|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2010 : 01:41:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Easily: I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and happened to note that I am self-included in that group. |
Still makes your conclusion just a subjective opinion.
|
Faith versus Science. That's not subjective opinion.
Then it comes to knowledge about the truth of the natural world, Science wins. Scientists actively search the truth of reality on a daily basis striving to expand our knowledge. Theists just look to their holy book, and pray for divine inspiration for knowledge (which mostly fail).
When science gives us cars, mobile phones, computers, and medicine, faith gives us delusions false hope of comfort. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 11:00:20 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| You seem to keep saying what you're not saying, and saying "way to miss the point" rather than clarifying |
.
I apologize for that. One thing I get a big chuckle out of in these discussions with Bill is the fact that I'll tell him he's wrong about what I'm saying, yet he'll boldly insist on continuing to use his incorrect assessment without so much as a pause to ask, "okay, what do you mean?" |
This is not a poker game we are playing here. Lay your cards on the table. I am not going to beg you to explain if you just say that I am wrong and then move on. See I think you have two sets of rules on what is subjective (existing in the mind) and what is objective (not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased) based on who is making the claim. Maybe I am wrong here and you can help out by correcting me but here is what I know so far:
Bngbuck makes some random out of the blue comment which seems to be a challenge to me:
Bill scott.....
What was your Christian contribution to Haiti relief, Bill? |
A little shocked by the question and how it just came out of left field I replied with:
| What is your atheistic contribution to any or all human relief efforts over, say, the last five years? What about your personal volunteer time? |
This only seemed to start a frenzy of skeptics boasting on their good deeds and charitable giving. To which you replied:
| Is everyone done measuring their charity penises, yet? |
Basically chiding bngbuck for starting a "who has the bigger penis contest" looking for the objective winner. I agreed that the contest was stupid and provided no relevance to the discussion at hand or the theist/atheist debate. I also noted that this contest, if followed through, could produce an objective winner. We could see who has given more (who has the biggest penis) using real metrics. While irrelevant to the discussion in all phases bngbuck could definitively know if he out gives Bill scott or not.
| I wouldn't be surprised if Bill scott were just pointing and laughing. I know I am. |
I was.
Being filled with pride, I guess, you next boast that skeptics correct each other more often then do theists:
| (since the truth is more important to us ...) |
I then tried to explain to you how that that was a very arrogant claim to make, not to mention it is as irrelevant to the discussion as bngbuck's claim and way more subjective. To which you reply to buck's claim of out giving Bill Scott in charitable giving:
| ..is much more subjective of a claim then bngbuck claiming that he has out given me in charitable giving. |
Actually, there are quite a few metrics which would need to be ironed out before any such thing could be decided, since it wasn't only money. There'd be a whole lot of subjective wrangling to go through if the exercise were to be carried out in real life. |
Ok you first compared bucks claim to a "who has the biggest penis contest", but now just a few posts later you say bucks claim of giving more then me or being more charitable is rather subjective because there would be metrics that needed ironed out which would require a whole lot of subjective wrangling!?!?!?!?! Which one is it?
When addressing the claim that your claim was more subjective then bucks you reply:
| A much more subjective claim to prove indeed |
I'll grant that it is subjective, but your reasoning is vacuous. However, it's not quite as subjective as you think... |
So you acknowledge that the claim of skeptics holding truth more important then theists is subjective, but just not as subjective as I think. Hmm...
Then just a few posts later you claim:
| I'm saying that as a group, skeptics tend to place more importance on the veracity of information than do theists, and that this claim itself is objectively verifiable |
Ok so which is it, subjective or objective?
So in just a few posts you have claimed that bngbuck's claim of out giving me was nothing but a "who has the bigger penis" contest while claiming at the same time a "whole lot of subjective wrangling to go through if the exercise were to be carried out in real life". Which is it? A penis contest winner can be called with just a ruler and no subjective wrangling to go through.
In regards to your claim of skeptics holding truth as more imporant then theists you first claim:
| I'll grant that it is subjective, However, it's not quite as subjective as you think |
only a few posts later to claim that:
| this claim itself is objectively verifiable |
Which is it?
