivial daily experience.
And it contains only trivial worries,
the problems to sleep when you are an old man, of the sexual frustrations
of a young man for Margaretta does not want to put up in the last few
weeks. Or I am thinking of other people in other lands could be worrying
about if they would hunt anything today, for the are sort of rather hungry,
and had eating only a few roots in the last five days. There are not
other gods that extreme heat or cold, not other gods than hunger, or a
full belly. For only these feelings are real.
Then, as we have mostly with our bellies full of fat all around us, we have
little worries that to think of imaginary gods that other people is telling
us.
The fact is that I never had met any god whatever in my whole life, or had not seen him in action but in the movies of Cecil B. DeMill. As I remember those were bad movies, and I never believed a shit about them.
Then, the most believable of all gods to me are the scientists. Types like
Darwin, or even Lord Kelvin that I had criticized here a few times. These
were really true men-gods, and many others. I am in fact polytheist. But
all my gods are dead in part, and his bodies were buried underground to
avoid the bad smell of their corpses. But their doctrine and dogmas are
alive in the hearts of many people, me included. Even if we are sort of
heretical and do not believe in all the elements of their dogmas. Science
is a constantly changing "religion". All it is about delusions and
imaginations and theories. Some elements of these delusions will be deemed
wrong tomorrow. Some others would last a while longer than tomorrow.
There not any true gods but scientists. But even then, even being true
gods, they are mortal, and are somewhat forgettable. Some of them are invisible, for they are behind other gods that are still present in our
brains. The fact is that we cannot remember everything, and so we can
not retain all the names and the faces of all our gods of science.
But are they real gods? Not sure. For they were complex gods, part
human, part delusions, part fake prophets. But a few of their words
still retain a ringing in the brain of the believers.
I watched once a video about three persons that were sailing in a yacht for
pleasure. They were at some distance from land, but it was a good yacht.
Then a hurricane carried the yacht very far off land into the Atlantic.
The worse thing was that the yacht sunk. They had time to save on an
inflatable raft. They passed the days in an inflatable raft in the
middle of the Atlantic. They finished all their food, but worse than
this, they finished with their reserves of water. The weather become
hot and sunny and they were stranded in the middle of the Atlantic far
away from all shipping lanes. They started to become affected by thirst.
This is rather a nasty way of dying. After some point, your kidneys
began to work slowly, for there it not enough fluid in the blood.
The person starts to get intoxicated with their own inner residues in
the blood stream. The person began to feel itches, and some red blotches
in the skin. You cannot stop scratching your skin, for you are feeling
itches everywhere. Your skin began to bleed in some parts, begins to
break in some parts. If a drop of salt water falls over the ripped
skin parts, it stings a lot. There is not any way you can have mood
to pray god of a relieve; for god is totally deaf to your suffering.
Do you think one can starting contemplating any fake god in such a
situation? When you are very thirsty for days, you began to have
hallucinations. You can see that a big ship is coming very near in
a collision course with the raft, or you can see a giant shark that
is menacingly showing its open jaws to you. You can suddenly see
land in the middle of the Atlantic, and jump over the raft and start
swimming desperately and drowned or end being devoured by the sharks.
This is the best thing that can happen to you in such a dramatic
situation.
Then, there is not any trace of god. Not any god can save you of this
situation. Not Jesus the Christ, not Lord Krishna, not Yahweh, not Lord
Kelvin, not Charles Darwin. You are going to die, and that would stop
all your worries.
I cannot understand we are still argumenting about this pile of horse
manure.
Eridanus
Bill
May 21, 2013, 7:36:04 AM5/21/13
to
as long as you abstain from playing the delusion card on me, I'm
perfectly happy to take your arguments at face value and deal with
them on their own terms. I don't say, "Ray, that argument is no good
because you only believe it because you are deluded," I just go ahead
and tell you where I think the argument is faulty. But once you stop
dealing with arguments on their own terms and start calling the other
guy deluded, there's nothing more to say. It's almost admitting that
your own arguments aren't good enough to stand on their own merits,
that you need to brush aside opposition to them by calling the other
fellow deluded.
Rolf
May 21, 2013, 9:19:16 AM5/21/13
to
skrev eridanus:
I understand your 'lament', if that's what it is... Anyway, the
problem of religion won't disappear. Because man has (for the want of a
better word), a 'soul'. Man have emotions, feelings that may be termed
'religious'.
But I consider religiosity to have with the spiritual world to do. Not
the material world. It is something within our psyche, something we all
share. The Bible tries at places to shwo the way but it drowns in all
the BS there. Moses, if that's the guy, struggled a whole night for the
god's name, and the only reply he gos was "I am". So tha't our god, that
which "am".
It is difficult to quote Jesus because Jesus obviously is a mythical
character and never was a real person, but we all carry an image of what
Jesus would be like, don't we?
Anyway, his kingdom was not of this world, but of the spiritual world.
It is easy to understand. The resurrected 'Jesus', i.e. the risen Christ
- that's what the death of the Son of God means, the resurrection is
within yourself, - so you become 'Christ'.
That's why the Gnostics claimed Paul was their teacher, and to a Gnostic
it is easy to see that not all Gnosticism has been removed from the
writings of Paul. Although several of the letters in his name are forgeries.
But enough about that, that's a different piece of cake.
problem of religion won't disappear. Because man has (for the want of a
better word), a 'soul'. Man have emotions, feelings that may be termed
'religious'.
But I consider religiosity to have with the spiritual world to do. Not
the material world. It is something within our psyche, something we all
share. The Bible tries at places to shwo the way but it drowns in all
the BS there. Moses, if that's the guy, struggled a whole night for the
god's name, and the only reply he gos was "I am". So tha't our god, that
which "am".
It is difficult to quote Jesus because Jesus obviously is a mythical
character and never was a real person, but we all carry an image of what
Jesus would be like, don't we?
Anyway, his kingdom was not of this world, but of the spiritual world.
It is easy to understand. The resurrected 'Jesus', i.e. the risen Christ
- that's what the death of the Son of God means, the resurrection is
within yourself, - so you become 'Christ'.
That's why the Gnostics claimed Paul was their teacher, and to a Gnostic
it is easy to see that not all Gnosticism has been removed from the
writings of Paul. Although several of the letters in his name are forgeries.
But enough about that, that's a different piece of cake.
jillery
May 21, 2013, 9:27:50 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 5:29�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
A difference is that the latter is the causal event of the former, a
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 5:29�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> above.
>> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> [more snip]
>>
>> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
point that is repeatedly ignored.
Will in New Haven
May 21, 2013, 9:50:24 AM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 7:06�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 3:16 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <8dbba1d7-fb25-49c7-89c1-0557ceb24...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ray Martinez says...
>
> On May 20, 3:16 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <8dbba1d7-fb25-49c7-89c1-0557ceb24...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ray Martinez says...
>
> > Interesting. Are you claiming absolutely that 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV) is
> > making a specific reference to evolution?
>
> No, I'm not. The context refers to those who reject salvation in the
> risen Christ. Yet many reject the miracle of the Resurrection based on
> the alleged truth of natural evolution.
>
> > Or is that just your opinion?
>
> I offer these verses to affirm the general claim of fact that God uses
> delusion as a punishment on those who reject the reality of Biblical
> truth. These verses provide the real reason why very many persons
> reject Christianity and other supernatural claims as preserved in the
> Bible.
>
> > And if
> > your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
> > deluded?
>
> The Bible advocates dualism: every aspect of reality is under the
> constant control of either God or Satan. So the answer is yes: those
> who oppose Biblical truth are either temporarily or permanently
> deluded and/or deceived.
And God is going to burn them in Hell forever for being deluded and/or
> > making a specific reference to evolution?
>
> No, I'm not. The context refers to those who reject salvation in the
> risen Christ. Yet many reject the miracle of the Resurrection based on
> the alleged truth of natural evolution.
>
> > Or is that just your opinion?
>
> I offer these verses to affirm the general claim of fact that God uses
> delusion as a punishment on those who reject the reality of Biblical
> truth. These verses provide the real reason why very many persons
> reject Christianity and other supernatural claims as preserved in the
> Bible.
>
> > And if
> > your answer to either is "yes", then in your opinion is EVERYONE who disagrees
> > deluded?
>
> The Bible advocates dualism: every aspect of reality is under the
> constant control of either God or Satan. So the answer is yes: those
> who oppose Biblical truth are either temporarily or permanently
> deluded and/or deceived.
decieved? Not for a willful act of their own but for being deluded and/
or decieved by another, with the cheerful help of God, who has let the
physical universe take a form that will tend to delude and decieve
those who think.
I think your concept of God is insulting and ignorant.
--
Will in New Haven
eridanus
May 21, 2013, 1:14:10 PM5/21/13
to
El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 14:19:16 UTC+1, Rolf escribi�:
> skrev eridanus:
You are talking about religion as an spiritual feeling. I see this as a
form of domestication. Some people is tamed to consider some words, some
phrases, some stories, about diverse matters. But people in general, do
not have this spiritual feelings, or they have it in a minimal degree.
To most people their only spiritual worries are soap operas of the tele,
or the news about sports. Other people have rich spiritual life thinking
about politics, in a similar way other people, very few of them, are
often thinking about science matters and so. Then, thinking can easily
be considered an analogy for spirituality. For the thinking occurs
only inside the brain, and do not contain any concrete observable matter,
except perhaps the currents of the brain that can be detected, or some TAK
scanner of the brain that shows in which part the brain is consuming more
glucose. Then, there is not any difference, if we are thinking about the
god Krisna or about a problem of chess, or a problem about maths. All
this thinking is apparently immaterial. If we were arguing about the
argument of a novel, is it as spiritual as we were considering and arguing
about some concrete phrase in the Vedas. We are talking about imaginary,
that is spiritual, concepts. Even maths and the numbers, can somewhat be
considered "spiritual" for even if they can be applied in some concrete
situations of the real world, religion can also be applied to concrete
situations of the real world. When I was a kid, I was obliged to pray
the rosary every afternoon at 5:00 PM. I was also obliged to assist to
a Mass each morning at 8:00 AM And in some periods of the year, I had to
take parts in processions, and chant hymns to the Virgin Mary. Then, all
this "spiritual matters" were connected with real events of my life that
I do not like to remember.
Just imagine that for spiritual considerations I will be punished with a
flog because of some sins. Well, you see here also some undesired
connections tween the immaterial world of a religion with the real life
of a person or a boy that masturbates, to put an example.
Then, religion is form of domestication, not different to a mum that
teaches his son of five years to play the piano, or other thing.
Eridanus
> skrev eridanus:
form of domestication. Some people is tamed to consider some words, some
phrases, some stories, about diverse matters. But people in general, do
not have this spiritual feelings, or they have it in a minimal degree.
To most people their only spiritual worries are soap operas of the tele,
or the news about sports. Other people have rich spiritual life thinking
about politics, in a similar way other people, very few of them, are
often thinking about science matters and so. Then, thinking can easily
be considered an analogy for spirituality. For the thinking occurs
only inside the brain, and do not contain any concrete observable matter,
except perhaps the currents of the brain that can be detected, or some TAK
scanner of the brain that shows in which part the brain is consuming more
glucose. Then, there is not any difference, if we are thinking about the
god Krisna or about a problem of chess, or a problem about maths. All
this thinking is apparently immaterial. If we were arguing about the
argument of a novel, is it as spiritual as we were considering and arguing
about some concrete phrase in the Vedas. We are talking about imaginary,
that is spiritual, concepts. Even maths and the numbers, can somewhat be
considered "spiritual" for even if they can be applied in some concrete
situations of the real world, religion can also be applied to concrete
situations of the real world. When I was a kid, I was obliged to pray
the rosary every afternoon at 5:00 PM. I was also obliged to assist to
a Mass each morning at 8:00 AM And in some periods of the year, I had to
take parts in processions, and chant hymns to the Virgin Mary. Then, all
this "spiritual matters" were connected with real events of my life that
I do not like to remember.
Just imagine that for spiritual considerations I will be punished with a
flog because of some sins. Well, you see here also some undesired
connections tween the immaterial world of a religion with the real life
of a person or a boy that masturbates, to put an example.
Then, religion is form of domestication, not different to a mum that
teaches his son of five years to play the piano, or other thing.
Eridanus
Greg Guarino
May 21, 2013, 3:33:28 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/2013 5:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>>> Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
> I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
> "noninferential knowledge." So if X is counterintuitive X is counter
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>
>>> Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>
>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>
> I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
> to what is seen and thus illogical. The evo cause-and-effect scheme is
> counterintuitive, that is, it runs counter to what is seen; the
> effects or what is seen (order or organization) contradict terms used
> to describe the causal agencies, which are, of course, inferred or not
> seen.
>
> Ray
> effects or what is seen (order or organization) contradict terms used
> to describe the causal agencies, which are, of course, inferred or not
> seen.
>
>
I try to be courteous Ray, but here you've not only snipped nearly
everything I wrote, but moved it to another thread. That's Pagano's dodge.
You have made a number of logical leaps above, and compounded the
problem with nearly impenetrable prose. How is intution" equivalent with
"what is seen"? If I see a black cat do I then claim I have an
"intuition" that there is a black cat in front of me?
I and others have presented ample evidence that "intuitiveness" is a
poor guide to scientific accuracy. It is subjective, highly
idiosyncratic, dependent on the knowledge of the subject and likely to
change as we learn new things. I could keep giving examples of things
that have been considered counterintuitive (even by me) and are
nonetheless true (and logical) for as long as you like.
But perhaps more importantly, you haven't shown exactly what is supposed
to be "counterintuitive" about evolutionary theory. Your mention of
"antonyms" makes it seem as if you might mean "disorder producing
order", but that doesn't apply here. Evolution is about highly-ordered
things evolving into somewhat-altered highly-ordered things.
Moreover, I'm not certain that "disorder producing order" applies
anywhere. What we tend to see is non-random properties of matter and
energy producing non-random results. A cloud of dust and fragments of
rock doesn't form itself into a planet by random motion, it happens by
means of a non-random physical property of matter: Gravity.
Ray Martinez
May 21, 2013, 5:03:24 PM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 6:44�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 5:36�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
> > > argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
> > > strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
> > > of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
> > > simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
> > > feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
> > > arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
> > > you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
> > > delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
> > > creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>
> > In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> > cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> > has to do with effect.
>
> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
> You may not be certifiably nuts, like Ray....
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:60aae88c-0b0e-4f86...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > There's no point in my arguing further, since you can dismiss any
> > > argument you dislike simply by claiming I'm deluded. Not a bad
> > > strategy. Should you ever feel in any way threatened by the arguments
> > > of atheism, or even evolutionism, simply keep repeating that they are
> > > simply delusions. And keep repeating as often as necessary until you
> > > feel better. You win, of course. Just keep reminding yourself that our
> > > arguments are the inevitable result of delusion. It's safer for you if
> > > you make no attempt to understand. Just keep repeating "It's all a
> > > delusion on their part, God's punishment for their rejection of
> > > creation. It's all a delusion, all a delusion, all a delusion.........
>
> > In case anyone wants to know, the logic of evolutionary
> > cause-and-effect is this; the more evolved, the less cause
> > has to do with effect.
>
> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
Declared Atheist Robert Camp restates the delusion claim that both
Darwinism and Creationism make about one another.
Ray (Theist, Paleyan IDist, species immutabilist)
[snip....]
Ray Martinez
May 21, 2013, 5:17:22 PM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 2:41�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> with lots of interlocking parts, and a highly sophisticated fuse that
> explodes it at a set time, and it then explodes into million random
> pieces,causing havoc.
