|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2002 : 18:32:56
|
If he's as good at trolling for Muskie as he is at trolling for us, he's my tournament buddy!
Actually, I think he sounds suspiciously like the late unlamented 'six days'. Has anyone ever seen the two of them together...?
;^)
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 19:01:26 [Permalink]
|
I dunno Rat. I think he is for real.
He took the link to his personal web site off after I told him what I learned from reading it. I've still got it in my Mac's memory-but I'll let it pass since he no longer wants to share it. He seems to want to be a scientist but has become mired in a religious style of thinking and can't break himself of the habit. It's scary and must have an awful affect on his psyche as he doesn't seem to be actually able to tell the difference between shite and shine-o-la.
Did you ever hear of Professor Kurt Wise of Bryan College? Similar case. Guy's a creationist who tricked his way into becoming a grad student of Stephen Jay Gould. Now he knows all the facts but feels compeled to reject them because he , over the course of several years as a teen ager, clipped out all the parts of the NT that would have to go if evolution were a fact and found that there wasn't enough left to pick up without it falling to pieces. So he reject science in favor of the bible and made himself a laughing stock Ph D. Do a web search for him if you feel the need to read a scary story some night.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 19:07:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did you ever hear of Professor Kurt Wise of Bryan College? Similar case. Guy's a creationist who tricked his way into becoming a grad student of Stephen Jay Gould. Now he knows all the facts but feels compeled to reject them because he , over the course of several years as a teen ager, clipped out all the parts of the NT that would have to go if evolution were a fact and found that there wasn't enough left to pick up without it falling to pieces. So he reject science in favor of the bible and made himself a laughing stock Ph D. Do a web search for him if you feel the need to read a scary story some night.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! If there's anything I hate it's a Quisling. Scum o' the Earth.
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 01:40:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If there's anything I hate it's a Quisling.
What's that?
-me. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 13:48:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He took the link to his personal web site off after I told him what I learned from reading it.
You didn't say anything about "what you had learned"; all you did was make some pseudopsychological evaluations of me without the slightest evidence of support for any of your assertions. I understand that you feel compelled to lie about me since you cannot support your position on these subjects otherwise, but it does call into my mind the question of just how competent a scientist you really are.
After all, I'm the one who was asked to join the Academy of Science, not you. Considering that they do not take anyone who is not an impeccable scientist and researcher, I think that pretty ends further debate on my competence.
If anyone should worry about their beliefs distorting their judge it should be you; your hatred of Christians has so rotted your mind that you cannot think straight.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 14:53:30 [Permalink]
|
Oh, something I forgot to mention.
One thing you did mention about reading my site was that I am an evolutionist, despite your claim that I have "become mired in a religious style of thinking and can't break [my]self of the habit".
Of course creationists claim that I "believe" in evolution. I tell them the same thing I've told you about cryptozoology: that I accept that evolution is a scientific fact based on the evidence; I do not believe it based on faith.
Of course they do not believe me either, but then both they and you are fanatics desperately trying to convince themselves that their worldview is true. The only real difference between them and you is that they believe in God and you do not.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
Edited by - echthroi_man on 07/30/2002 14:54:39 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 21:47:01 [Permalink]
|
My goodness, there are a lot of plots against you.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 22:01:35 [Permalink]
|
The thing is you came here and started a couple of polls, hint at compelling evidence, you don't produce the evidence and instead rail against scientists not accepting "possibilities" and complain that there can't be a discussion unless everyone falls into line behind you and your hint of compelling evidence. You know how science works being a scientist and all right? So present your evidence or argument but don't support it with generalities. Then we could discuss it.
But your whole argument that scientists won't look at the things you began topics on is ridiculous. The problem you seem to have, and this is ironic you being a scientist and all, is with good old-fashioned science itself.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 08:01:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The thing is you came here and started a couple of polls, hint at compelling evidence, you don't produce the evidence . . ."
I did provide the evidence on the cold fusion thread, because there the people who asked to see it indicated that they would view it objectively with an open mind. That's all I ever asked for.
quote:
. . . and instead rail against scientists not accepting "possibilities" . . .
Only the scientific vigilantes are like that, and they are a minority, but they have a lot of political clout. Mainstream scientists may go along with the prevailing concensus, but I never stated that "are not accepting 'possibilities'"; many of them do.
quote:
. . . and complain that there can't be a discussion unless everyone falls into line behind you and your hint of compelling evidence.
I never said that; I only asked that the evidence be examine objectively and with an open mind, not rejected out of hand before hand, as Tokyodreamer and Slater were doing.
quote:
The problem you seem to have, and this is ironic you being a scientist and all, is with good old-fashioned science itself.
Examining evidence objectively with an open mind is part of good old-fashioned science, only some of your members do not seem to realize that, or care.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 09:10:12 [Permalink]
|
It's interesting though, @tomic, because here we have a religionist who is an advocate of pseudo-science, and we can clearly see that it is exactly the same style of thinking that leads to both.
It's an unflattering aspect of our history that our actual science is derived from our pseudo-science. Astronomy comes from astrology; chemistry from alchemy, mythology from theology, etc. But ya had to start somewhere I guess.
Cryptozoology, although a very modern term, is nothing more than medieval Bestiary. Tales-mostly moral tales- of strange beasts living in strange places; all showing some allegory of Christian dogma.
Zoology traces it's roots to the Bestiary.
Where scientific thought takes over is that in science you have to get off your ass and make observations. This gives you your best shot at understanding the actual world.
Pseudo-science-and when I say that I include religion as a pseudo-science -works only on faith. The two are bound to clash.
You see it most strongly in the ranting of UFOlogists. But since we are dealing with Cryptozoologist / Christian mindset let's compare the two.