It appears that in Dave's world if he makes the claim it is objective but if someone else does it, such as buck, it is subjective. How is it determined which is objective and which is subjective?
| Easily: I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more... |
Who examined the evidence and made the conclusion?
| I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more |
So the only conclusion I can come to is that in Dave's world Dave gets to decide what is subjective and objective and who values truth over who. No?
| Or do you really think that claims like "the French enjoy wine more than the Dutch" are subjective? |
Dude, you have not even come close in convincing me that skeptics care for truth more then theists. Actually, there are quite a few metrics which would need to be ironed out before any such thing could be decided. There'd be a whole lot of subjective wrangling to go through if the exercise were to be carried out in real life. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/22/2010 12:05:19 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 11:19:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Easily: I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and happened to note that I am self-included in that group. |
Still makes your conclusion just a subjective opinion.
|
Faith versus Science. That's not subjective opinion.
Then it comes to knowledge about the truth of the natural world, Science wins. Scientists actively search the truth of reality on a daily basis striving to expand our knowledge. Theists just look to their holy book, and pray for divine inspiration for knowledge (which mostly fail).
When science gives us cars, mobile phones, computers, and medicine, faith gives us delusions false hope of comfort.
|
| When science gives us cars, mobile phones, computers, and medicine, faith gives us delusions false hope of comfort. |
You don't think Henry Ford had any faith that his Model T's would replace the horse and carriage? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 11:47:14 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| Scientists actively search the truth of reality on a daily basis striving to expand our knowledge. |
That is subjective as sometimes they are simply given a big fat grant to come to a preconceived conclusion. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 12:13:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| When science gives us cars, mobile phones, computers, and medicine, faith gives us delusions false hope of comfort. |
You don't think Henry Ford had any faith that his Model T's would replace the horse and carriage?
|
Don't be such an asshole.
You're actively trying to sabotage this discussion by equivocating a belief in one self's accomplishments or ability (Henry Ford having faith in his car), with acquiring knowledge from God (Truth) by divine inspiration. Just because the word "faith" is spelled the same... But it does have different meaning depending on context. Children are taught this long before high school, maybe you need to go there and freshen up your language skills?
"Equivocation" is not a job career, it's a logical fallacy. Your argument have failed, please try again.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 12:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
That is subjective as sometimes they are simply given a big fat grant to come to a preconceived conclusion.
|
Oh, so you want to play that game, huh?
Some Ministers in the church are only in it for the chance to molest children.
We have evidence of that you know... Do you want us to post a link? I can also provide a first hand wittness if you like.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 13:06:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
| When science gives us cars, mobile phones, computers, and medicine, faith gives us delusions false hope of comfort. |
You don't think Henry Ford had any faith that his Model T's would replace the horse and carriage?
|
Don't be such an asshole.
You're actively trying to sabotage this discussion by equivocating a belief in one self's accomplishments or ability (Henry Ford having faith in his car), with acquiring knowledge from God (Truth) by divine inspiration. Just because the word "faith" is spelled the same... But it does have different meaning depending on context. Children are taught this long before high school, maybe you need to go there and freshen up your language skills?
"Equivocation" is not a job career, it's a logical fallacy. Your argument have failed, please try again.
|
You missed the point. Everybody has faith. The question becomes where do you place your faith? You appear to have placed your faith in your own definition of science. I am here to remind you of the fact that because humans perform science we have many errors and non-truths in science. So simply placing all of your faith in science in no way gives you a monopoly on truth. Heck, it don't even guarantee you a majority. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 13:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
That is subjective as sometimes they are simply given a big fat grant to come to a preconceived conclusion.
|
Oh, so you want to play that game, huh?
Some Ministers in the church are only in it for the chance to molest children.
We have evidence of that you know... Do you want us to post a link? I can also provide a first hand wittness if you like.
|
Oh, so you want to play that game, huh?
Some Ministers in the church are only in it for the chance to molest children.
We have evidence of that you know... Do you want us to post a link? I can also provide a first hand wittness if you like. |
This is going to fly right in the face of Dave's objective conclusion that skeptics hold truth as more important then do theists. Now whether they go into the ministry just to molest children might be debatable, but there is no doubt that some ministers molest kids, as sick as that sounds, it is a fact. These people need strung up by their toes, for weeks, to let the wild ravens pick at their flesh. How is that for correcting a brother? Just as some scientist, with or without intent, muck up science and come to an un-true conclusion. Heck, just this week:
U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday -- an admission that could energize climate change critics.