>
> In the strange world that you are inhabiting, the above is impossible
> and illogical, since according to you, the antonyms order and disorder
> must never be part of a causal explanation. In the world that I'm in
> habiting, people �build bombs all the time,
I'm doing you a favor (intentionally ignoring).
Ray
> On May 20, 9:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> > Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> > "5. Philosophy .
>
> > a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> > previous cognition of the same object.
>
> > b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> > c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> > The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> > method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> > of).
>
> > So your unorthodox claim is not true.
>
> > > Because a
> > > while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> > > (implying that intuitive = logical).
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If that's the case, then you are
> > > using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> > > equivalent.
>
> > Yes, generally true.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4cfca9a15127903d?hl=en
>
> > > OK, Ray, sometimes your use of words is a bit, how shall I say,
> > > unorthodox. Are you claiming that intuition = observation?
>
> > Since intuition means "noninferential knowledge," yes.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t
>
> > "5. Philosophy .
>
> > a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a
> > previous cognition of the same object.
>
> > b. any object or truth so discerned.
>
> > c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
>
> > The definition offered presupposes observation (the only possible
> > method to achieve cognition, discernment, and the knowledge spoken
> > of).
>
> > So your unorthodox claim is not true.
>
> > > Because a
> > > while back you were claiming that counter-intuitive = illogical
> > > (implying that intuitive = logical).
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If that's the case, then you are
> > > using all three words, intuitive, logical, and observed, as
> > > equivalent.
>
> > Yes, generally true.
>
> > > You're free to use words as you like, but you can hardly
> > > be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
>
> > Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
> > or that which is observed; and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
> > effect scheme is admittedly random, reliant on inference and not
> > directly observed, and since effects are acknowledged by all as
> > ordered or organized, I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
> > counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
>
> > Ray
>
> Let's try this for size: I design and carefully manufacture a bomb,
> > > be surprised when people cannot follow your argument.
>
> > Since intuition has been defined as representing the non-inferential,
> > or that which is observed; and since the cause in the evo cause-and-
> > effect scheme is admittedly random, reliant on inference and not
> > directly observed, and since effects are acknowledged by all as
> > ordered or organized, I'm arguing said scheme antonymic,
> > counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical.
>
> > Ray
>
> with lots of interlocking parts, and a highly sophisticated fuse that
> explodes it at a set time, and it then explodes into million random
> pieces,causing havoc.
>
> In the strange world that you are inhabiting, the above is impossible
> and illogical, since according to you, the antonyms order and disorder
> must never be part of a causal explanation. In the world that I'm in
> habiting, people �build bombs all the time,
I'm doing you a favor (intentionally ignoring).
Ray
Ray Martinez
May 21, 2013, 5:45:44 PM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 4:50�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
course, his scientific colleagues. Theists are deluded by a brain made
by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply. So
Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
natural selection.
> > > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > > was an argument from authority.
> > I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
> Not hostile but yes to threatening. The former requires animus.
Ridiculous.
Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
> But as I say that, the problem is that you
> have private definitions....
No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
> ....of both of those things so that they are, in
> the �special case of your mind, continually redefined to be mirror
> images. That this images in your mind do not correspond to any
> commonly recognized reality is something you will refuse to
> comprehend.
Ridiculous.
> > >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > > sensible (= logical).
> > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> > You need to address.
>
> You've attempted to redefine the words logical and illogical in a
> world of absolute dichotomies that are continually redefined and rescoped to
> rescue your perspectives. That style of gibberish was exposed and
> replaced by the Greeks. Your reinvention of it provides a certain
> lesson
> in why logical thinking was developed and how the human psyche can
> develop its own black-hole from which there can be no escape. The
> lesson is for each and everyone who views your trap to take a few
> steps
> back, and ask if they might have created some similar trap for
> themselves.
>
> How can they escape and challenge their preconceptions?
>
> In this you provide a valuable service Ray because it is so very
> very hard to find things that will get anyone to ask those difficult
> questions of themselves.
Long-winded inability to address and refute what I said:
A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
sensible (= logical).
A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
nonsensical (= illogical).
Ray
> On May 21, 4:15 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
> > Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> > above.
>
> I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> inept characterization of theology.
And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
> > above.
>
> I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> inept characterization of theology.
> In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
course, his scientific colleagues. Theists are deluded by a brain made
by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply. So
Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
natural selection.
> > > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > > was an argument from authority.
> > I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
>
> > > Above, you present something
> > > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > > the deluded set.
> > Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> > gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
> > > Above, you present something
> > > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > > the deluded set.
> > Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> > reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>
> Actually, the astute part is getting you to be as plain about it.
>
>
> > > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
> > Again, quite astute.
> > > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
> > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> No, they are not polar opposites [....]
> > > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
> > Again, quite astute.
> > > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
> > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
Ridiculous.
Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
> But as I say that, the problem is that you
> have private definitions....
No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
> ....of both of those things so that they are, in
> the �special case of your mind, continually redefined to be mirror
> images. That this images in your mind do not correspond to any
> commonly recognized reality is something you will refuse to
> comprehend.
Ridiculous.
> > >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > > sensible (= logical).
> > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> > You need to address.
>
> world of absolute dichotomies that are continually redefined and rescoped to
> rescue your perspectives. That style of gibberish was exposed and
> replaced by the Greeks. Your reinvention of it provides a certain
> lesson
> in why logical thinking was developed and how the human psyche can
> develop its own black-hole from which there can be no escape. The
> lesson is for each and everyone who views your trap to take a few
> steps
> back, and ask if they might have created some similar trap for
> themselves.
>
> How can they escape and challenge their preconceptions?
>
> In this you provide a valuable service Ray because it is so very
> very hard to find things that will get anyone to ask those difficult
> questions of themselves.
Long-winded inability to address and refute what I said:
A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
sensible (= logical).
A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
nonsensical (= illogical).
Paul J Gans
May 21, 2013, 6:22:48 PM5/21/13
to
Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've never heard a soul say that) I will admit that I've lost
in a fair number of times over the years in those unending
threads.
>On May 20, 7:47?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 5:29?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> >> above.
>> >> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> >> [more snip]
>>
>> >> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> >> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> >> Inquiring minds want to know.
>> >That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>> >between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>> >in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
>>
>> I think that Roger, ih his response, dealt with that. ?I could
>> Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 5:29?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 21, 4:15?am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>> >> >> above.
>> >> >I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> >> >inept characterization of theology. In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> >> >an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>>
>> >> [more snip]
>>
>> >> Why is it OK to engage with Ray and imply nastiness but not
>> >> all right to engage Peter and imply idiocy?
>>
>> >> Inquiring minds want to know.
>> >That doesn't seem a fair comparison to me. There's a difference
>> >between endless rounds of "Am not, you are!" and one-off indulgences
>> >in sharp, or even disparaging, rhetoric.
>>
>> argue that with exceptions, I tried to keep my temper and
>> restrict myself to postings with content. ?Roger's point, if
>> I've got it right, is that such postings become buried in
>> the noise.
>For what it's worth, I never thought of you as one who was involved in
>objectionable interaction with Nyikos and didn't mean to imply that
>with my response.
Thank you, but since confession is good for the soul (though
>> the noise.
>For what it's worth, I never thought of you as one who was involved in
>objectionable interaction with Nyikos and didn't mean to imply that
>with my response.
I've never heard a soul say that) I will admit that I've lost
in a fair number of times over the years in those unending
threads.
Paul J Gans
May 21, 2013, 6:29:31 PM5/21/13
to
Lots of luck with that.
Paul J Gans
May 21, 2013, 6:33:26 PM5/21/13
to
troops and anti-troops marched up and down talk.origins for
quite a while.
And of course neither Velikovsky or Rand was a co-religionist
of Ray. In fact both were atheists.
Burkhard
May 21, 2013, 6:34:46 PM5/21/13
to
jonathan
May 21, 2013, 7:07:32 PM5/21/13
to
"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
like this is the third grade?
Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
car window, and speeding off.
....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
Jonathan
"Was not" was all the Statement.
The Unpretension stuns
Perhaps the Comprehension
They wore no Lexicons"
By E Dickinson
..
Free Lunch
May 21, 2013, 7:40:39 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
in talk.origins:
>
>"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>
>
>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>
>
>
>Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>like this is the third grade?
>
>Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>car window, and speeding off.
>
>....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>
Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
show that your delusions are invalid.
in talk.origins:
>
>"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>
>
>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>
>
>
>Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>like this is the third grade?
>
>Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>car window, and speeding off.
>
>....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>
show that your delusions are invalid.
Dana Tweedy
May 21, 2013, 7:45:18 PM5/21/13
to
didn't say you were deluded, he said you were certifiably nuts. Those
are different claims.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
May 21, 2013, 7:46:21 PM5/21/13
to
yourself a favor.
DJT
jonathan
May 21, 2013, 7:58:54 PM5/21/13
to
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ne1op8dg3mq2r3djd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
> in talk.origins:
>
>>
>>"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>>
>>
>>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>>like this is the third grade?
>>
>>Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>>you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>>to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>>is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>>car window, and speeding off.
>>
>>....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>
> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> show that your delusions are invalid.
No, I haven't seen anyone show my conclusions are wrong, only
> in talk.origins:
>
>>
>>"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>>
>>
>>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>>like this is the third grade?
>>
>>Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>>you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>>to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>>is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>>car window, and speeding off.
>>
>>....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>
> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> show that your delusions are invalid.
say they are.
His reply is typical, nothing but 'no it isn't'. The problem
of course here is that it's so easy to show reality is uncertain
and outside the ability to fully objectively define. The only
delusion is in believing otherwise, to me this should be obvious.
Do you believe differently or not?
The point being that subjective views are equal players
with the objective for a complete view of nature.
But show me I'm wrong. I mean, if what I say is so idiotic
is should be trivial for you or others to show why.
Dana Tweedy
May 21, 2013, 8:02:57 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 3:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 4:15 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>>
>>>>> Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
>>>>> my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
>>>>> instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
>>>>> ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
>>>>> God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>>>> That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>>> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>>> above.
>>
>> I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> inept characterization of theology.
>
> And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
So, why do you assume that Dawkins is a "leader"?
> On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 4:15 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>>
>>>>> Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
>>>>> my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
>>>>> instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
>>>>> ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
>>>>> God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
>>>> That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
>>> Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
>>> above.
>>
>> I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
>> inept characterization of theology.
>
> And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
>
>> In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
>> an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
> rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism.
> This explanation
> is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
> course, his scientific colleagues.
intuited as well?
> Theists are deluded by a brain made
> by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
> saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply.
> So
> Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
> natural selection.
science. Your mistake is in assuming that one scientist speaks for the
whole of science.
>
>>>> You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
>>>> was an argument from authority.
>>> I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>>
>> Not hostile but yes to threatening. The former requires animus.
>>
>>>> Above, you present something
>>>> of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
>>>> a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
>>>> a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
>>>> the deluded set.
>>> Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
>>> gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
>>> reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>>
>> Actually, the astute part is getting you to be as plain about it.
>>
>>>> Therefore, any appearance of you losing
>>>> the argument is a sign we are deluded.
>>> Again, quite astute.
>>>> It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
>>>> ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
>>> The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
>>> and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>>
>> No, they are not polar opposites [....]
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed;
> Darwinism says
> the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
or not the material exists, or if it affects nature. There simply isn't
any evidence to support either way.
>
>> But as I say that, the problem is that you
>> have private definitions....
>
> No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
standard, and supported by common usage. Yours, Ray have not been.
>
>> ....of both of those things so that they are, in
>> the special case of your mind, continually redefined to be mirror
>> images. That this images in your mind do not correspond to any
>> commonly recognized reality is something you will refuse to
>> comprehend.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
>>>>> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
>>>> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
>>>> sensible (= logical).
>>>> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
>>>> nonsensical (= illogical).
>>
>>> You need to address.
>>
>> You've attempted to redefine the words logical and illogical in a
>> world of absolute dichotomies that are continually redefined and rescoped to
>> rescue your perspectives. That style of gibberish was exposed and
>> replaced by the Greeks. Your reinvention of it provides a certain
>> lesson
>> in why logical thinking was developed and how the human psyche can
>> develop its own black-hole from which there can be no escape. The
>> lesson is for each and everyone who views your trap to take a few
>> steps
>> back, and ask if they might have created some similar trap for
>> themselves.
>>
>> How can they escape and challenge their preconceptions?
>>
>> In this you provide a valuable service Ray because it is so very
>> very hard to find things that will get anyone to ask those difficult
>> questions of themselves.
>
> Long-winded inability to address and refute what I said:
like it, but your claims are exposed as worthless.
>
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> sensible (= logical).
actually change reality? You act as if you expect them to. Neither
"intuitive" or "sensible" are substitutes for the word "logical".
Especially, when you show no reason why anyone should accept your
intuition, or what you think of as "sensible".
>
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> nonsensical (= illogical).
Neanderthals from Atlantis built the Great Pyramid. You also have
stated that eels mating in the Sargasso sea prove Atlantis existed. You
have claimed that the Mexican town of Mazatlan, which sits on the
Pacific coast, is related to the word Atlantis. You have furthermore
claimed that the word "Cannibal" comes from "Priests of Baal", rather
than the correct derivation from Columbus' name for the Carib Indians.
Why do you think that anyone would take your word for what is, or is
not "logical"?
DJT
Free Lunch
May 21, 2013, 8:21:27 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:58:54 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
Please show us how that is the case.
Bob Berger
May 21, 2013, 8:37:11 PM5/21/13
to
In article <kne9c...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bob Berger says...
>
>In article <827d1f03-0183-4509...@h9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
>Ray Martinez says...
>small particles are passed through a double slit in a barrier and produce on a
>screen on the other side an interference pattern? In case you missed it, here
>are a couple links:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>
>or since you don't like wikipedia, try
>
>http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
>
>or any of the hundreds of other links a Google search will return.
>
>Now tell me, is the production by the two slits of the interference pattern
>counterintuitive to you? Does it seem to you logical that such a pattern is
>generated by the two slits? Does your intuition tell you there's no problem with
>those individual objects passing through not just one but both slits at the same
>time?
>
>By the way, you'll notice that the interference pattern produced is orderly, and
>can be predicted/reproduced based on the slit size and spacing, beam composition
>and intensity, etc.
>
>I submit that a predictable/repeatable pattern is a sign of order.
>
>Yet that pattern orininates from a non-ordered (random, if you will) flow of
>particles/waves as the result of the presence of the barrier and its slits.
>
>In this case simple slits produce order from disorder.
Still waiting for your responses...
>
>In article <827d1f03-0183-4509...@h9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
>Ray Martinez says...
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>>
>>> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>>
>>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>>
>>I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
>>"noninferential knowledge."
>
>>So if X is counterintuitive X is counter to what is seen and thus illogical.
>
>Ray: Have you heard of or studied the "double slit experiment" in which light or
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/997c4387eeb4fe71?hl=en
>>
>>> > Note your total departure from Biology into Physics and Cosmology. Has
>>> > any scholar ever attempted to defend evolution in this manner?
>>>
>>> When you make a general statement about science, you can expect to have
>>> it challenged using whatever example comes to mind first. In this case,
>>> you are arguing that "counterintuitiveness" has something to tell us
>>> about the accuracy of a scientific explanation. I, and others, are
>>> telling you that it does not [Greg Guarino].
>>
>>I've provided a reference link that defines "intuition" as
>>"noninferential knowledge."
>
>>So if X is counterintuitive X is counter to what is seen and thus illogical.
>
>small particles are passed through a double slit in a barrier and produce on a
>screen on the other side an interference pattern? In case you missed it, here
>are a couple links:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>
>or since you don't like wikipedia, try
>
>http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
>
>or any of the hundreds of other links a Google search will return.