They both make existential claims which can, and have been subjected to scientific investigation. In both cases the investigation of the facts have come up empty. No Loch Ness monster, no Big Foot, no God. Can't find hide nor hair of any of these critters. This leaves the claimants in quite a quandary because all their claims are faith based, not fact based, and their faith is still there even though the facts are not.
You get protests that scientists refuse to look at the facts/ refuse to let God into their hearts because they are closed-minded. This is, of course, nonsense. The facts have been researched and studied-repeatedly and thoroughly.
It usually results in the scientists themselves being attacked (Atheist agenda, mainstream, brain washed) because the claimants desperately want science to agree with their faith (even if it's in men from Mars, cold fusion, ESP, the Christ, or homeopathy).
I suppose you can't expect miracles. The scientific method seems so obvious and self evident--but we've only been doing actual hard science (in the natural sciences) since the Victorian age, only a few life times ago. The concept that "faith" is a negative attribute is difficult for many to accept.
People in this forum are concerned about a new Dark Age starting but what they see are the remnants of the last one still with us.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 05:40:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where scientific thought takes over is that in science you have to get off your ass and make observations. This gives you your best shot at understanding the actual world.
And professional scientists who are Cryptozoologists are doing exactly that.
I should also point out that Slater's above comments apply to Skeptics as well; they have to get off their asses and examine the evidence objectively, not just dismiss it from the chairs of their ivory towers.
quote:
But since we are dealing with Cryptozoologist / Christian mindset let's compare the two.
They both make existential claims which can, and have been subjected to scientific investigation. In both cases the investigation of the facts have come up empty. No Loch Ness monster, no Big Foot, no God.
Considering the fact that, unlike hidden animals, you cannot put God in a laboratory or observe Him out in the wild, I do not see how anything other than an a priori belief that God cannot exist can lead you to your conclusion. As a scientist you should based your conclusion on facts; since God is not a physical entitiy and does not operate within the physical realm, there are no facts to base a conclusion on. So the best you can say is you do not know if He exists. To conclude that there is no God under these circumstances then requires faith.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 06:01:14 [Permalink]
|
Some of these are people that hold super-patriotism as some kind of a religion and call people trolls and morons who don't agree with them, so I wouldn't get too excited about anyone calling you a troll.
You should have seen the slobbering support they give irrational behavior such as that of Rubysue's.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 06:34:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Considering the fact that, unlike hidden animals, you cannot put God in a laboratory or observe Him out in the wild,
How do you put an animal you can't find or prove exist in a laboratory? How can you observe it at all?
quote:
I do not see how anything other than an a priori belief that God cannot exist can lead you to your conclusion.
Amazing! Maybe you should tell him to be more open minded. He demand evidence to accept the existence of mystical creatures. Wow! My unicorn is insulted.
quote:
As a scientist you should based your conclusion on facts;
Fact: Despite a lot of effort, no evidence of any deity exist!
Conclusion : No deity capable of influencing our universe exists.
"God-as revealed in his book of edicts and narratives is practically an idiot. He has nothing to say that any sensible person should want to listen to."
-- Johann Most
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 08:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
since God is not a physical entitiy and does not operate within the physical realm, there are no facts to base a conclusion on. So the best you can say is you do not know if He exists.
Gosh, you are well educated on this God fellow. Could you post a reference to this immense discovery regarding God's nature. Shoot, that would be a Nobel prize winner for sure.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 10:43:28 [Permalink]
|
I should also point out that Slater's above comments apply to Skeptics as well; they have to get off their asses and examine the evidence objectively, not just dismiss it from the chairs of their ivory towers.
This is a mantra of yours--you Skeptics are ignoring the evidence. You are dismissing it out of hand. You aren't looking.
Very similar to you complaints about Atheism, and just as groundless.
First if there is some new startlingly convincing evidence YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED IT!!!
Secondly a great deal of actual research been done on these legendary critters and it is you who are ignoring the evidence. The evidence shows no signs of any of these beasts existing.
Thirdly in the cases of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster these sites have become tourist attractions. (On my shelf here in my office I have a little china Loch Ness Monster I picked up at the Loch Ness gift shoppe.) There are people looking constantly-but there are no monsters. Stop ignoring the evidence.
Considering the fact that, unlike hidden animals, you cannot put God in a laboratory or observe Him out in the wild, I do not see how anything other than an a priori belief that God cannot exist can lead you to your conclusion.
Considering the fact that you by your own admission have no way of observing god and no way of obtaining information concerning it I must dismiss your claims of knowing what you-again by your own admission-have no way of knowing.
As a scientist you should based your conclusion on facts; since God is not a physical entitiy and does not operate within the physical realm, there are no facts to base a conclusion on.
YES!!! That's it exactly!! Hooray, you finally got it.
There are no facts to support the contention of gods existence. Not only do I have no facts to support this proposition, no one does.
So the best you can say is you do not know if He exists.
Perhaps you are working on a misconception of Atheist thought. Atheists do not have a belief that god doesn't exist. Atheists lack a belief in god.
Atheism denotes the absence of something. Just as being a "non-smoker" tells you nothing about what a person does, only what they do not do.
Atheists are non-believers.
To conclude that there is no God under these circumstances then requires faith.
Generally at this point there would be a shout of "Strawman!" But I think you are honestly misinformed about Atheism.
You contend that there is a god and by your own admission admit that you have no evidence to base your contention on.
As an Atheist I am not rejecting god. There have been not gods presented to accept or reject. Unless you are claiming that you are god.
What I am rejecting is your claim because you have demonstrated, and openly just admitted, that you have no way of knowing if what you are saying is true or not.
It requires no faith at all to reject an outlandish unsubstantiated story.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
