|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Onifre,
I personally felt that RAZD was not justified in calling you a liar, that, in my opinion, especially for someone like yourself that has been a great poster in this forum, was unwarrented. I'm curious how you define liar. To me it is someone who misrepresents the facts, especially after they have been told that their misrepresentation is false because that shows intent to maintain a misrepresentation rather than determine that they in fact are wrong (the honest approach, one provided in simple manner to Straggler, an opportunity that has not been undertaken).
quote: quote: Intentionally repeating something you have been told is false is lying. You could go through the whole thread and delete all of straggler's comments (his posts and replies to his posts) and you would find not one iota of ant frass of support for what he claims is my position. This dishonesty has been exposed several times. There is a simple method that anyone can take to prove my claims that he has misrepresented my position - show where I say what he claims.
In my opinon, this gets confussed in 2 ways. Philosophically speaking, there is no reality experienced external to ones own mind, therefore "empirical" seems illogical as a pre-qualifier for evidence. However, scientifically speaking, we have established a set of ground rules for what we call empirical evidence that has a set of pre-existing conditions for it. And because of these 2 positions, the argument, especially in a forum, is almost impossible to bring to a point of concession. One also has to ask where the first scientific empirical evidence for a concept comes from ... Concession is easy: there are classes of evidence where all you can say is that it is evidence, what kind of evidence cannot be determined. All Straggler need to is drop the needless attempts at qualification of unknown evidences. Such evidence is still valid as a starting point for investigating possibilities of reality, because it may be valid evidence of reality and you won't know until you have tested it. THEN you find out. People have accused me of being ambiguous about this, however it is the nature of evidence itself to be ambiguous at times, I just observe it for what it is. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
lol
You still haven't even attempted to prove your version of my position is represented in a single post of mine. Edited by RAZD, : apologize for what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Second. See Message 8 for more.
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi mark24,
Excuse me, I thought RAZD banged on about his "faith" ad nauseum ... Nope. You have confused Straggler's confusing continual misrepresentations with my actual position on the validity of subjective evidence: all I talked about was the validity of subjective evidence. It seems Straggler was completely, and likely still is, unable to separate this from talking about gods and faith, etc, a problem I don't have. Most of what I "banged on about" was Straggler's continual misrepresentation of my position on subjective evidence to involve and be central to my faith, when it didn't and isn't.
Glad to see it's become a "faith" now, & not an evidentially supported conclusion, though. Curiously, my personal faith has always been a "faith" -- it is something that I just do not talk about -- a point that renders all of Straggler's comments about my faith, hidden agenda, larger argument, etc., etc., rather ridiculous, because whatever he thinks it is, it is necessarily a fabrication of HIS own making. This point should be obvious to anyone when they realize that he has been unable to find a single -- not one -- quote about my faith that he can use to prove his point, even though there were literally hundreds of posts on the topics in question. Not one. Not a single one. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Don't you wonder why that is? Faith is a personal journey, and I can no more tell another person how to find their path than anyone can tell me, which makes discussion of faith rather irrelevant and pointless, hence my declining of moose's invitation. Nor will I be party to any more of Straggler's silly games about "but you said" to my "no I didn't" - as he has demonstrated to me a level of dishonesty in those debates that is pointless to try to continually refute. He will continue to post false statements about things I've said in spite of challenges - and his failure - to substantiate them. Until the day he can, or acknowledges that he can't and apologizes, he will be a dishonest debater and a liar in my book. But this is not the thread to air dirty laundry, it is a topic to discuss debates on other topics. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We see cognitive dissonance on a lot of threads, usually with YEC types trying to deal with the evidence of reality.
I see the same process occurring on Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control on the issue of gun control. This is obviously an emotional issue for many people, but I have yet to see a rational reason to have a gun presented. I find it interesting to observe the process of cognitive dissonance in action (again). by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 11
Every single time that you assert that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" you are denying the mass of objective evidence that many atheists, myself included, would cite in favour of the possibility that gods may just be human inventions. It is presented as evidence to justify the atheist belief. Edited by RAZD, : better wording
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi moose
But I think the quoted statement does come up short of saying "there is objective evidence that God/gods do not exist", which is what I was looking for. Not that what I said was (from your quote):
People keep telling me there is objective evidence for atheism, but so far none has been presented. Message 104quote: This meets my standard. Hope that clears it up. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Percy,
I honestly have no idea what might work. Though it makes no sense, to me his behavior is consistent with someone who is working hard to misunderstand what we're saying, sometimes so clumsily as to be beyond belief. I think what you are seeing are the effects of a firmly held belief that evolution is wrong, so therefore it cannot make sense. From this vantage point the purpose of reading texts and explanations is to find problems with them, chinks in the armor. Because this is the focus, learning what evolution really says is not important. Instead arguments are read only to find their weak points.