>
>Now tell me, is the production by the two slits of the interference pattern
>counterintuitive to you? Does it seem to you logical that such a pattern is
>generated by the two slits? Does your intuition tell you there's no problem with
>those individual objects passing through not just one but both slits at the same
>time?
>
>By the way, you'll notice that the interference pattern produced is orderly, and
>can be predicted/reproduced based on the slit size and spacing, beam composition
>and intensity, etc.
>
>I submit that a predictable/repeatable pattern is a sign of order.
>
>Yet that pattern orininates from a non-ordered (random, if you will) flow of
>particles/waves as the result of the presence of the barrier and its slits.
>
>In this case simple slits produce order from disorder.
Still waiting for your responses...
Robert Camp
May 21, 2013, 8:41:22 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 4:07�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
such thing as objective reality?
> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> to prove to me there is an objective reality.
What kind of "proof" would you like? Perhaps I could refer you to
something in the Social Text?
> Else your reply
> is nothing more �than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> car window, and speeding off.
I prefer to think of it more as _mindfully_ flipping the bird, but you
say potayto...
> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
You see, that's a big part of your problem. As if the weaknesses I
mentioned above weren't enough, you express yourself (e.g., "In case
anyone wants to know...") as if you possess knowledge and expertise
that is due some level of regard. Unfortunately, there is little
evidence for this so far.
> "Robert Camp" <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> >> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
> >> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
> >> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
> >> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
> >> level Ray understands theology.
>
> >> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>
> Am I supposed to say �'yes it is' �now, to your 'no it isn't'
> like this is the third grade?
Can there really be anything you're "supposed to say," when there's no
> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
> >> > can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>
> >> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
> >> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
> >> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
> >> level Ray understands theology.
>
> >> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>
> Am I supposed to say �'yes it is' �now, to your 'no it isn't'
> like this is the third grade?
such thing as objective reality?
> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> to prove to me there is an objective reality.
something in the Social Text?
> Else your reply
> is nothing more �than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> car window, and speeding off.
say potayto...
> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
mentioned above weren't enough, you express yourself (e.g., "In case
anyone wants to know...") as if you possess knowledge and expertise
that is due some level of regard. Unfortunately, there is little
evidence for this so far.
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:28:18 PM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 07:07 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>> can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>
>
>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>
>
>
> Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
> like this is the third grade?
>
> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> car window, and speeding off.
>
> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
By what *facts* do you assert there's no objective reality? How can your
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>> can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>
>
>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>
>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>
>
>
> Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
> like this is the third grade?
>
> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> car window, and speeding off.
>
> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
claim be evaluated if objective reality doesn't exist? You have shot
your own argument in the foot. You seem to be wanting your cake and
eating it too.
Tapping and waiting.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:32:09 PM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 07:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
> in talk.origins:
>
>>
>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>>> can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>>
>>
>>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>> like this is the third grade?
>>
>> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>> car window, and speeding off.
>>
>> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>
> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> show that your delusions are invalid.
If there's no objective reality, all claims are baseless, including the
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
> in talk.origins:
>
>>
>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f36fd224-b026-4d61...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 20, 5:36 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> And that fact of non-linear behavior essentially means there
>>>>> can be no such thing as an objective reality.
>>>>
>>
>>>> You may not be certifiably nuts like Ray, but your argumentation is
>>>> disappointingly similar.* You see everything through an ideological
>>>> prism, and appear to understand your source material at about the same
>>>> level Ray understands theology.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I don't think anyone wants to know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' now, to your 'no it isn't'
>> like this is the third grade?
>>
>> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>> car window, and speeding off.
>>
>> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>
> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> show that your delusions are invalid.
claim that there's no objective reality.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Roger Shrubber
May 21, 2013, 10:22:52 PM5/21/13
to
On May 22, 6:45�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 4:15 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > > > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
> > > Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> > > above.
>
> > I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> > inept characterization of theology.
>
> And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
>
> > In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> > an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
> rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
Doublespeak much?
> On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 4:15 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/15d8a6f4db3a46c3?hl=en
>
> > > > > Your colleague, Burk, has acknowledged the logic in-use. Then again,
> > > > > my overall claim says evolution causes delusion which explains, rather
> > > > > instantly, your total rejection of my logic and the inability to
> > > > > ascertain its soundness. And again, Dawkins says the exact opposite:
> > > > > God is a delusion that inhibits the understanding of evolution.
> > > > That is nothing more than asserting that you always win.
> > > Did you notice that Dawkins says the same? Re-read what was said
> > > above.
>
> > I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> > inept characterization of theology.
>
> And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
>
> > In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> > an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
>
> The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
> rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
> is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
> course, his scientific colleagues. Theists are deluded by a brain made
> by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
> saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply. So
> Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
> natural selection.
There isn't a creed we all follow.
Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
the "logic" of false dichotomies.
Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
leaders. As long as you continue to assert that the world
divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
you will fail to perceive the real world.
Observationally, there are many different ways that people
feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
> > > > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > > > was an argument from authority.
> > > I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
> > Not hostile but yes to threatening. The former requires animus.
>
> > > > Above, you present something
> > > > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > > > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > > > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > > > the deluded set.
> > > Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> > > gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
> > > reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>
> > Actually, the astute part is getting you to be as plain about it.
>
> > > > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > > > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
> > > Again, quite astute.
> > > > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > > > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
> > > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> > No, they are not polar opposites [....]
>
> Ridiculous.
greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
the same.
> Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
Plate tectonics is agnostic. Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
about species being specially created, you manufacture a
conflict. The science and math is ignorant of the conflict.
It is unmoved by your affection or dislike, your moods,
your health, your ignorance or erudition.
> > But as I say that, the problem is that you
> > have private definitions....
>
> No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
"diversity" that matches your assertions. Or a biology text
that has a glossary defining it so. And you attempt at defintion
logic and illogic just now is transparently absurd and self-
contradictory.
> > ....of both of those things so that they are, in
> > the special case of your mind, continually redefined to be mirror
> > images. That this images in your mind do not correspond to any
> > commonly recognized reality is something you will refuse to
> > comprehend.
> Ridiculous.
> > > >> And you refuse to define what you mean by logic.
> > > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> > > > sensible (= logical).
> > > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > > > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> > > You need to address.
>
> > You've attempted to redefine the words logical and illogical in a
> > world of absolute dichotomies that are continually redefined and rescoped to
> > rescue your perspectives. That style of gibberish was exposed and
> > replaced by the Greeks. Your reinvention of it provides a certain
> > lesson
> > in why logical thinking was developed and how the human psyche can
> > develop its own black-hole from which there can be no escape. The
> > lesson is for each and everyone who views your trap to take a few
> > steps
> > back, and ask if they might have created some similar trap for
> > themselves.
>
> > How can they escape and challenge their preconceptions?
>
> > In this you provide a valuable service Ray because it is so very
> > very hard to find things that will get anyone to ask those difficult
> > questions of themselves.
>
> Long-winded inability to address and refute what I said:
>
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs synonyms is intuitive and
> sensible (= logical).
to fit into dichotomous cases of synonym and antonym with all
the equivocation such an attempt implies.
> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> nonsensical (= illogical).
conventions or recognized vocabularies.
Dana Tweedy
May 21, 2013, 11:09:20 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 8:22 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
snipping
>
>> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
>> nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You simply don't use English according to recognized semantic
> conventions or recognized vocabularies.
>
When it comes to word meanings, Ray follows the tao of Humpty Dumpty.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's
all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
DJT
snipping
>
>> A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
>> nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You simply don't use English according to recognized semantic
> conventions or recognized vocabularies.
>
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's
all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
DJT
John S. Wilkins
May 21, 2013, 11:21:57 PM5/21/13
to
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 07:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
> > in talk.origins:
> >
...
> On 05/21/2013 07:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
> > in talk.origins:
> >
> >> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
> >> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> >> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
> >> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> >> car window, and speeding off.
> >>
> >> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
> >>
> > Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> > show that your delusions are invalid.
>
> If there's no objective reality, all claims are baseless, including the
> claim that there's no objective reality.
That's true for you, but it's not true for me.
> >> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
> >> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
> >> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
> >> car window, and speeding off.
> >>
> >> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
> >>
> > Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
> > show that your delusions are invalid.
>
> If there's no objective reality, all claims are baseless, including the
> claim that there's no objective reality.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 11:46:17 PM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 11:21 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/21/2013 07:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> in talk.origins:
>>>
> ...
>>>> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>>>> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>>>> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>>>> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>>>> car window, and speeding off.
>>>>
>>>> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>>>
>>> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
>>> show that your delusions are invalid.
>>
>> If there's no objective reality, all claims are baseless, including the
>> claim that there's no objective reality.
>
> That's true for you, but it's not true for me.
There's absolutely no absolute truth. *All* truths are relative. No
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/21/2013 07:40 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:07:32 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> in talk.origins:
>>>
> ...
>>>> Since I claimed there can be no objective reality, and
>>>> you replied simply "you're full of shit", then I would like you
>>>> to prove to me there is an objective reality. Else your reply
>>>> is nothing more than mindlessly flipping the bird out your
>>>> car window, and speeding off.
>>>>
>>>> ....tapping my foot....I'm waiting~
>>>>
>>> Why? You have made it clear that you reject anything that that would
>>> show that your delusions are invalid.
>>
>> If there's no objective reality, all claims are baseless, including the
>> claim that there's no objective reality.
>
> That's true for you, but it's not true for me.
generalizations can be made.
Since all bets are off and "Jonathan" has obliterated objective reality,
I fall back upon the solipsistic position that I am the generator of the
universe (or prime mover). This means "Jonathan" and you are but
figments of my imagination and must by necessity comply with my views. I
therefore reconstruct objective reality by fiat as a gift to the world.
You're welcome.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Bob Berger
May 22, 2013, 12:01:49 AM5/22/13
to
In article <Nd6dnQitv8R-qwHM...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy says...
Is that quote from the King James Version of the book?
>
>DJT
>
>
>DJT
>
James Beck
May 22, 2013, 12:14:39 AM5/22/13
to
spent a lot of time appealing to reality, while simultaneously
declaring her devotion to the 'free market,' thereby negating both
history and reality. Velikovsky did much the same. The main difference
between them is that Rand appeals to a large audience that likes being
told that they can do whatever they want.
Randians usually like this quote: "Individual rights are not subject
to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a
minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect
minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on
earth is the individual)." On the other hand, they rarely acknowledge
this one: "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and
protect a man�s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other
men." Rand isn't so bad once you realize that objectively the set of
one man's actions that impose no obligations on other men is empty.
Anyway, if he ever finishes his book, he'll join the list of modern
novelists who thought they were writing non-fiction. What better idols
could he have than that?
jillery
May 22, 2013, 1:37:00 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:46:17 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
Since you included me in your generation, I should thank you. Unless
of course I am the prime mover. In which case, stop taking credit for
my creation.
of course I am the prime mover. In which case, stop taking credit for
my creation.
*Hemidactylus*
May 22, 2013, 6:58:14 AM5/22/13
to
thought...my subjective perception? I thought as "Bishop Berkeley" said
that to be is to be perceived. Could it be that another being exists
independently of me? If so we are sharing an intersubjective experience.
Yet how can this happen without a common framework like the Darwin
server and our newsreader private circuits? Does this make DIG the
ultimate mind Berkeley talked about...the constructor of the matrix? Or
maybe could there be...wait for it...an objective reality of internets?
If there's no objective reality where does the electricity which powers
my PC come from? Why did I satisfy my hunger with a meal? Where did the
food come from? My mind?
Did we just conspire to refute Jonathan?
--
*Hemidactylus*
jillery
May 22, 2013, 8:00:41 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:58:14 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
Shh! It's a secret.
Kermit
May 22, 2013, 11:47:29 AM5/22/13
to
On 22 May, 03:58, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 01:37 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:46:17 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 05/21/2013 11:21 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 01:37 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:46:17 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 05/21/2013 11:21 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
There is no mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsJxIoFu2wo
>
> Did we just conspire to refute Jonathan?
>
> --
> *Hemidactylus*
jonathan
May 22, 2013, 12:18:33 PM5/22/13
to
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SMKdnW-bJuquggHM...@giganews.com...
which are ...independent the observer. In an evolutionary context
we co-evolve with our environment, hence we cannot properly
define our reality without...including...the observer.
So a full explanation of reality or nature requires the proper combination
of objective...and...subjective methods/observations.
Does anyone around here really believe the totality of reality
can be 'quantified'? And isn't the objective habit of defining
things independent of the human mind, defining reality and nature
independent of the most complex and capable creation known
in order to have 'proof' and undeniable facts and so on, a bit like
tossing the baby out with the bathwater?
s
>
>
>
> --
> *Hemidactylus*
>
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 12:54:17 PM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 11:58:14 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
sometimes, the word "reality" refers to the theories we construct
around the world around us. In general, the discussion do not
refers to ordinary matters, like a jar of beer, or a mountain.
But all our discussions and arguments refer to the different theories
people had learned from others.
then, when we throw to each other the word "reality" we are mostly
disputing the meaning of the world around us. It is not that a
fundy and an atheist had different ideas about what is a mountain,
a camel, or a glass of wine.
We we all had build theoretical superstructures to explain how the god
Krishna, by example, created the world, or if the world and the universe
at large was created by Yahweh, or Allah. All our disagreements refers
to the different theories that we had built to explain the Universe and our
life here.
Then, this is the main misunderstanding, "reality" does not refers to the
material feeling we have through our senses. When someone invokes "reality"
is thinking about the theories "we had constructed" about the material world
around us.
Then most of our arguments here with fundies are like a stupid dialogue.
We do not share anything in common, except a basic language.
Words like "logic" often used here, do not take into account the slippery
meaning of the word. We could had been like an eternity arguing with
fundies about and will never arrive at any valid conclusion.
Among us and them we have not any valid frame of reference. That is why
it is a total waste of time.
The only valid consequence of this argumentation is for disoriented people
that can be unsure between us and them.
Eridanus
around the world around us. In general, the discussion do not
refers to ordinary matters, like a jar of beer, or a mountain.
But all our discussions and arguments refer to the different theories
people had learned from others.
then, when we throw to each other the word "reality" we are mostly
disputing the meaning of the world around us. It is not that a
fundy and an atheist had different ideas about what is a mountain,
a camel, or a glass of wine.
We we all had build theoretical superstructures to explain how the god
Krishna, by example, created the world, or if the world and the universe
at large was created by Yahweh, or Allah. All our disagreements refers
to the different theories that we had built to explain the Universe and our
life here.
Then, this is the main misunderstanding, "reality" does not refers to the
material feeling we have through our senses. When someone invokes "reality"
is thinking about the theories "we had constructed" about the material world
around us.
Then most of our arguments here with fundies are like a stupid dialogue.
We do not share anything in common, except a basic language.
Words like "logic" often used here, do not take into account the slippery
meaning of the word. We could had been like an eternity arguing with
fundies about and will never arrive at any valid conclusion.
Among us and them we have not any valid frame of reference. That is why
it is a total waste of time.
The only valid consequence of this argumentation is for disoriented people
that can be unsure between us and them.
Eridanus
Dana Tweedy
May 22, 2013, 1:14:22 PM5/22/13
to
DJT
Paul J Gans
May 22, 2013, 7:51:04 PM5/22/13
to
truths not known to mudane science. It is also a kind of
empowerment of the individual, especially the scientifically
ignorant individual.
>Randians usually like this quote: "Individual rights are not subject
>to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a
>minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect
>minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on
>earth is the individual)." On the other hand, they rarely acknowledge
>this one: "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and
>men." Rand isn't so bad once you realize that objectively the set of
>one man's actions that impose no obligations on other men is empty.