In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.
The warning in the report "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers," the IPCC said. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
The Himalayan glacier claim, made in the group's voluminous, Nobel-winning report, was little noticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.
The leaders of the U.N. panel are investigating how the forecast got into the report, Chris Field, director of the ecology department at the Washington-based Carneige Institution for Science, said.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/un-melting-himalayas-claim.html
the IPCC said. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
Why not, this is science? Oh yeah, humans do science hence the whole error(s) thing. But yet I am sure 1000's of little Al Gore wannabes have been spouting off as gospel truth since 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 a and anyone who dared challenge this claim was dismissed as a denialist. (sigh)
The Himalayan glacier claim, made in the group's voluminous, Nobel-winning report, was little noticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.
The Sunday Times!!!!!! Are you kidding me???? The international scientists who are advising the UN on climate change had to be corrected by the Sunday Times, a flippin newspaper!!!! Obviously listening to anything the IPCC says from here on out will take some faith, if not a lot of blind faith. Look at their track record. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2010 : 13:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Faith, n:
An urge to convince others of that which one is certain of himself for no descernable reason. The followers of the dogmas of religions have great faith and lighter pocketbooks. ~~ Anon
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 14:01:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Faith, n:
An urge to convince others of that which one is certain of himself for no descernable reason. The followers of the dogmas of religions have great faith and lighter pocketbooks. ~~ Anon
|
That is great. Fits perfect with these clowns who push their religon of global warming. How much faith you putting with the IPCC now when they are being refuted/corrected/totally embarrassed by The Sunday Times?
Just think if The Sunday Times had not been on the ball, fact checking and reviewing the IPCC work, then 1000's of little Al Gore wannabes would still be out there spounting the end of the Himalayan glaciers and chiding anyone, and I mean anyone, who dare question their "science." Oh who am I fooling they will probably pass this off with a hand wave and claim in the name of science that the glaciers will be gone by 2025. This is major blunder to say the least. The Sunday Times correcting the IPCC on climate change for pete's sake!!!!!!! Is nothing sacred anymore??? Kinda makes you wonder what else the IPCC has totally wrong that is just waiting to be uncovered. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/22/2010 14:33:35 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 14:30:59 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| The difference is that it's a very rare thing to see theists calling their brothers on the baloney they spew (and when they do, it typically results in a schism instead of a discussion), while skeptics do that to other skeptics all the time (since the truth is more important to us than some false-front of unity). |
Now how important must the truth be when you ignore your own standards and are being corrected/refuted in your field of expertise by the flippin Sunday Times?
My objective conclusion says, not very important.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/un-melting-himalayas-claim.html
the IPCC said. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
The Himalayan glacier claim, made in the group's voluminous, Nobel-winning report, was little noticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 18:56:41 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott......
You were off to a weak start, but all things considered, you've done a commendable job in pushing back to Dave's patented Bulldog Bulldozer. Keep up the good work, it makes for fun reading.
By the way, despite my alleged obsession with my Roscoe's length, I do not see you as a racist. My question to you was an attempt to get some expression from you concerning your personal view of charitable giving. I got just that - tell me your's first - and I responded as asked - I gave you both my attitude and my actions and I also told you, straight and honest, exactly what you asked me to. I have no apologies. I agreed with Mooner because you did not respond at that time, and although he may have implied that you were racist, he did not state it unequivocally. You could have told of your "dark" child support and shot that implication down in flames at the time!
I have understood from your later comments on this thread that you are a pretty charitable christian, and I commend you for that. I am a pretty charitable atheist and I commend myself for that. I'm not in a league with Bill Gates but I share his philosophy - if you've got it -(and give a lot of it away) - flaunt it! Gates sure as hell does, he spends a fortune publicizing his huge charities, and I sure that it is good for Microsoft in the long run. Most businesses that truly donate large sums to charitable causes benefit from publicizing it. Look around you right now and notice the "boasting" that all kinds of business's are doing about their contributions to Haiti.