Confirmation Bias Cognitive dissonance Cognitive Dissonance can also make reading comments from people presenting contradictory information difficult, as the perception is that it must be wrong and attention wanders. Evidence of this situation is when people make mistakes in reference to the contrary posts: they get the information wrong, not because they are stupid or trying to be difficult, but because the information is having trouble getting past the barriers people erect to protect their beliefs. This behavior is not restricted to FUNDIEs (Fundamentalists under numerous delusions involving evolution), but to anyone with strongly held beliefs and having to deal with contrary information.
Worldview I've likened a world view to a single cell organism, where some ideas get through the cell membrane easily and others are kept out by defense mechanism/s. There are "trigger" words and phrases that turn on the defense mechanisms (evolution and abortion are two), while rephrasing the concept in neutral words can promote discussion. YECs generally accept variation, adaptation and descent, seemingly unaware that this is evolution. Information is another topic where the creationist\idist preconception (doesn't matter where it originates) interferes with discussion about mutations and variations in populations. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
But you left out "willful ignorance." Actually I think what is seen as willful ignorance is the result of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and the strength of belief, such that it is the inability of concepts to pierce the worldview wall rather than a conscious choice for ignorance.
If it wasn't so funny it'd be laughable! I've seen similar behavior in non-YECs. To me it is a failure of education to promote open-minded skepticism and logic as necessary tools of education and critical thinking. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi CosmicChimp
I've been reading Schiller lately in the original German. Every sentence is like a saying. True wisdom in every word. This is similar to your (RAZD's) posts actually, each is a POTM. Thanks. Wish I knew more about it. Makes me wonder if we couldn't have one of our resident experts provide a seminar on the topic of these issues. All I know is what I read and what I observe. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy, just when you thought it couldn't get worse ...
Though it makes no sense, to me his behavior is consistent with someone who is working hard to misunderstand what we're saying, sometimes so clumsily as to be beyond belief. If it's true that he's willfully misunderstanding us, then how would we get him to stop? One can always use him as a bad example, and a foil for talking past him to the larger audience. His latest post for example ... Message 208 ... Wow. (picks up jaw). Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Sorry, the battle to document a global flood about 4,350 years ago was lost in the early 1800s. Actually it was lost long before that. Leonardo da Vince concluded that there was no single flood event from the evidence he had of shell deposits in http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
quote: Pity he did not publish these comments in a peer reviewed journal .... This very same kind of evidence is what convince the early "hobby" geologists in the 1800's, many of whom were clerical people, that (a) the earth was in fact very old, and (b) that a global flood had not occurred in the natural history of the earth. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In the OP Bolder-dash states:
I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing. I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? In Message 5 I stated:
First you need to define what you mean by "evolutionary change" - so we can see if your meaning is similar to what is used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular. In science "evolutionary change" means that the frequency distribution of hereditary traits is different from one generation to the next. I expect you are thinking of something more dramatic than variations on a theme changes.... Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, ... So, what you mean by "evolutionary change"? What do you expect to see? In Message 17 he replied:
The supposition made by the magazine editor (not by me)was that Darwin's idea of natural selection has been tested to be the driving force of evolutionary change (including of course changes in body structures, and living systems, etc). Since then he has devolved into a complaining troll, repeating and repeating that (Message 203 is one example):
I had ABSOLUTELY NO desire to talk of natural selection as it relates to some generic concept that means nothing in terms of evolution-I had every intention to discuss NS as it relates to EVOLUTION! ... ... I wrote very specifically what it was I was asking for three times? NS as it relates to EVOLUTION. Please read that sentence again-Natural Selection as it relates to Evolution. Please address why you continue to fail to see the connection between NS and EVOLUTIONARY Change, as opposed to whatever the heck you want to call NS which does not involve evolutionary change. What Bolder-dash fails to comprehend is that his total failure to define what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" necessarily leaves us with only the scientific definition and usage, of evolutionary change to mean the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. Continuing to repeat his complaint, without attempting to further explain what he means, is obviously futile wasted bandwidth. Trying to shout (caps) it doesn't add to the definition of what he means. Simply put, the problem is his lack of communication for what he means by "EVOLUTIONARY Change" and this needs to be resolved before any progress can be made. I suggest that this be the top priority when the thread re-opens. I also think that other sub-topics from Peg and herebedragons should be diverted to new topics in the interim to leave Bolder-dash with his thread to answer his topic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just when I was getting bored. Some people just beg for it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024