>Anyway, if he ever finishes his book, he'll join the list of modern
>novelists who thought they were writing non-fiction. What better idols
>could he have than that?
Will even e-books exist by then?
>one man's actions that impose no obligations on other men is empty.
>Anyway, if he ever finishes his book, he'll join the list of modern
>novelists who thought they were writing non-fiction. What better idols
>could he have than that?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 9:26:45 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knf5gl$pef$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 2:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [...]
> > I know from reading your posts that you believe all theistic religion
> > to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
> > rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
> >
> > 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
> >
> > "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> > should believe a lie:
> >
> > That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> > pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
> > evolution].
>
> This raises a theological point I have often wondered about. According
> to Ray, all non-Christians are deluded. Now, non-Christians have always
> been the minority of humanity and, for the vast majority of history,
> have been its entirety. Thus "deluded" is humanity's natural state.
> Why would God make humans so that they are, normally, deluded? And why
> would anyone worship a god who does so?
He wants a big population in Hell.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 2:13 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [...]
> > I know from reading your posts that you believe all theistic religion
> > to be delusion as well. Yet the New Testament, written well before the
> > rise of Darwinism and Richard Dawkins, says:
> >
> > 2Thessalonians 2:11,12 (KJV):
> >
> > "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> > should believe a lie:
> >
> > That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> > pleasure in unrighteousness" [or that which is not true, like
> > evolution].
>
> This raises a theological point I have often wondered about. According
> to Ray, all non-Christians are deluded. Now, non-Christians have always
> been the minority of humanity and, for the vast majority of history,
> have been its entirety. Thus "deluded" is humanity's natural state.
> Why would God make humans so that they are, normally, deluded? And why
> would anyone worship a god who does so?
He wants a big population in Hell.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Ray Martinez
May 22, 2013, 10:00:08 PM5/22/13
to
ulterior motive and agenda.
> There isn't a creed we all follow.
> Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> the "logic" of false dichotomies.
>
> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> leaders.
motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
> As long as you continue to assert that the world
> divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> you will fail to perceive the real world.
> Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
(observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
> > > > > You disliked where I presented something you rightly said
> > > > > was an argument from authority.
> > > > I understood that argument as hostile to my arguments and position.
>
> > > Not hostile but yes to threatening. The former requires animus.
>
> > > > > Above, you present something
> > > > > of the same form. Your "authority" is claimed as being
> > > > > a member of the non-deluded set. Your claim is coupled to
> > > > > a parallel claim that anyone opposing you is a member of
> > > > > the deluded set.
> > > > Quite astute. You're only the second evo to ever understand the
> > > > gravity of the claim. Yet Dawkins makes the same basic claim, in
> > > > reverse, in "The God Delusion."
>
> > > Actually, the astute part is getting you to be as plain about it.
>
> > > > > Therefore, any appearance of you losing
> > > > > the argument is a sign we are deluded.
> > > > Again, quite astute.
> > > > > It's heads you win, tails I lose. If that's really your
> > > > > ultimate fallback position, why do you bother?
> > > > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > > > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> > > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> > > No, they are not polar opposites [....]
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> And yet they are not polar opposites.
it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
> You fail to account for
> greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> the same.
> > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> Nothing about identifing a natural way for crystals to form is
> denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
> Plate tectonics is agnostic.
False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
nature.
> If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
> willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
> about species being specially created, you manufacture a
> conflict.
reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
> The science and math is ignorant of the conflict.
> It is unmoved by your affection or dislike, your moods,
> your health, your ignorance or erudition.
>
> > > But as I say that, the problem is that you
> > > have private definitions....
>
> > No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
>
> And yet you cann't produce a dictionary definition of
> "diversity" that matches your assertions.
true. It is one or the other. Anyone can fact check and see that my
arguments are true: the evo cause-and-effect scheme is
counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical, wholly dependent on
antonyms.
> > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> You simply don't use English according to recognized semantic
> conventions or recognized vocabularies.
Ray
James Beck
May 23, 2013, 12:28:47 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:51:04 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
Cuts both ways. Velikovsky wrote to a lay audience that wanted to hear
what he had to say in much the same formulaic way that Rush Limbaugh
does. He split his thesis up into pieces so that no one could destroy
the whole thing at one go. That greatly magnified the cost of
disputing his work, particularly for a law audience that wanted to
believe him.
Something similar applies in principle to Randian-style
Libertarianism. When groups are small, the cost of monitoring is low.
As the group size expands the cost of monitoring grows rapidly, as do
both fraud and free ridership. When I was a boy, one of the local
businessmen told my father that his ambition was to cheat everyone in
the city once. In much the same way that the successful hostess
segregates the deadwood at a party, businesses have an incentive to
dump bad custom off on the competition. Likewise customers rarely
complain publicly. Even in the Internet age, avoiding cheaters is
costly. The end result is one sort of regulation.
Another sort arises when competitive margins are too low to justify
high capital investment. In those instances, the government's
regulatory role is to police created quasi-monopolies. There are many
of those, ranging from airlines and telecoms, to homeowners
associations, medical doctors, and real estate agents.
>>Randians usually like this quote: "Individual rights are not subject
>>to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a
>>minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect
>>minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on
>>earth is the individual)." On the other hand, they rarely acknowledge
>>this one: "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and
>>protect a man?s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other
>>men." Rand isn't so bad once you realize that objectively the set of
>>one man's actions that impose no obligations on other men is empty.
>
>>Anyway, if he ever finishes his book, he'll join the list of modern
>>novelists who thought they were writing non-fiction. What better idols
>>could he have than that?
>
>Will even e-books exist by then?
Hard to say. I have so many of them, I hope they continue to exist.
They're much more practical than dead tree editions.
what he had to say in much the same formulaic way that Rush Limbaugh
does. He split his thesis up into pieces so that no one could destroy
the whole thing at one go. That greatly magnified the cost of
disputing his work, particularly for a law audience that wanted to
believe him.
Something similar applies in principle to Randian-style
Libertarianism. When groups are small, the cost of monitoring is low.
As the group size expands the cost of monitoring grows rapidly, as do
both fraud and free ridership. When I was a boy, one of the local
businessmen told my father that his ambition was to cheat everyone in
the city once. In much the same way that the successful hostess
segregates the deadwood at a party, businesses have an incentive to
dump bad custom off on the competition. Likewise customers rarely
complain publicly. Even in the Internet age, avoiding cheaters is
costly. The end result is one sort of regulation.
Another sort arises when competitive margins are too low to justify
high capital investment. In those instances, the government's
regulatory role is to police created quasi-monopolies. There are many
of those, ranging from airlines and telecoms, to homeowners
associations, medical doctors, and real estate agents.
>>Randians usually like this quote: "Individual rights are not subject
>>to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a
>>minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect
>>minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on
>>earth is the individual)." On the other hand, they rarely acknowledge
>>this one: "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and
>>protect a man?s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other
>>men." Rand isn't so bad once you realize that objectively the set of
>>one man's actions that impose no obligations on other men is empty.
>
>>Anyway, if he ever finishes his book, he'll join the list of modern
>>novelists who thought they were writing non-fiction. What better idols
>>could he have than that?
>
>Will even e-books exist by then?
They're much more practical than dead tree editions.
Roger Shrubber
May 23, 2013, 1:59:27 AM5/23/13
to
and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
daily lives. You can't repair a car engine by praying over it
but instead by making sure air is mixing with fuel and getting a
spark at the right time while discounting the effects of demons
or angels.
I know a great many religious scientist who certainly don't
adhere to metaphysical naturalism, and a fair number of
non-religious scientists who don't either. That's an observation
Ray. Your assertions to the contrary lack credibility. You
don't interact with live scientists on a daily basis.
> > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
> > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > leaders.
> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
things, neither synonyms nor antonyms of one another.
> > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > you will fail to perceive the real world.
> Defense of subjective thought.
For instance, colors. You might ponder the metaphor.
> > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
structure. No two are identical, or at least we know that the
probability of two being identical is astronomically low. But they
share a pattern, a design that is easily recognized. They are
simultaneously random and structured. If that confuses you,
it is because you fail to understand what exists. In your
innocence, you find it contradictory. And yet it exists. And you
know for a fact that snowflakes are both random in the sense
that each one is distinct and different and yet they are structured
and complex if you look at the fact that their structure is made
from a smallish set of rules with compound interactions.
The two words you want to claim are antonyms in your
black and white cartoonish universe of opposites actually
are full appropriate descriptors of the same thing: collections
of snowflakes. Your "intuition" is self-contradictory. It
refutes itself when challenged against the observable universe.
You define two opposing sets in broad terms such that you can
place item A into the one set and item B into the second set and
then try to claim that A is thus the opposite of B. It does
not work that way.
> > You fail to account for
> > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > the same.
> Defense of subjective thought continues.
> > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
> And no one ever said so.
> > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
> > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> nature.
Your private restricted definition of naturalism, contorted into your
> > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
> And no one ever said so.
> > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
> > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> nature.
black and white cartoon of reality, is so very trite and unrealistic.
The choice is not "god did it" to explain everything or "god did
nothing".
It is not all or non. The claim that no divine intervention was need
to
account for X says nothing about Y or Z.
> > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
> > willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
> > about species being specially created, you manufacture a
> > conflict.
> Atheists, Theists and Deists disagree and oppose your attempt to say
> reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
as their spokesman.
> > The science and math is ignorant of the conflict.
> > It is unmoved by your affection or dislike, your moods,
> > your health, your ignorance or erudition.
> > > > But as I say that, the problem is that you
> > > > have private definitions....
>
> > > No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
>
> > And yet you cann't produce a dictionary definition of
> > "diversity" that matches your assertions.
> Your objections amounted to quibbling, remember?
issue was only won in your mind. I presented my points about
why your strange definition was a problem and then went on
to deal with other problems. I even repeated the complaint
multiple times because your usage of these private definitions
makes everything you write so painful to interpret.
wrong. That is obvious. That obvious fact alone demolishes your
attempted redefinition of what logic is. Proving you wrong does not
prove me right. Proving me wrong, does not prove you right.
The world is not so trivially black and white. It has colors and
patterns.
Dana Tweedy
May 23, 2013, 2:59:37 AM5/23/13
to
share Dawkins' opinion of religion?
Also, Ray making up an ulterior motive for people is presumptuous, and
rude. You have no reason to accuse Roger, or anyone else, of having
such motives.
> > There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
Scientists make use of methodological naturalism as a tool, for the
practical reason that science is not possible without it. You
mistakenly assume that most scientists reject the supernatural out of
hand. Instead scientists don't appeal to the supernatural because
such appeals are inherently untestable, and depend on subjective
opinion.
>
> > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
>
> > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > leaders.
>
> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> neutral and/or objective.
is a slave to their assumptions.
> Intelligent people know that everyone,
> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>
people do. You only know what you do. Acknowledging a bias does
not make one objective, especially when one does nothing to reduce
that bias. What science does is help reduce bias by relying only on
the objective evidence. Personal philosophies and religious beliefs
don't get precedence.
> > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > you will fail to perceive the real world.
>
> Defense of subjective thought.
subjective opinions. Noting that not everything is black and white is
not a defense of subjective thought. It is a recognition that the
truth often lies in between.
>
> > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
>
> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional
who rejects facts that don't match his religious preconceptions.
>. Diversity
> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
objective reality "reflects". Diversity is a property of unplanned
happenstance. Sameness and unity are indicative of a orderly system.
When one sees the staggering diversity of living things, one is seeing
the wildness, and unguided spreading inherent in an unbounded
process. If one were to assume an orderly, structured nature, it
would appear like a cultivated field, instead of a chaotic open
meadow. In the 17 th century, observers of nature expected to find
orderliness and purpose in nature. To their dismay, they found the
unexpected and imprecise tangle that is diversity.
Living things may exhibit order, but not what one would expect from
deliberate design. There are a riot of forms, and variations which
follow no sensible pattern. Why are there three different types of
winged vertebrates? Why would whales, sea turtles, and other sea
dwelling tetrapods need to breathe air, when fish don't have to? Why
does a Kiwi lay such large eggs, relative to its size? All these
things are explained by natural processes, but not by a supernatural
designer.
Scientists propose testable mechanisms that can be observed. one can
evaluate whether such mechanisms work ,or not. unlike just saying "a
creator did it", which allows no testing, or evaluation.
the above are not polar opposites because creationism does not offer
an explanation of any kind. Scioence offers testable explanations.
they arent opposites because they arent even playing on the same
field, or the samegame.
> I can't supply a better example of
> polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
>
understand science, or what "polar opposites" mean.
You are also making false, unfair, and unwarranted assumptions about
Roger.
> > You fail to account for
> > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > the same.
>
> Defense of subjective thought continues.
>
replacing objective fact. You want reality to be what you want it to
be, not what it is.
> > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > Nothing about identifing a natural way for crystals to form is
> > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
>
> And no one ever said so.
>
as silly.
> > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
redefine logic as intuition.
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
Pythagoras himself. Geometry works the same for theists, atheists,
or anyone else.
> > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
the supernatural. It is useful to explain the movement of the
continents, volcanoes, and earthquakes, no matter if you believe in
gods or not.
> > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
the planets, without regard to the supernatural. It works whether you
believe in gods, or not.
> > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
without regard to the supernatural. Whether or not anything lies
beyond the natural, evolution still explains the facts.better than any
other testable idea.
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> nature.
>
use of methodological naturalism, as a tool.
> > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
> > willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
> > about species being specially created, you manufacture a
> > conflict.
>
> Atheists, Theists and Deists disagree and oppose your attempt to say
> reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
>
> > The science and math is ignorant of the conflict.
> > It is unmoved by your affection or dislike, your moods,
> > your health, your ignorance or erudition.
>
> > > > But as I say that, the problem is that you
> > > > have private definitions....
>
> > > No, it is you who has private or subjective definitions.
>
> > And yet you cann't produce a dictionary definition of
> > "diversity" that matches your assertions.
>
> Your objections amounted to quibbling, remember?
>
any dictionary. If you claim it is the other person who is mistaken,
you should be able to find some support.
your denial of evolution is still false.
> Anyone can fact check and see that my
> arguments are true: the evo cause-and-effect scheme is
> counterintuitive, nonsensical and thus illogical, wholly dependent on
> antonyms.
>
childish, and misinformed.
> > > A cause-and-effect scheme that employs antonyms is counterintutive and
> > > nonsensical (= illogical).
>
> > You simply don't use English according to recognized semantic
> > conventions or recognized vocabularies.
>
> Just the opposite is true.
>
DJT
Rolf Aalberg
May 23, 2013, 5:32:29 AM5/23/13
to
or maybe rather the ears?. There's enough here for both.
eridanus
May 23, 2013, 5:38:16 AM5/23/13
to
El jueves, 23 de mayo de 2013 03:00:08 UTC+1, Ray Martinez escribi�:
He had sold a lot of books and this can cause some envy.
> > There isn't a creed we all follow.
> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
> > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > leaders.
>
> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>
We all had been tamed into believing a thing or other. It is either a science or
a religion. We are in fact programmed machines to believe some silly thing
or other
> > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > you will fail to perceive the real world.
> Defense of subjective thought.
Subjective thought is also valid for some charlatan or quack. Even in
the gospel of Mathew it written,
24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Then, you see what are the virtues of subjective thought. The last time I heard about
the end of the world some crazy preacher was predicting the end of the world for
December 2012. Do you remember?
Then, we should beware against "so much subjective thinking"
I do not need to become scientist to know we are living in a world populated by
liars. A simple glance towards the many religions and gods of this planet tells
you not be gullible.
> > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
>
> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>
A part is delusional, you said? Why not all? At least scientist even if they
had committed some errors, they had built great things as well. Think of
those modern telescopes, of those satellites, photographing the earth, all
those powerful planes loaded with people that goes from a part to another.
Not any of our fake gods or its servants had done such a thing in this planet.
And any miraculous stories about gods doing wonders in the holly books are
simple lies.
>
> To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did-
> it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
>
Not, we do not invented the theory of evolution because we thought
first "nature did it". As is sudden inspiration.
The inspiration came from "our absence of god". God is on the hide.
Not any one sees god, but the people that are earning their life by
preaching about a god or other.
Then, it is "this absence of god" that pushes to think as naturalists.
We had been discovering many things through microscopies and travels
around the world that we never had talked about in our holy books. Then,
not only "god was absent or in hiding" but the whole books were written
by ignorant people. Then the holy books do not reflected the wisdom of
god, but the wisdom of some sheep herders from the mountains of Judea.
It was clear that truth was not in Christianity, not in the bible. And not in
any of the other holy books on the planet.
Then, the first idea come to us, when we realized that man can make domestic
animals and plants to change in appearance. If humans can change the
appearance and bulk of some animals so easy, in a matter of some centuries,
we can dare to extrapolate farther, when we discovered the great amount
of variations that animals and plants show between firm lands and some
near islands. Or between an island and the next. then we concentrate on the
huge amounts of differences among the animals of the planet, as we were
traveling around the world. Then, the "classic intelligence" of our holy books
suddenly become "ridiculous".
That is the main reason why we started to think "naturalistic". The holy books
had not enough intelligence to explain the great variety of plants and animals
of this planet. The intelligence of some goat herders were not enough to explain
what we were discovering in this planet. It made sense only for people with a
knowledge and a culture limited since the times of goat and sheep herding around
the Mediterranean lands.
>
> > You fail to account for
> > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > the same.
>
> Defense of subjective thought continues.
Mathew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mathew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
If we respect "subjective thinking" we had not taken notice of these versicles.
> > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > Nothing about identifing a natural way for crystals to form is
> > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
>
> And no one ever said so.
>
>
> > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
You believe in false prophets, Ray. You cannot negate this.
> > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
Naturalism, as science, can be in part true and in part false, for we do not
know everything and we easily commit error in devising some theories.
Our logic is not an omnipotent instrument. And sometimes we commit
errors using logic. The same is occurring with you Ray.
> > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> nature.
>
Materialism only means that god is hiding and we are not seeing any god,
Ray. If god were not in hiding, we were not materialistic. But god behaves
as it was a fiction of those that live out of preaching god. Then, we have to
do our best with our limited intelligence to explain the existence of life.
Take god out of the closet and we all will start believing in him. Finished
will be the materialistic philosophy.
There is not more. You are like Don Quixote, fighting against the wind mills
in La Mancha. Invoke your god, and make him come out of the closet.
We will all start to believe them.
It is that easy.
Eridanus
> On May 21, 7:22�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 6:45 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----------------
>
> > On May 22, 6:45 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 4:50 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I've always felt that _The God Delusion_ is bad philosophy on top of
> > > > inept characterization of theology.
>
> > > And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
> > > > In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> > > > an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
> > > The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
> > > rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
>
> > Doublespeak much?
>
> > > is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
> > > course, his scientific colleagues. Theists are deluded by a brain made
> > > by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
> > > saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply. So
> > > Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
> > > natural selection.
> > Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> Clearly a vast majority do indeed. Your forthcoming denial reveals an
> ulterior motive and agenda.
>
I am not sure it is "that vast majority".
> > > > inept characterization of theology.
>
> > > And you're hardly alone. Many evos have said the same thing.
> > > > In it, I'd say Dawkins is being
> > > > an idiot. You are attempting to go a few steps lower.
> > > The bad, ignorant or inept Theology of Dawkins is not at issue;
> > > rather, it's his cutting edge explanation of Theism. This explanation
>
> > Doublespeak much?
>
> > > is shared by a vast majority of Atheists and Darwinists, including, of
> > > course, his scientific colleagues. Theists are deluded by a brain made
> > > by natural selection. Darwin believed the same. And Dawkins aint
> > > saying nothing that his master didn't already say or imply. So
> > > Darwinism or Darwinian evolution says Theism is a delusion produced by
> > > natural selection.
> > Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> Clearly a vast majority do indeed. Your forthcoming denial reveals an
> ulterior motive and agenda.
>
He had sold a lot of books and this can cause some envy.
> > There isn't a creed we all follow.
> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
> > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > leaders.
>
> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>
a religion. We are in fact programmed machines to believe some silly thing
or other
> > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > you will fail to perceive the real world.
> Defense of subjective thought.
the gospel of Mathew it written,
24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Then, you see what are the virtues of subjective thought. The last time I heard about
the end of the world some crazy preacher was predicting the end of the world for
December 2012. Do you remember?
Then, we should beware against "so much subjective thinking"
I do not need to become scientist to know we are living in a world populated by
liars. A simple glance towards the many religions and gods of this planet tells
you not be gullible.
> > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
>
> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>
had committed some errors, they had built great things as well. Think of
those modern telescopes, of those satellites, photographing the earth, all
those powerful planes loaded with people that goes from a part to another.
Not any of our fake gods or its servants had done such a thing in this planet.
And any miraculous stories about gods doing wonders in the holly books are
simple lies.
>
> To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did-
> it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
>
first "nature did it". As is sudden inspiration.
The inspiration came from "our absence of god". God is on the hide.
Not any one sees god, but the people that are earning their life by
preaching about a god or other.
Then, it is "this absence of god" that pushes to think as naturalists.
We had been discovering many things through microscopies and travels
around the world that we never had talked about in our holy books. Then,
not only "god was absent or in hiding" but the whole books were written
by ignorant people. Then the holy books do not reflected the wisdom of
god, but the wisdom of some sheep herders from the mountains of Judea.
It was clear that truth was not in Christianity, not in the bible. And not in
any of the other holy books on the planet.
Then, the first idea come to us, when we realized that man can make domestic
animals and plants to change in appearance. If humans can change the
appearance and bulk of some animals so easy, in a matter of some centuries,
we can dare to extrapolate farther, when we discovered the great amount
of variations that animals and plants show between firm lands and some
near islands. Or between an island and the next. then we concentrate on the
huge amounts of differences among the animals of the planet, as we were
traveling around the world. Then, the "classic intelligence" of our holy books
suddenly become "ridiculous".
That is the main reason why we started to think "naturalistic". The holy books
had not enough intelligence to explain the great variety of plants and animals
of this planet. The intelligence of some goat herders were not enough to explain
what we were discovering in this planet. It made sense only for people with a
knowledge and a culture limited since the times of goat and sheep herding around
the Mediterranean lands.
>
> > You fail to account for
> > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > the same.
>
> Defense of subjective thought continues.
Mathew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
If we respect "subjective thinking" we had not taken notice of these versicles.
> > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > Nothing about identifing a natural way for crystals to form is
> > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
>
> And no one ever said so.
>
>
> > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
know everything and we easily commit error in devising some theories.
Our logic is not an omnipotent instrument. And sometimes we commit
errors using logic. The same is occurring with you Ray.
> > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> nature.
>
Ray. If god were not in hiding, we were not materialistic. But god behaves
as it was a fiction of those that live out of preaching god. Then, we have to
do our best with our limited intelligence to explain the existence of life.
Take god out of the closet and we all will start believing in him. Finished
will be the materialistic philosophy.
There is not more. You are like Don Quixote, fighting against the wind mills
in La Mancha. Invoke your god, and make him come out of the closet.
We will all start to believe them.
It is that easy.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 23, 2013, 6:07:31 AM5/23/13
to
El jueves, 23 de mayo de 2013 05:28:47 UTC+1, James Beck escribi�:
It is very simple. Some people failed in the school. They could not
take so much data so fast. But later on, they want "to learn" they
wanted "to be enlightened" somewhat. Then Velikovsky was an easy read.
It does not loaded him maths or complex ways of reasoning. His language
should had been "easy" to understand. And if with this little cost we
could become "learned" or "enlightened", the book was great. Quite aside
was the matter that it was full of fantasies and do not existed any
reason to develop these silly theories. The grace of the books of
Velikovsky were that they were easy to read. And as he was telling
something not mentioned by the books in school, it was for most people
that failed in school, like a revenge. "I am now a learned person", said
the people that read the books of Velikovsky. "And had not been mortified
with maths or a barely understandable language.
In the case of Randy, her books for meant for other people. People that
failed in school, were conservative in the politics, and "wanted to
understand economics" in an easy way. A sort of kind teaching of economics
that pleased their conservative leanings. The books of Randy were also an
easy read, and not comparable to ordinary books of economics that almost
nobody can understand, even if he is conservative.
Both cases, like the case of right, explains that the need to "feel
educated" and "well learned" is universal. "To know" whatever it means,
gives us a feeling that we are on top. We have a higher rank. It does not
mind what sort of crap to others we do know.
If they scorned us as morons, we should reciprocate to them. We would
feel for our adversaries and competitors the same scorn they feel against
us.
Then, this is a sort of small war, that can be seen here also in action
among the people that think are on the side of science. For even if we
are in the science field, we are fighting and hating and scorning each
other. As simple as that, if you watch the void all people here had
created around the post i am writing here.
As simple as that. We are all enemies and adversaries to each other.
The people in sciences, and the people that believe in gods.
Eridanus
>
> Something similar applies in principle to Randian-style
>
> Libertarianism. When groups are small, the cost of monitoring is low.
>
> As the group size expands the cost of monitoring grows rapidly, as do
>
> both fraud and free ridership. When I was a boy, one of the local
>
> businessmen told my father that his ambition was to cheat everyone in
>
> the city once. In much the same way that the successful hostess
>
> segregates the deadwood at a party, businesses have an incentive to
>
> dump bad custom off on the competition. Likewise customers rarely
>
> complain publicly. Even in the Internet age, avoiding cheaters is
>
> costly. The end result is one sort of regulation.
>
>
>
> Another sort arises when competitive margins are too low to justify
>
> high capital investment. In those instances, the government's
>
> regulatory role is to police created quasi-monopolies. There are many
>
> of those, ranging from airlines and telecoms, to homeowners
>
> associations, medical doctors, and real estate agents.
simply put,
take so much data so fast. But later on, they want "to learn" they
wanted "to be enlightened" somewhat. Then Velikovsky was an easy read.
It does not loaded him maths or complex ways of reasoning. His language
should had been "easy" to understand. And if with this little cost we
could become "learned" or "enlightened", the book was great. Quite aside
was the matter that it was full of fantasies and do not existed any
reason to develop these silly theories. The grace of the books of
Velikovsky were that they were easy to read. And as he was telling
something not mentioned by the books in school, it was for most people
that failed in school, like a revenge. "I am now a learned person", said
the people that read the books of Velikovsky. "And had not been mortified
with maths or a barely understandable language.
In the case of Randy, her books for meant for other people. People that
failed in school, were conservative in the politics, and "wanted to
understand economics" in an easy way. A sort of kind teaching of economics
that pleased their conservative leanings. The books of Randy were also an
easy read, and not comparable to ordinary books of economics that almost
nobody can understand, even if he is conservative.
Both cases, like the case of right, explains that the need to "feel
educated" and "well learned" is universal. "To know" whatever it means,
gives us a feeling that we are on top. We have a higher rank. It does not
mind what sort of crap to others we do know.
If they scorned us as morons, we should reciprocate to them. We would
feel for our adversaries and competitors the same scorn they feel against
us.
Then, this is a sort of small war, that can be seen here also in action
among the people that think are on the side of science. For even if we
are in the science field, we are fighting and hating and scorning each
other. As simple as that, if you watch the void all people here had
created around the post i am writing here.
As simple as that. We are all enemies and adversaries to each other.
The people in sciences, and the people that believe in gods.
Eridanus
>
> Something similar applies in principle to Randian-style
>
> Libertarianism. When groups are small, the cost of monitoring is low.
>
> As the group size expands the cost of monitoring grows rapidly, as do
>
> both fraud and free ridership. When I was a boy, one of the local
>
> businessmen told my father that his ambition was to cheat everyone in
>
> the city once. In much the same way that the successful hostess
>
> segregates the deadwood at a party, businesses have an incentive to
>
> dump bad custom off on the competition. Likewise customers rarely
>
> complain publicly. Even in the Internet age, avoiding cheaters is
>
> costly. The end result is one sort of regulation.
>
>
>
> Another sort arises when competitive margins are too low to justify
>
> high capital investment. In those instances, the government's
>
> regulatory role is to police created quasi-monopolies. There are many
>
> of those, ranging from airlines and telecoms, to homeowners
>
> associations, medical doctors, and real estate agents.
solar penguin
May 23, 2013, 9:52:21 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:00:08 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 21, 7:22 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> Clearly a vast majority do indeed.
Any actual examples of recent surveys of scientists showing that "a vast
> On May 21, 7:22 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> Clearly a vast majority do indeed.
majority" do?
> Your forthcoming denial reveals an ulterior motive and agenda.
And _how_ does his forthcoming denial reveal it?
>
>> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
lot, but they're not the same.
And the strictly methodological naturalism practised by science isn't a
creed. It's a method. Hence the name, _methodological_ naturalism.
>>
>> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any leaders.
>
> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy;
succeed, but that's a different issue.)
> your denial is
> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone, without
> exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who acknowledge their
> bias up front and as they go along.
step. To be truly objective, you need to go further and try to rid
yourself of your bias, unlearn everything you think you already know.
>
>> As long as you continue to assert that the world divides into these
>> convenient (for you) black and white divisions you will fail to
>> perceive the real world.
>
> Defense of subjective thought.
point, Ray. But you need to actually make an effort and _do_ it, rather
than just leave a metatextual note describing your intended actions.
>
>> Observationally, there are many different ways that people feel and
>> respond to theological claims, including discordant views of different
>> christian sects. Your model which treats things as black and white in
>> this sense fails to match with observed reality. It is delusional in
>> that sense.
>
> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or reflect
> error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness, unguidedness, or
> unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary theorists obtain these
> conceptual causation descriptions?
reflected. That's why we love diversity. It's what makes it so
wonderfully, gloriously anarchic.
It's conformity or uniformity that "does not exhibit or reflect error,
accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness, unguidedness, or
unintelligence." After all, if diversity doesn't reflect those, then
what does?
>
> To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did- it"
> (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did- it"
> (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of polar
> opposites.
stupid. (Are you?)
To be "polar opposites", they would have to the two most extreme
opposites you could get. And that's clearly not the case.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of Polycreationism ("Lots-of-
creators-did-it") which is obviously more extreme than your single
Creationism. (And actually makes more sense than a single creator, since
it offers an explanation for the predator/prey paradox.)
Or you could deny objective reality altogether ("nothing-did-it-because-
it-was-never-really-done-in-the-first-place") which is a whole lot more
extreme than merely saying "material nature-did-it".
> Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I recognize that
> your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
hidden, is it?
>
> Defense of subjective thought continues.
>
than just leaving little notes saying what you're trying to do. But, in
the spirit of this highly stylised form of arguing, allow me to counter
your "defense" with:
Devastating attack of subjective thought from unexpected direction.
>> Nothing about identifing a natural way for crystals to form is denial
>> that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere. I don't need to
>> invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4 Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is
>> not a claim against the supernatural.
>
> And no one ever said so.
>
>> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or theistic,
>> it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still agnostic in
practice.
>
>> Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
Earth moving the plates about on their heads. Therefore, agnostic.
>
>> Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
are deliberately pulling or pushing the planets in accordance with the
inverse square law. Therefore, agnostic.