SCOTUS decided yesterday that there was no difference between corporations and individuals under the Second Amendment (isn't that wonderful?), so it's now the law of the land. I sure as hell don't agree with that paid-for-with-corporate-cash decision, but if a business, big or small, can holler their generosity to high heaven; why can't I? After all, BNG is a Mom and Pop, and we did have stores for a long, long time!
This bullshit about charity being a "very private thing" and "it's okay not to give" is pure crap to cover the most offensive form of anal retention, sordid parsimony. Of course I don't expect anyone who is strapped to pay the rent or buy groceries to give to charity. I'm talking about people or businesses who have discretionary income having the discretion to give some of it to others who are in need and also encouraging others to do the same! And those who argue against that are not flashing their pricks - they're showing themselves to the world to be pricks!
I don't include you in that category. You certainly have indicated in the last four pages of this tedious thread that you do your share of giving. Apparently you don't care to splash the details around like I do! That's OK, as long as you're willing to go on the record as being a donor.
Is it considered bad form in Christian circles to ask "do you tithe?"
Lots and lots of Christian Churches who let their charities be known certainly ask that question or paraphrase it into the query "will you give?" I'm asking everybody to give to Haiti! I did! And I'm proud to ask and proud to "boast" about it!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 21:37:39 [Permalink]
|
Well. This is the second time in as many months that bngbuck has accused me of not being charitable because I won't "flaunt it" for his pleasure. He doesn't have the slightest clue of how much I've given, to whom, or how much discretionary income I have, but to him, I am an uncompassionate, cheapskate prick. Just because I won't "go on the record" with that which is none of his business. I need this kind of crap like I need another hole in my head.
Meanwhile, Bill scott gloats that a trivial but stupid mistake which shouldn't have happened means that skeptics (in general!) only care about the truth as much as anyone else does. The mind wobbles that he can continue to repeat this illogic with a straight face. Because of course, the people in charge of that IPCC report cared enough to issue a statement about the mistake, owning it and demonstrating their commitment to the truth of the matter, unlike denialists like Bill, who ironically think that a newspaper first found the error (hint: the reviewers of IPCC WG2 saw it first, and were ignored). Bill's hold on truth is an tenuous as a miasma, but he's here to lecture us about it.
The stupid from both of these guys: it burns. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2010 : 02:47:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
Faith, n:
An urge to convince others of that which one is certain of himself for no descernable reason. The followers of the dogmas of religions have great faith and lighter pocketbooks. ~~ Anon
|
That is great. Fits perfect with these clowns who push their religon of global warming. How much faith you putting with the IPCC now when they are being refuted/corrected/totally embarrassed by The Sunday Times?
Just think if The Sunday Times had not been on the ball, fact checking and reviewing the IPCC work, then 1000's of little Al Gore wannabes would still be out there spounting the end of the Himalayan glaciers and chiding anyone, and I mean anyone, who dare question their "science." Oh who am I fooling they will probably pass this off with a hand wave and claim in the name of science that the glaciers will be gone by 2025. This is major blunder to say the least. The Sunday Times correcting the IPCC on climate change for pete's sake!!!!!!! Is nothing sacred anymore??? Kinda makes you wonder what else the IPCC has totally wrong that is just waiting to be uncovered.
|
You're whistling past the graveyard, Bill.
Now, you can cackle gleefully about the bit of stupidity concerning the Himalayan glaciers and bitch endlessly about Al Gore's shortcomings, it changes nothing. 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record.
WASHINGTON — A new analysis of NASA temperature data collected from more than 1,000 weather stations around the globe, from satellites monitoring ocean temperatures and from Antarctic research stations shows that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record.
The analysis, from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, also showed that 2009 was virtually tied with five other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year on record for global average surface temperature. In the Southern Hemisphere, it was the warmest year on record.
The global temperatures were high even though North America had some cool periods, particularly the unseasonably cold weather in December.
"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," James Hansen, the institute's director, said in a statement Thursday about the new analysis."
|
I don't know what all this has to do with Haiti, but there you have it. Even the most casual google will turn up a lot more.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2010 : 03:08:02 [Permalink]
|
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Haitian Relief