>
>> Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> False; presupposes Naturalism true.
have set evolution in motion, and occasionally tweaked things here and
there to keep it ticking over. Therefore, agnostic.
>
> Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> not exist.
at least didn't draw attention to themselves while doing it. Or other
similar possibilities. Remember, the world isn't lack and white.
(Besides, "the supernatural" is just whatever you think science hasn't
discovered and convincingly described yet. That's all. So of course
it's not going to be included in scientific theories. Once it's included
it _stops_ being supernatural and becomes natural!)
>
>> If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by willful acts,
>> you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim about species being
>> specially created, you manufacture a conflict.
>
> Atheists, Theists and Deists disagree and oppose your attempt to say
> reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
worldview supports reality, not vice versa.
(This particular atheist also disagrees and opposes your attempt to speak
on our behalf!)
>>
>> And yet you cann't produce a dictionary definition of "diversity" that
>> matches your assertions.
>
> Your objections amounted to quibbling, remember?
>
of learning after all.
>> You don't even understand what synonyms are. You contort words to fit
>> into dichotomous cases of synonym and antonym with all the equivocation
>> such an attempt implies.
>
> Either what you say is true or my arguments against evolution are true.
> It is one or the other.
right. Or other possible combinations.
(In practice, however, it just happens that he's right and you're wrong.
But that's a different matter.)
> Anyone can fact check and see that my arguments
> are true:
your arguments _are_ nonsense.
> the evo cause-and-effect scheme is counterintuitive,
> nonsensical
> and thus illogical,
No "thus" involved. Illogical doesn't automatically follow on from
counterintuitive and nonsensical.
> wholly dependent on antonyms.
But why would that be a problem? Are you saying that antonyms can't be
useful?
>>
>> You simply don't use English according to recognized semantic
>> conventions or recognized vocabularies.
>
> Just the opposite is true.
>
vocabularies doesn't use you!?!
Mark Isaak
May 23, 2013, 12:01:21 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/22/13 7:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...; Lots of ...]
to weather conditions or whatever, a sparrow dies of starvation.
Creationism says "Creator-did-it". Darwinism says "material
nature-did-it". Polar opposites.
But if the two cases are polar opposites, why do they look identical?
Why can they not be distinguished even in principle? Everything we see
of the starved sparrow, everything we see relating to it, is exactly the
same whether Creator or nature did it. And the same holds not just for
the sparrow, but for everything. If two pictures are identical in every
last observable detail, I don't call them opposites; I call them duplicates.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> [...; Lots of ...]
> To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did-
> it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
Let's be less abstract and consider an easily imaginable occurrence: Due
> it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
to weather conditions or whatever, a sparrow dies of starvation.
Creationism says "Creator-did-it". Darwinism says "material
nature-did-it". Polar opposites.
But if the two cases are polar opposites, why do they look identical?
Why can they not be distinguished even in principle? Everything we see
of the starved sparrow, everything we see relating to it, is exactly the
same whether Creator or nature did it. And the same holds not just for
the sparrow, but for everything. If two pictures are identical in every
last observable detail, I don't call them opposites; I call them duplicates.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Rolf Aalberg
May 23, 2013, 12:59:26 PM5/23/13
to
know where to begin.
Let me try: Milk left to itself will get sour.
Throw a rock and it will fall to the ground.
Water freezes when cooled below zero.
Selection happens in nature; it is inevitable. Doesn't matter if the
agent is a farmer, breeder, or just natural causes. We live in nature,
we are part of nature, we do not stand beside or above nature. All life
is part of nature, even inert matter is a naturally occuring part of
nature and if you fall head first on a rock you may die. both random and
fatal, with no apparent cause, but dead you'll be.
That's life.
I mean, come on, what in the world is not agnostic?
The antonym to agnostic would be Gnostic; that's me and a few others.
Ray simply is a deluded fanatic, believing the fairytales and myths of
the Bible. It has not antonym, maybe except realism; i.e. non-belief in
myths.
Ray Martinez
May 24, 2013, 4:05:28 PM5/24/13
to
On May 23, 6:52�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> And the strictly methodological naturalism practised by science isn't a
> creed. �It's a method. �Hence the name, _methodological_ naturalism.
There isn't any such thing as "methodological naturalism." It doesn't
exist. If it did then the Dover trial, for example, wouldn't have had
the degree of trouble it had in defining the phrase. Neither you nor
anyone, including any person with a Ph.D., can prove that
"methodological naturalism" exists. The only thing that exists is
Naturalism (and it is a false interpretive philososphy). It only
exists in deluded minds, not nature or reality.
> >> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any leaders.
>
> > Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy;
>
> Some of us actually try to think for ourselves. �(We don't always
> succeed, but that's a different issue.)
You're a follower like everyone else.
> > your denial is
> > motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> > neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone, without
> > exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who acknowledge their
> > bias up front and as they go along.
>
> Admitting your bias is a good first step, yes. �But it's only a first
> step. �To be truly objective, you need to go further and try to rid
> yourself of your bias, unlearn everything you think you already know.
Bias is impossible to eliminate; it can only change.
It clearly is the case.
> Just off the top of my head, I can think of Polycreationism ("Lots-of-
> creators-did-it") which is obviously more extreme than your single
> Creationism. �(And actually makes more sense than a single creator, since
> it offers an explanation for the predator/prey paradox.)
You don't understand the basic issue. Both creation and evolution are
mutually exclusive. So polar opposites, if anything, reflects an
understatement.
Ray
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:00:08 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On May 21, 7:22�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> > Clearly a vast majority do indeed.
>
> Any actual examples of recent surveys of scientists showing that "a vast
> majority" do?
> > Your forthcoming denial reveals an ulterior motive and agenda.
>
> Well, don't keep us all in suspense. �What is this "ulterior motive"?
> And _how_ does his forthcoming denial reveal it?
>
>
>
> >> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> > False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> Naturalism and Materialism are two different things. �They can overlap a
> lot, but they're not the same.
They're perfectly synonymous. You're ignorant.
> > On May 21, 7:22�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Some scientists do share Dawkins' views. Some don't.
>
> > Clearly a vast majority do indeed.
>
> Any actual examples of recent surveys of scientists showing that "a vast
> majority" do?
> > Your forthcoming denial reveals an ulterior motive and agenda.
>
> Well, don't keep us all in suspense. �What is this "ulterior motive"?
> And _how_ does his forthcoming denial reveal it?
>
>
>
> >> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> > False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> Naturalism and Materialism are two different things. �They can overlap a
> lot, but they're not the same.
> And the strictly methodological naturalism practised by science isn't a
> creed. �It's a method. �Hence the name, _methodological_ naturalism.
exist. If it did then the Dover trial, for example, wouldn't have had
the degree of trouble it had in defining the phrase. Neither you nor
anyone, including any person with a Ph.D., can prove that
"methodological naturalism" exists. The only thing that exists is
Naturalism (and it is a false interpretive philososphy). It only
exists in deluded minds, not nature or reality.
> >> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any leaders.
>
> > Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy;
>
> Some of us actually try to think for ourselves. �(We don't always
> succeed, but that's a different issue.)
> > your denial is
> > motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> > neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone, without
> > exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who acknowledge their
> > bias up front and as they go along.
>
> Admitting your bias is a good first step, yes. �But it's only a first
> step. �To be truly objective, you need to go further and try to rid
> yourself of your bias, unlearn everything you think you already know.
> Just off the top of my head, I can think of Polycreationism ("Lots-of-
> creators-did-it") which is obviously more extreme than your single
> Creationism. �(And actually makes more sense than a single creator, since
> it offers an explanation for the predator/prey paradox.)
mutually exclusive. So polar opposites, if anything, reflects an
understatement.
Ray
Ray Martinez
May 24, 2013, 4:35:53 PM5/24/13
to
[....]
> >> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or theistic,
> >> it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that it doesn't?
Absurd. Either produce your source or drop it.
> > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe agnosticism
> was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still agnostic in
> practice.
Since "Agnostic" wasn't coined until the mid-19th century, and since
Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
say the least). Historians do not allow such practices. One cannot
retroactively apply a modern coinage onto the thought of an ancient.
You're a typical ignorant Evolutionist.
> >> Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of gods under the
> Earth moving the plates about on their heads. �Therefore, agnostic.
Like most theories, the same supports Naturalism or Supernaturalism,
not "don't knowism" or ignorance (Agnosticism).
> >> Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility that invisible gods
> are deliberately pulling or pushing the planets in accordance with the
> inverse square law. �Therefore, agnostic.
See previous answer; and your understanding of Creationism is typical
Evolutionist (ignorance).
> >> Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility that a creator might
> have set evolution in motion, and occasionally tweaked things here and
> there to keep it ticking over. �Therefore, agnostic.
Naturalism specifically rules out the supernatural; that's what the
concept means: "not supernatural."
Your ignorance is apalling. Now that it has been established that
you're ignorant, I have no interest in reading or answering anymore of
your moronic beliefs.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
[...snip....]
> >> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or theistic,
> >> it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that it doesn't?
> > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe agnosticism
> was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still agnostic in
> practice.
Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
say the least). Historians do not allow such practices. One cannot
retroactively apply a modern coinage onto the thought of an ancient.
You're a typical ignorant Evolutionist.
> >> Plate tectonics is agnostic.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of gods under the
> Earth moving the plates about on their heads. �Therefore, agnostic.
not "don't knowism" or ignorance (Agnosticism).
> >> Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility that invisible gods
> are deliberately pulling or pushing the planets in accordance with the
> inverse square law. �Therefore, agnostic.
Evolutionist (ignorance).
> >> Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
>
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
>
> But doesn't automatically rule out the possibility that a creator might
> have set evolution in motion, and occasionally tweaked things here and
> there to keep it ticking over. �Therefore, agnostic.
concept means: "not supernatural."
Your ignorance is apalling. Now that it has been established that
you're ignorant, I have no interest in reading or answering anymore of
your moronic beliefs.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
[...snip....]
Burkhard
May 24, 2013, 7:03:25 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 9:35�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 6:52�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > >> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or theistic,
> > >> it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> > > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> > Where did you obtain the idea that it doesn't?
>
> Absurd. Either produce your source or drop it.
>
> > > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> > It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe agnosticism
> > was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still agnostic in
> > practice.
>
> Since "Agnostic" wasn't coined until the mid-19th century, and since
> Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
> say the least). Historians do not allow such practices. One cannot
> retroactively apply a modern coinage onto the thought of an ancient.
> You're a typical ignorant Evolutionist.
>
So you are saying electrons did not exist before 1894, when a word was
> On May 23, 6:52�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > >> Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or theistic,
> > >> it is agnostic, it does not care.
>
> > > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> > Where did you obtain the idea that it doesn't?
>
> Absurd. Either produce your source or drop it.
>
> > > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>
> > It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe agnosticism
> > was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still agnostic in
> > practice.
>
> Since "Agnostic" wasn't coined until the mid-19th century, and since
> Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
> say the least). Historians do not allow such practices. One cannot
> retroactively apply a modern coinage onto the thought of an ancient.
> You're a typical ignorant Evolutionist.
>
invented for them? What held the world together before that?
and the word "theism" is also of relatively recent coinage, Rap
Cudworth sometimes in the late 17th century I think. So by your logic,
there were no theists before the 17th century, and in particular early
Christians were not theists
<snip>
Ray Martinez
May 24, 2013, 7:44:22 PM5/24/13
to
On May 22, 10:59�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[....]
> > > There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> > False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
> daily lives.
In the context of philosophy of science, science, and the creation/
evolution debate, there are no such things as "metaphysical
naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" (only Naturalism). Both
phrases are ad hoc invents serving an ulterior motive and agenda. And
your sudden tie-in to the public sector as indicating widespread
validity of anything Naturalism receives direct contradiction by your
opposition to my "public logic" showing the illogical nature of
evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
> You can't repair a car engine by praying over it
> but instead by making sure air is mixing with fuel and getting a
> spark at the right time while discounting the effects of demons
> or angels.
Typical blatant misrepresentation of Biblical Theism and Creationism.
Yes, you're an Atheist.
> I know a great many religious scientist who certainly don't
> adhere to metaphysical naturalism, and a fair number of
> non-religious scientists who don't either. That's an observation
> Ray. Your assertions to the contrary lack credibility. You
> don't interact with live scientists on a daily basis.
These comments imply science is a private (conspiratorial) club; and
any real criticism of our club will be met with a reminder that you
don't belong to our club.
> > > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
> > > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > > leaders.
> > Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
>
> No. Many people are not followers at all.
>
> > motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> > neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
> > without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> > acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>
> Being biased is disjoint from being a follower. They are separate
> things, neither synonyms nor antonyms of one another.
Illogical thinking.
Bias originates from following (someone and/or a philosophy) thus the
former flows from the latter.
> > > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > > you will fail to perceive the real world.
> > Defense of subjective thought.
>
> Observed reality. Very few things are either black or white.
> For instance, colors. You might ponder the metaphor.
Aristotelian logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.
Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
and in your comments above, advocate violation. Thus your handle on
observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
> > > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
> > Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> > (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> > reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> > unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> > theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>
> Snow flakes exhibit both extensive randomness and complex
> structure. No two are identical, or at least we know that the
> probability of two being identical is astronomically low. But they
> share a pattern, a design that is easily recognized. They are
> simultaneously random and structured.
Case in point: here we have a direct violation of Aristotelian logic.
A thing, in this case a snowflake, cannot be two contradicting things
at the same time ("simultaneously random and structured"); the same
can only be one OR the other. Since paradox is a supernatural concept,
and since your interpretive philosophy (Naturalism) completely rejects
existence of the supernatural in nature, the fact that you've
concluded for a paradox to exist in the form of one object, in
violation of Aristotelian logic, these collective facts exhibit the
fact that you are indeed confused and/or deluded.
> If that confuses you,
> it is because you fail to understand what exists.
Since your thinking violates said logic, you're the one who is
confused, not me.
> In your
> innocence, you find it contradictory. And yet it exists.
Exactly what I just said: Your thinking/philosophy is found to be
contradictory, non-existent (existing only in your mind and the minds
of other club members).
And a very astute description by Roger "In your innocence...." The
same indicates the state of evolutionary theorists: non-innocence or
guilty of crimes against God, knowledge, and Nature. I accept the "us
and them" or "black and white" presupposition. We, of course, do not
belong to Roger's club.
Ray
(Will finish replying ASAP....)
[....]
> > > There isn't a creed we all follow.
>
> > False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>
> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
> daily lives.
evolution debate, there are no such things as "metaphysical
naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" (only Naturalism). Both
phrases are ad hoc invents serving an ulterior motive and agenda. And
your sudden tie-in to the public sector as indicating widespread
validity of anything Naturalism receives direct contradiction by your
opposition to my "public logic" showing the illogical nature of
evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
> You can't repair a car engine by praying over it
> but instead by making sure air is mixing with fuel and getting a
> spark at the right time while discounting the effects of demons
> or angels.
Yes, you're an Atheist.
> I know a great many religious scientist who certainly don't
> adhere to metaphysical naturalism, and a fair number of
> non-religious scientists who don't either. That's an observation
> Ray. Your assertions to the contrary lack credibility. You
> don't interact with live scientists on a daily basis.
any real criticism of our club will be met with a reminder that you
don't belong to our club.
> > > Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
> > > claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
> > > the "logic" of false dichotomies.
> > > Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
> > > leaders.
> > Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
>
> No. Many people are not followers at all.
>
> > motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
> > neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
> > without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
> > acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>
> Being biased is disjoint from being a follower. They are separate
> things, neither synonyms nor antonyms of one another.
Bias originates from following (someone and/or a philosophy) thus the
former flows from the latter.
> > > As long as you continue to assert that the world
> > > divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
> > > you will fail to perceive the real world.
> > Defense of subjective thought.
>
> Observed reality. Very few things are either black or white.
> For instance, colors. You might ponder the metaphor.
Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
and in your comments above, advocate violation. Thus your handle on
observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
> > > Observationally, there are many different ways that people
> > > feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
> > > views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
> > > things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
> > > observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
> > Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
> > (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
> > reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
> > unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
> > theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>
> Snow flakes exhibit both extensive randomness and complex
> structure. No two are identical, or at least we know that the
> probability of two being identical is astronomically low. But they
> share a pattern, a design that is easily recognized. They are
> simultaneously random and structured.
A thing, in this case a snowflake, cannot be two contradicting things
at the same time ("simultaneously random and structured"); the same
can only be one OR the other. Since paradox is a supernatural concept,
and since your interpretive philosophy (Naturalism) completely rejects
existence of the supernatural in nature, the fact that you've
concluded for a paradox to exist in the form of one object, in
violation of Aristotelian logic, these collective facts exhibit the
fact that you are indeed confused and/or deluded.
> If that confuses you,
> it is because you fail to understand what exists.
confused, not me.
> In your
> innocence, you find it contradictory. And yet it exists.
contradictory, non-existent (existing only in your mind and the minds
of other club members).
And a very astute description by Roger "In your innocence...." The
same indicates the state of evolutionary theorists: non-innocence or
guilty of crimes against God, knowledge, and Nature. I accept the "us
and them" or "black and white" presupposition. We, of course, do not
belong to Roger's club.
Ray
(Will finish replying ASAP....)
Dana Tweedy
May 24, 2013, 8:27:12 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/13 5:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>>
>>> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>>
>> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
>> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
>> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
>> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
>> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
>> daily lives.
>
> In the context of philosophy of science, science, and the creation/
> evolution debate,
Note that these topics Ray is almost completely ignorant about....
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>>
>>> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>>
>> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
>> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
>> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
>> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
>> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
>> daily lives.
>
> In the context of philosophy of science, science, and the creation/
> evolution debate,
> there are no such things as "metaphysical
> naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" (only Naturalism).
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
Sanford University says:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
"In some philosophy of religion circles, �methodological naturalism� is
understood differently, as a thesis about natural scientific method
itself, not about philosophical method. In this sense, �methodological
naturalism� asserts that religious commitments have no relevance within
science: natural science itself requires no specific attitude to
religion, and can be practised just as well by adherents of religious
faiths as by atheists or agnostics (cf. Draper 2005). This thesis is of
interest to philosophers of religion because many of them want to deny
that methodological naturalism in this sense entails �philosophical
naturalism�, understood as atheism or agnosticism. You can practice
natural science in just the same way as non-believers, so this line of
thought goes, yet remain a believer when it comes to religious questions."
> Both
> phrases are ad hoc invents serving an ulterior motive and agenda.
philosophy, his attempts to deny the truth of methodological naturalism
can be seen as throwing a tantrum.
> And
> your sudden tie-in to the public sector as indicating widespread
> validity of anything Naturalism receives direct contradiction by your
> opposition to my "public logic" showing the illogical nature of
> evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
Since you know nothing about logic, or how it's applied, you don't get
to define what is, or is not logical.
>
>> You can't repair a car engine by praying over it
>> but instead by making sure air is mixing with fuel and getting a
>> spark at the right time while discounting the effects of demons
>> or angels.
>
> Typical blatant misrepresentation of Biblical Theism and Creationism.
> Yes, you're an Atheist.
above is a misrepresentation?
>
>> I know a great many religious scientist who certainly don't
>> adhere to metaphysical naturalism, and a fair number of
>> non-religious scientists who don't either. That's an observation
>> Ray. Your assertions to the contrary lack credibility. You
>> don't interact with live scientists on a daily basis.
>
> These comments imply science is a private (conspiratorial) club; and
> any real criticism of our club will be met with a reminder that you
> don't belong to our club.
members of a private club, but they are engaged in a collective
enterprise, and do have their own jargon, and customs. If you don't
know any real scientists, and have never observed any real scientists,
you can't make accurate statements about them
>
>>>> Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
>>>> claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
>>>> the "logic" of false dichotomies.
>>>> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
>>>> leaders.
>>> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
>>
>> No. Many people are not followers at all.
>>
>>> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
>>> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
>>> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
>>> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>>
>> Being biased is disjoint from being a follower. They are separate
>> things, neither synonyms nor antonyms of one another.
>
> Illogical thinking.
illogical. What Roger said above is quite logical, and quite true.
>
> Bias originates from following (someone and/or a philosophy) thus the
> former flows from the latter.
unwilling to learn anything different. It has nothing to do with
following any particular philosophy.
>
>>>> As long as you continue to assert that the world
>>>> divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
>>>> you will fail to perceive the real world.
>>> Defense of subjective thought.
>>
>> Observed reality. Very few things are either black or white.
>> For instance, colors. You might ponder the metaphor.
>
> Aristotelian logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.
catch phrase, but you don't know what to do with it. You don't know
what A, or "not A" are.
> Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
> and in your comments above, advocate violation.
assumes to be be correct.
> Thus your handle on
> observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
that?
>
>>>> Observationally, there are many different ways that people
>>>> feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
>>>> views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
>>>> things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
>>>> observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
>>> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
>>> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
>>> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
>>> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
>>> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>>
>> Snow flakes exhibit both extensive randomness and complex
>> structure. No two are identical, or at least we know that the
>> probability of two being identical is astronomically low. But they
>> share a pattern, a design that is easily recognized. They are
>> simultaneously random and structured.
>
> Case in point: here we have a direct violation of Aristotelian logic.
> A thing, in this case a snowflake, cannot be two contradicting things
> at the same time ("simultaneously random and structured");
your grasp of "Aristotelian" logic is faulty.
> the same
> can only be one OR the other.
evidence, it can only be the latter.
> Since paradox is a supernatural concept,
supernatural can't be observed.
> and since your interpretive philosophy (Naturalism) completely rejects
> existence of the supernatural in nature,
philosophy. Most likely, Roger, like most people, makes use of
methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.
> the fact that you've
> concluded for a paradox to exist in the form of one object, in
> violation of Aristotelian logic, these collective facts exhibit the
> fact that you are indeed confused and/or deluded.
this as a reason to deny reality. The confused and deluded one is you.
>
>> If that confuses you,
>> it is because you fail to understand what exists.
>
> Since your thinking violates said logic, you're the one who is
> confused, not me.
confused, and you continue to show your confusion again, and again.
>
>> In your
>> innocence, you find it contradictory. And yet it exists.
>
> Exactly what I just said: Your thinking/philosophy is found to be
> contradictory, non-existent (existing only in your mind and the minds
> of other club members).
yours. There is no "club" here, just those who understand reality, and
logical thinking. That excludes you.
>
> And a very astute description by Roger "In your innocence...." The
> same indicates the state of evolutionary theorists: non-innocence or
> guilty of crimes against God, knowledge, and Nature.
> I accept the "us
> and them" or "black and white" presupposition. We, of course, do not
> belong to Roger's club.
unthinking assumptions. You refuse to use your intellect, and you
refuse to accept God's gift. You, Ray are the one insulting God, and
rejecting nature.
snip the rest.
DJT
Ray Martinez
May 24, 2013, 8:38:48 PM5/24/13
to
On May 22, 10:59�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip material addressed previously....]
> The two words you want to claim are antonyms in your
> black and white cartoonish universe of opposites actually
> are full appropriate descriptors of the same thing: collections
> of snowflakes. Your "intuition" is self-contradictory. It
> refutes itself when challenged against the observable universe.
The thinking seen, once again, violates accepted or Aristotelian
logic. It says a particular object----the "thing itself"----is
materially antonymic ("antonyms....full appropriate descriptors of the
same thing"). Moreover, said thinking then says any thinking that
doesn't see the antonymic nature of the thing reflects contradiction
and/or delusion (refuted by the "observable universe").
In reality, random and order are conceptually antonymic; the concept
of randomness (or any synonym) is not seen in said object or obejcts.
This is affirmed by the fact that both evos and creos accept diversity
to reflect order and organized complexity. These concepts do not mean
or convey their antonyms.
Like I've been saying: either Dawkins is right (Theists are deluded)
or we are correct (Evolutionists are deluded). Roger seems to accept
this particular "black and white" or "cartoonish" thinking afterall.
[snip....]
> > > > > > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > > > > > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> > > > > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> > > > > No, they are not polar opposites [....]
>
> > > > Ridiculous.
>
> > > And yet they are not polar opposites.
> > To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did-
> > it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> > it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> > polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> > recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
>
> Your "simplification" is not accurate.
> You define two opposing sets in broad terms such that you can
> place item A into the one set and item B into the second set and
> then try to claim that A is thus the opposite of B. It does
> not work that way.
Since both items are mutually exclusive, neither can be placed in the
opposite set.
> > > You fail to account for
> > > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > > the same.
> > Defense of subjective thought continues.
>
> Mathematical reality. Ignorance is your only shield.
We were not discussing mathematics.
> > > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > > Nothing about identifying a natural way for crystals to form is
> > > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
> > And no one ever said so.
> > > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
> > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
> > > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> > not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> > nature.
>
> Your private restricted definition of naturalism, contorted into your
> black and white cartoon of reality, is so very trite and unrealistic.
Naturalism expressly forbids any interpretation or conclusion
(includes the metaphysical) that supports its opponent,
Supernaturalism. If not, what term does?
Ray
(Will finish replying ASAP....)
>
> read more �
[snip material addressed previously....]
> The two words you want to claim are antonyms in your
> black and white cartoonish universe of opposites actually
> are full appropriate descriptors of the same thing: collections
> of snowflakes. Your "intuition" is self-contradictory. It
> refutes itself when challenged against the observable universe.
logic. It says a particular object----the "thing itself"----is
materially antonymic ("antonyms....full appropriate descriptors of the
same thing"). Moreover, said thinking then says any thinking that
doesn't see the antonymic nature of the thing reflects contradiction
and/or delusion (refuted by the "observable universe").
In reality, random and order are conceptually antonymic; the concept
of randomness (or any synonym) is not seen in said object or obejcts.
This is affirmed by the fact that both evos and creos accept diversity
to reflect order and organized complexity. These concepts do not mean
or convey their antonyms.
Like I've been saying: either Dawkins is right (Theists are deluded)
or we are correct (Evolutionists are deluded). Roger seems to accept
this particular "black and white" or "cartoonish" thinking afterall.
[snip....]
> > > > > > The claims of Victorian Creationism and Darwinism are polar opposites
> > > > > > and dictate that one party is completely deluded.
>
> > > > > >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f8e01e215900cbf?hl=en
>
> > > > > No, they are not polar opposites [....]
>
> > > > Ridiculous.
>
> > > And yet they are not polar opposites.
> > To make even more simple for you; Creationism says "Creator-did-
> > it" (Intelligent causation); Darwinism says "material nature-did-
> > it" (unintelligent causation). I can't supply a better example of
> > polar opposites. Since the fact is clear and uncomplicated, I
> > recognize that your denial exists to serve a "hidden" agenda.
>
> Your "simplification" is not accurate.
> You define two opposing sets in broad terms such that you can
> place item A into the one set and item B into the second set and
> then try to claim that A is thus the opposite of B. It does
> not work that way.
opposite set.
> > > You fail to account for
> > > greater than simplistic symmetry. I doubt you've ever acquainted
> > > yourself with higher symmetry and so don't understand the
> > > multiplicity with which things can be opposed. And so you don't
> > > actually understand the meaning of "polar opposites" and
> > > why that's a flawed description. It is again you simplistic mapping
> > > of everything as black or white. Things are opposites or they are
> > > the same.
> > Defense of subjective thought continues.
>
> Mathematical reality. Ignorance is your only shield.
> > > > Creationism says causation is Intelligent, designed; Darwinism says
> > > > the exact opposite: causation is unintelligent, not designed; the
> > > > supernatural or immaterial does not exist in nature.
>
> > > Nothing about identifying a natural way for crystals to form is
> > > denial that supernatural forces can exist or exist elsewhere.
> > > I don't need to invoke the supernatural to have 2 + 2 = 4
> > > Claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a claim against the supernatural.
> > And no one ever said so.
> > > Similar with the Pythagorean theorem. It is not atheistic or
> > > theistic, it is agnostic, it does not care.
> > Where did you obtain the idea that "agnostic" means "does not care"?
>
> > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
> > > Plate tectonics is agnostic.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > > Planetary orbits, tides, agnostic.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > > Evolution, agnostic. It makes not claim about deities.
> > False; presupposes Naturalism true.
> > Naturalism means "material Nature-did-it." God and the supernatural do
> > not exist. Moreover, Naturalism presupposes the absence of design in
> > nature.
>
> Your private restricted definition of naturalism, contorted into your
> black and white cartoon of reality, is so very trite and unrealistic.
(includes the metaphysical) that supports its opponent,
Supernaturalism. If not, what term does?
Ray
(Will finish replying ASAP....)
> The choice is not "god did it" to explain everything or "god did
> nothing".
> It is not all or non. The claim that no divine intervention was need
> to
> account for X says nothing about Y or Z.
>
>
>
> > > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
>
> ...
> nothing".
> It is not all or non. The claim that no divine intervention was need
> to
> account for X says nothing about Y or Z.
>
>
>
> > > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
>
>
> read more �
Ray Martinez
May 24, 2013, 8:46:33 PM5/24/13
to
On May 22, 10:59�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[....]
> The choice is not "god did it" to explain everything or "god did
> nothing".
> It is not all or non. The claim that no divine intervention was need
> to
> account for X says nothing about Y or Z.
It implies the same conclusion.
And un-needed or not needed corresponds to exclusion or non. Your
point is pointless.
> > > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
> > > willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
> > > about species being specially created, you manufacture a
> > > conflict.
> > Atheists, Theists and Deists disagree and oppose your attempt to say
> > reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
>
> You need to quit speaking for others. They did not anoint you
> as their spokesman.
I simply pointed out that other major worldviews oppose your Agnostic
conception of reality.
Ray
[....]
[....]
> The choice is not "god did it" to explain everything or "god did
> nothing".
> It is not all or non. The claim that no divine intervention was need
> to
> account for X says nothing about Y or Z.
And un-needed or not needed corresponds to exclusion or non. Your
point is pointless.
> > > If you have a claim about a deity that causes tides by
> > > willful acts, you manufacture a conflict. If you have a claim
> > > about species being specially created, you manufacture a
> > > conflict.
> > Atheists, Theists and Deists disagree and oppose your attempt to say
> > reality supports the Agnostic worldview.
>
> You need to quit speaking for others. They did not anoint you
> as their spokesman.
conception of reality.
Ray
[....]
*Hemidactylus*
May 24, 2013, 8:57:10 PM5/24/13
to
the earliest samples came from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YPiCeLwh5o
Oh yes I am, that good!
--
*Hemidactylus*
Will in New Haven
May 24, 2013, 8:57:34 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 8:38�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 10:59�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
Excuse me, but could you please address my contention that only a thug
> On May 22, 10:59�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
would burn people in Hell _forever_ for being deluded. Does this
description of your concept of God strike too close to home?
You are a sadistic bastard who worships a God created in your own
image.
--
Will in New Haven
Roger Shrubber
May 24, 2013, 9:11:36 PM5/24/13
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>>
>>> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>>
>> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
>> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
>> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
>> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
>> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
>> daily lives.
>
> In the context of philosophy of science, science, and the creation/
> evolution debate, there are no such things as "metaphysical
> naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" (only Naturalism). Both
> phrases are ad hoc invents serving an ulterior motive and agenda. And
> your sudden tie-in to the public sector as indicating widespread
> validity of anything Naturalism receives direct contradiction by your
> opposition to my "public logic" showing the illogical nature of
> evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
No agenda. Just a description. You go in the lab and do an
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>> There isn't a creed we all follow.
>>
>>> False; it's called Naturalism or Materialism.
>>
>> People break Naturalism into two camps, metaphysical naturalism
>> and methodological naturalism. The former asserts a claim about
>> the universe and the second is a set of rules to abide while doing
>> science. Most all practicing scientists abide by the latter when
>> doing science as indeed to most people as they go about their
>> daily lives.
>
> In the context of philosophy of science, science, and the creation/
> evolution debate, there are no such things as "metaphysical
> naturalism" or "methodological naturalism" (only Naturalism). Both
> phrases are ad hoc invents serving an ulterior motive and agenda. And
> your sudden tie-in to the public sector as indicating widespread
> validity of anything Naturalism receives direct contradiction by your
> opposition to my "public logic" showing the illogical nature of
> evolutionary cause-and-effect scheme.
experiment. You report what happened and do so without invoking
divine intervention or fairies or leprechauns. That is the
method for doing science. This says nothing about what you
believe about the universe in broad and general terms.
There is a term to describe those rules. That term is
methodological naturalism. It is a real description of
how people really behave.
Some people make a claim that there is never, will never
be, and never has been any divine intervention. That is
a very different thing than studying what happens when
there is no divine intervention. The difference is sharp
and significant. Thus there are two distinct terms.
>> You can't repair a car engine by praying over it
>> but instead by making sure air is mixing with fuel and getting a
>> spark at the right time while discounting the effects of demons
>> or angels.
>
> Typical blatant misrepresentation of Biblical Theism and Creationism.
> Yes, you're an Atheist.
or Creationism. I'm not even clear what you mean by either term.
I spoke about fixing engines and focusing on material things
like gas, air and sparks. It's an operational thing. It's a
method. People who use that method are not making any claims
about gods as part of that process.
>> I know a great many religious scientist who certainly don't
>> adhere to metaphysical naturalism, and a fair number of
>> non-religious scientists who don't either. That's an observation
>> Ray. Your assertions to the contrary lack credibility. You
>> don't interact with live scientists on a daily basis.
> These comments imply science is a private (conspiratorial) club; and
> any real criticism of our club will be met with a reminder that you
> don't belong to our club.
You weren't criticizing scientists and I wasn't defending them.
I was describing scientists from personal experience and
stating that your assertions don't match that experience.
What is remotely contravention here?
The methods scientists use preclude their invoking supernatural
explanations for their science. If I take 5 metal bars and
measure their rates of expansion upon heating, I focus purely
on material cause and effect. This is methodological naturalism.
Every scientist who does this sort of experiment uses the
same methodological naturalism. There is no constraint on what
they believe outside of the lab. That's a distinct thing.
There are distinct terms to describe the distinct things.
>>>> Your game seems to be to claim an archetype and further
>>>> claim it is followed by all your debate opponents. This is
>>>> the "logic" of false dichotomies.
>>>> Ray may follow his leader, many of us don't follow any
>>>> leaders.
>>> Everybody follows someone and a particular philosophy; your denial is
>>
>> No. Many people are not followers at all.
>>
>>> motivated by a desire to conceal bias in order to appear independent,
>>> neutral and/or objective. Intelligent people know that everyone,
>>> without exception, is biassed. Objective people are those who
>>> acknowledge their bias up front and as they go along.
>>
>> Being biased is disjoint from being a follower. They are separate
>> things, neither synonyms nor antonyms of one another.
>
> Illogical thinking.
>
> Bias originates from following (someone and/or a philosophy) thus the
> former flows from the latter.
And it's wonderfully circular as well.
But many people are not followers all the same.
They synthesize their own views from experience,
taking parts of what others things, rejecting
other things, taking the opposite of what some
say. That isn't following.
>>>> As long as you continue to assert that the world
>>>> divides into these convenient (for you) black and white divisions
>>>> you will fail to perceive the real world.
>>> Defense of subjective thought.
>>
>> Observed reality. Very few things are either black or white.
>> For instance, colors. You might ponder the metaphor.
> Aristotelian logic says A cannot be A and not -A at the same time.
> Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
> and in your comments above, advocate violation. Thus your handle on
> observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
The world is not all black or white or shades of gray.
It has color.
>>>> Observationally, there are many different ways that people
>>>> feel and respond to theological claims, including discordant
>>>> views of different christian sects. Your model which treats
>>>> things as black and white in this sense fails to match with
>>>> observed reality. It is delusional in that sense.
>>> Which supports my claim that one party is indeed delusional. Diversity
>>> (observed animate reality), past or present, does not exhibit or
>>> reflect error, accident, chance, randomness, mindlessness,
>>> unguidedness, or unintelligence; therefore where did evolutionary
>>> theorists obtain these conceptual causation descriptions?
>>
>> Snow flakes exhibit both extensive randomness and complex
>> structure. No two are identical, or at least we know that the
>> probability of two being identical is astronomically low. But they
>> share a pattern, a design that is easily recognized. They are
>> simultaneously random and structured.
> Case in point: here we have a direct violation of Aristotelian logic.
> A thing, in this case a snowflake, cannot be two contradicting things
> at the same time ("simultaneously random and structured"); the same
> can only be one OR the other. Since paradox is a supernatural concept,
"Zeno's paradox" exists from before the English language.
There is nothing supernatural to Zeno's paradox.
Why do you keep inventing these strange meanings for words???
> and since your interpretive philosophy (Naturalism) completely rejects
> existence of the supernatural in nature, the fact that you've
> concluded for a paradox to exist in the form of one object, in
> violation of Aristotelian logic, these collective facts exhibit the
> fact that you are indeed confused and/or deluded.
Snowflakes are random. They fit the mathematical definition
of random. I didn't invent this definition.
Snowflakes are complex. Which of these do you disagree
with?
>> If that confuses you,
>> it is because you fail to understand what exists.
>
> Since your thinking violates said logic, you're the one who is
> confused, not me.
of where it fails, you retreat to claims that your logic is
inviolate and continue to redefine words, for example your
completely bizarre definition of "paradox" being supernatural.
>> In your
>> innocence, you find it contradictory. And yet it exists.
>
> Exactly what I just said: Your thinking/philosophy is found to be
> contradictory, non-existent (existing only in your mind and the minds
> of other club members).
>
> And a very astute description by Roger "In your innocence...." The
> same indicates the state of evolutionary theorists: non-innocence or
> guilty of crimes against God, knowledge, and Nature. I accept the "us
> and them" or "black and white" presupposition. We, of course, do not
> belong to Roger's club.
>
> Ray
>
> (Will finish replying ASAP....)
and what remains is a brand of "logic" that is unique to Ray
and vocabulary that is unique to Ray and circular justifications.
Roger Shrubber
May 24, 2013, 10:24:34 PM5/24/13
to
here and now. How about anal-expulsive dogmatic atheism,
or simply dogmatic atheism and we'll leave the problematic
toilet training as just a probable corollary.
Here's a picture for you. One man is asked if God exists
and he looks up at the stars, ponders his own mortality,
some loved ones who have died, signs and says, "No, I'm
afraid I don't think so. It would be nice but I don't
believe."
Another man is asked and quickly answers "No way. Only
a deluded fool would believe. It's all just a scam
to turn people into sheep and to get fools to
part with their money."
They are not the same. The first would welcome a
sign that spoke to him, the second would find any
possible way to reject it. And there are hybrids
and blends of these, and offshoots and even contradictions.
Not just shades of gray but colors and patterns,
tartans and paisleys and plaids, even tie-dye.
Roger Shrubber
May 24, 2013, 10:47:20 PM5/24/13
to
Hold on this song has a little introduction to it
It's aint supposed to be sad though you might feel it that way
It's a song about desperation,
Every now and then we do get desperate
This is a song about L-O-V-E,
and if you abuse it yer goin to lose it
and if you lose it yer goin to abuse and
if you abuse it you aint going to be able to choose it
cuz you aint going to have it further on down the line
and things aint going to be so fine
and yer going to be sitting there on your little machine
tryin to look and keep it clean and
Youre going to be home playing bingo all night all alone
and that's why your sittin there by the telephone
and you know that she aint goin to call you!
>
>
Bob Berger
May 25, 2013, 12:15:58 AM5/25/13
to
In article <2c83c355-9266-4011...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez says...
Ray, "not -A" is A.
>Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
>and in your comments above, advocate violation. Thus your handle on
>observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
<SNIP the rest>
Ray Martinez says...
>Your thinking, as seen in the general context of evolutionary theory,
>and in your comments above, advocate violation. Thus your handle on
>observed reality is distorted, if not deluded.
Rolf Aalberg
May 25, 2013, 1:36:54 AM5/25/13
to
think a little but he's completely lost in his fantasy world. Seems he
now has dropped out from the very interesting exchange with Roger
Shrubber on the subject of logic and at least to me it seems he lost
with bravura. And started a thread on a different subject to draw
attention from a subject totally beyond his intellect to wrap itself around.
But I think the latest debate must have highlighted some problems
difficult to escape. A house built on homemade rules of logic, rhetorics
and ignorance of science stand a good chance of falling.
>
> Eridanus
>
Rolf Aalberg
May 26, 2013, 8:21:39 AM5/26/13
to
Isn't reality something we relate to in terms of observation and
interpretation - to the extent that we are capable of objective
observation - of "the world" of realities, period? Why, how does
abstract concepts like agnostic, gnostic, religious, creationism,
fanaticism, delusions et cetera enter into our experience and
understanding of the real, observable, detectable, manifest world and
all that is observable, detectable and manifests in that world?
I have to conclude that Ray's concept of reality is tainted by his
absolute religious faith, both in his personal interpretation of the
bible and his personal and peculiar definition of words, terms and concepts.
Maybe your logic is at fault?
> Ray
>
> [....]
>
Rolf Aalberg
May 26, 2013, 8:34:15 AM5/26/13
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>> The two words you want to claim are antonyms in your
>> black and white cartoonish universe of opposites actually
>> are full appropriate descriptors of the same thing: collections
>> of snowflakes. Your "intuition" is self-contradictory. It
>> refutes itself when challenged against the observable universe.
>
> The thinking seen, once again, violates accepted or Aristotelian
> logic. It says a particular object----the "thing itself"----is
> materially antonymic ("antonyms....full appropriate descriptors of the
> same thing"). Moreover, said thinking then says any thinking that
> doesn't see the antonymic nature of the thing reflects contradiction
> and/or delusion (refuted by the "observable universe").
>
> In reality, random and order are conceptually antonymic; the concept
> of randomness (or any synonym) is not seen in said object or obejcts.
> This is affirmed by the fact that both evos and creos accept diversity
> to reflect order and organized complexity. These concepts do not mean
> or convey their antonyms.
>
> Like I've been saying: either Dawkins is right (Theists are deluded)
> or we are correct (Evolutionists are deluded). Roger seems to accept
> this particular "black and white" or "cartoonish" thinking afterall.
>
How many are there of you? What if either Dawkins nor all of you are
> On May 22, 10:59 pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>> The two words you want to claim are antonyms in your
>> black and white cartoonish universe of opposites actually
>> are full appropriate descriptors of the same thing: collections
>> of snowflakes. Your "intuition" is self-contradictory. It
>> refutes itself when challenged against the observable universe.
>
> The thinking seen, once again, violates accepted or Aristotelian
> logic. It says a particular object----the "thing itself"----is
> materially antonymic ("antonyms....full appropriate descriptors of the
> same thing"). Moreover, said thinking then says any thinking that
> doesn't see the antonymic nature of the thing reflects contradiction
> and/or delusion (refuted by the "observable universe").
>
> In reality, random and order are conceptually antonymic; the concept
> of randomness (or any synonym) is not seen in said object or obejcts.
> This is affirmed by the fact that both evos and creos accept diversity
> to reflect order and organized complexity. These concepts do not mean
> or convey their antonyms.
>
> Like I've been saying: either Dawkins is right (Theists are deluded)
> or we are correct (Evolutionists are deluded). Roger seems to accept
> this particular "black and white" or "cartoonish" thinking afterall.
>
right or wrong; delusion is a rather useless concept wrt the real
subject of debate here.
WRT random, order, disorder chaos and other words related to those
terms, I will say that I don't think you have a correct understanding.
You insist on using personal and peculiar definitions that enables you
to make black white or vice versa whenefer it suits you.
In your own eyes you may win an argument and disappear convincing you
made the life of another atheist miserable with your brilliant mind bot
to the rest of the world you are, have always been an will always be an
ignoramus.
And you will retort "Coming from an atheist like you, I am relieved to
be called an idiot." You must be the most relieved man on the planet.
Besides, you are deluded beyond salvage. (Salvage intended.)
Another + on my record in God's archive. (Or maybe the Akashic record.)
Rolf
solar penguin
May 26, 2013, 8:08:15 PM5/26/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:35:53 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 23, 6:52 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> On May 23, 6:52 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>> > Pythagoras an Agnostic? Only trouble is, "agnosticism" wasn't coined
>> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>>
>> It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe
>> agnosticism was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still
>> agnostic in practice.
>
> Since "Agnostic" wasn't coined until the mid-19th century, and since
> Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
> say the least).
I suspect "most people" don't even know when the word "agnostic" was
>> > until (IIRC) 1869 (ten years after Darwin published).
>>
>> It's doesn't matter when the word we nowadays use to describe
>> agnosticism was invented, the Pythagorean theorem itself is still
>> agnostic in practice.
>
> Since "Agnostic" wasn't coined until the mid-19th century, and since
> Pythagoras was an ancient, it matters in the minds of most people (to
> say the least).
coined, or when Pythagoras lived. Can you cite any surveys showing that
it matters to "most people"?
> Historians do not allow such practices. One cannot
> retroactively apply a modern coinage onto the thought of an ancient.
ideas and concepts to throw new light onto the past.
> You're a typical ignorant Evolutionist.
Like I said before, although I'm currently an "evolutionist", I also
believe in a few supernatural and unscientific ideas. So you see, I'm
exactly the sort of free-thinking person your book should be trying to
win over to your side if it's to be a success. (I'll even help proof-
read it for you if you like.)
>
> Naturalism specifically rules out the supernatural; that's what the
> concept means: "not supernatural."
After all, the supernatural is just stuff that science hasn't discovered
and explained yet. Once science explains it, it stops being supernatural.
For example, witch doctors and shamans were performing rituals to
extract aspirin from willow bark for centuries before scientists found
a way of synthesising it. How many people taking aspirin these days
know it's actually an example of magic that's been copied by science?
And you can see something similar happening with acupuncture in recent
times. As more and more evidence shows that it can produce results,
more and more scientists accept it and try to fit it into a scientific
framework. OTOH there's no evidence at all supporting homoeopathy, so
the scientists don't bother with it.
Now, it does seem pretty unsporting of scientists to keep stealing the
best material from the Supernaturalists and just leaving the crap
behind. But that's the dark side of Clarke's Law: any sufficiently
advanced magic is also indistinguishable from science.
Anyway, given all the evidence that scientists can't keep their hands
off the most sufficiently advanced supernatural material, why do you
keep insisting that they always automatically reject everything
supernatural? It's the opposite of what happens in reality.
>
> Your ignorance is apalling. Now that it has been established that you're
> ignorant, I have no interest in reading or answering anymore of your
> moronic beliefs.
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages