Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:16 AM
29 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 258 (68904)
11-24-2003 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Buzsaw
11-22-2003 9:33 PM


buzsaw writes:

quote:
Ned, a whole lot of us consider Fox to be the most unbiased and objective newscasts of the Networks.

"Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing." --Berke Breathed

You may think Fox to be unbiased and objective, buz, but that doesn't make it so.

In fact, an analysis of the viewers of the various networks found that those who got their news from Fox were actually the most likely to be misinformed. Those that got their news from NPR were the least likely to be misinformed.

quote:
At any rate Fox gave no official opinion as to the network's opinion of this. They simply covered it as newsworthy.

A completely unverified and absolutely unverifiable assertion is "newsworthy"? What's next? The sun really has a creamy nougat center?

quote:
At least Fox is not so phobic of the supernatural that they would not consider it newsworthy.

That doesn't make them a better news source. A service that is not "phobic" to do something stupid merely means they are foolhardy, not "good," let alone "fair" or "balanced."

Once again, we all remember the acronym from Journalism 101: FACT = Fast, Accurate, Concise, True.

You will notice that neither "fair" nor "balanced" is in there anywhere. It is the journalist's job to do the research required to find out what is accurate in the story. That necessarily means that those who put forward inaccurate statements don't get to have their opinions reflected in the story.

That doesn't mean they are to be silenced. It simply means that a good journalist will deliberately ignore those that make inaccurate, unverifiable statements.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2003 9:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-24-2003 9:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2003 8:51 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 258 (69453)
11-26-2003 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
11-26-2003 8:51 AM


buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
Do you consider ABC, CBS and NBC any better than Fox for bias?

Yes. The survey explicitly shows it. In looking at the various major news outlets, Fox had the worst rates of viewers coming away misinformed:

Fox:   80% at least one misperception, 45% average
CBS:   71% at least one misperception, 36% average
ABC:   61% at least one misperception, 30% average
CNN:   55% at least one misperception, 31% average
NBC:   55% at least one misperception, 30% average
Print: 47% at least one misperception, 25% average
NPR:   23% at least one misperception, 11% average

quote:
I didn't, btw say that Fox was perfect or totally unbiased as you falsy infer,

Indeed, you said "most unbiased and objective," and I was going off of that. The point I directly stated was that you may think something, but that doesn't make it true.

And the reality is that you are completely mistaken. Not only is Fox not the "most unbiased and objective," it is the most biased and most unobjective. Its viewers are the most likely to be misinformed about events.

How can a news source be "unbiased and objective" if it is lying to its viewers?

quote:
but I think it beats the other big three.

And you'd be wrong.

It is the worst major news source out there.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 11-26-2003 8:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 98 of 258 (75619)
12-29-2003 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-29-2003 2:38 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

quote:
Some near-death studies, and possibly the soul-weighing experiments, also confirm (make more plausible! Don't prove!) the idea that demons exist.

Incorrect. They actually do the opposite.

For example, there is no change in body weight of a person at the moment of death. Lots of people think there is (and thus, the movie 21 Grams is playing on that), but there is a difference between what people think and what actually is.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 2:38 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 3:20 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 102 of 258 (75635)
12-29-2003 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-29-2003 3:20 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua responds to me:

quote:
quote:
For example, there is no change in body weight of a person at the moment of death. Lots of people think there is (and thus, the movie 21 Grams is playing on that),

Why do you think this?


Because it has actually been studied and found that there is no change in body weight at death.

What, you think I just made it up?

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 3:20 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 12:10 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 258 (75946)
12-31-2003 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 3:04 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

quote:
And remember, I am a hypothetico-deductive scientist.

No, you're not.

Otherwise, you wouldn't make ad hoc justifications like, "souls aren't the only spiritual beings thought to inhabit bodies."

Therefore, it doesn't matter what it is that we find. It all coincides with your preconceived conclusion.

quote:
but ad hoc explanations are generally regarded as easy.

Indeed. That's why you make them.

What you have failed to grasp is that they are invalid.

quote:
Stuff that has weight.

If the soul has weight, why would it leave the body? The gravitational pull of the body is greater than that of any black hole. If there's any force that would affect the soul due to it being made of matter, then it should affect the body, too.

quote:
And, I were God, wanting to keep dogmatic people in the dark about reality

Logical error: Ad hoc.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 3:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 3:30 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 258 (75950)
12-31-2003 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by sidelined
12-30-2003 8:37 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
sidelined writes:

quote:
However newtons laws are still valid for normal speeds and conditions.

No, they're not. Newton's laws are invalid at every speed, in every condition.

However, the discrepancy between the Newtonian answer and the Einsteinian answer at slow speeds and large masses is so small as to be detectable only by the most sensitive equipment and, for all practical purposes, negligible.

But do not confuse the smallness of the error term for the non-existence of the term. It may not be important for everyday uses, but it will always be there.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by sidelined, posted 12-30-2003 8:37 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by sidelined, posted 12-31-2003 1:51 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 258 (75953)
12-31-2003 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 7:29 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

quote:
People before Newton didn't need any law of gravity to keep from jumping off cliffs. I don't live in blatant disregard for what the law explains, just how science at this point in history is explaining it.

This is a complete misunderstanding of how science progresses.

Paradigm shifts do not change past observations. The shift from a Newtonian universe to an Einsteinian one didn't change a single thing about rocks falling from cliffs. Everything about our understanding of gravity could change tomorrow, but a ball will still fall down to the ground when I let it go.

Science advances by making better and more accurate descriptions of observable phenomena. Einsteinian mechanics supplanted Newtonian because it explained not only things that Newtonian physics got wrong but also by explaining everything that Newtonian physics got right. You cannot have a revolution and expect to ignore all the evidence that came before.

As I said before, Newtonian physics is wrong in every single case, but Einsteinian physics explains why we thought Newtonian physics was right: The instrumentation we had available at the time was primitive enough that we couldn't physically detect the discrepancy. You need atomic clocks and jet airplanes which, sad to say, didn't exist in the 17th century.

The short answer, with regard to mechanics at least, is that Newton calculated that F = dp/dt and, based upon the best observations available at the time, reduced that in a linear fashion to F = ma. It was only later that we found out that the universe isn't linear but relative and thus, we have to go back to F = dp/dt.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 7:29 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 3:37 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 258 (75954)
12-31-2003 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-30-2003 3:18 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

quote:
Yes, I was a professional scientist, and so good at it that I got so far ahead of my times, I had to stop, to let everyone catch up.

Oh, please.

Now I know you're lying.

Perhaps you could give us some references of the articles you've published?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 3:18 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-31-2003 1:53 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 3:00 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 136 of 258 (76153)
01-01-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Buzsaw
12-31-2003 8:29 PM


buzsaw writes:

quote:
Hi Prozacman. I like Fox because at least they're not afraid to report stuff the others censor out for ideological reasons. They are, to a point "fair and balanced."

No, they're not. They are the worst news organization around and people who watch Fox for their news are the most misinformed.

We've been through this before. Do you really need us to post the study again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2003 8:29 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2004 6:20 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 137 of 258 (76154)
01-01-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-31-2003 3:00 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Stephen ben Yeshua responds to me:

quote:
I gave in message 7, to edge, under "the best scientific method" "Is is science?" the best answer to this question I can offer right now.

You mean you don't know what peer-reviewed journals you've been published in? Off the top of your head, you can't remember the title of a journal that was good enough to publish you?

Now I know you're a fraud.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-31-2003 3:00 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 2:09 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 139 of 258 (76163)
01-01-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Buzsaw
01-01-2004 6:20 PM


buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
The establishment's political correctness friendly study?

"Establishment"?

The University of Maryland is "establishment"? The Roper polling group is "establishment"?

Methinks the actual problem is that you simply don't like the outcome. So rather than actually come to terms with it, you name-call.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2004 6:20 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2004 7:30 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 141 of 258 (76171)
01-01-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
01-01-2004 7:30 PM


buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
The off the cuff statement was based on my observance that Fox is outside the more politically correct establishment media

Do you have any evidence to justify this claim? This makes twice you've claimed "political correctness" without supporting data.

quote:
and tends to cover the conservative as well as the liberal views a lot more than the other networks.

Oh, please. Name a single "liberal" commentator on Fox. No, Colmes doesn't count...he isn't liberal. He's centrist.

Explain how people like Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, Tim Russert, John McLaughlin, George Will, Fareed Zakaria, John Harwood, Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Jr., Oliver North, and the like manage to have all the exposure that they do with so much "establishment" running against them.

Are you seriously saying that George Stephanopolous is so large of a player that it takes all of those conservative commentators to equal him?

Wait...George isn't really all that liberal anymore.

OK, explain how Bob Novak had, for a while, three shows on CNN while his "liberal" counterparts only had Crossfire which they had to share with him?

quote:
I do know that most conservatives, prefer Fox for that reason.

No, they prefer Fox because it is unabashed in its conservatism. The rest of the news at least pretends to be objective. They're not (take a look at the press coverage of Clinton and Gore compared to both Bush's), but they pretend they are.

Fox, on the other hand, proudly proclaims what conservatives want to hear: The media is biased toward liberalism. They don't provide any evidence of this (and, in fact, it isn't true), but conservative people have swallowed this claim and to find a network that tells you exactly what you want to hear is very compelling.

Did you know that the Clinton administration, upon leaving, trashed the White House for hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage? That all of the computers had had the W ripped off of the keyboards, f'rinstance?

There's a problem with this claim, however: It isn't true. But let's see what Fox had to say about it?

Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."

Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."

Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."

Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."

Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."

Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste ("O'Reilly Factor," 1/26/01): "They turned it into Animal House."

Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."

Sean Hannity on the Clintons (2/6/01): "I'd be more willing to cut them some slack and say it was an honest mistake and they weren't involved in the moving if Air Force One wasn't stripped, if they didn't trash the White House, if they didn't set up this -- the equivalent of a bridal registry, if he wasn't taking advantage of the taxpayers."

Tony Snow (1/28/01): "When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life's just too short to fret over such things."

So you tell me, buz: Why would Fox spread such insidious lies about Clinton?

Do you really think Fox is "fair and balanced" when it conducts a poll asking, "Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"

Go ahead and watch Fox if you want, but please don't lie to yourself that it is "fair," "balanced," or anything other than a conservative media outlet.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2004 7:30 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2004 9:10 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 153 of 258 (76277)
01-02-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-02-2004 2:31 PM


Re: a personal encounter with the supernatural
Stephen ben Yeshua responds to me:

quote:
Second, the Bible Codes studies by Witztum and his colleagues, best summarized in a book by Satinover, prove scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt that Genesis was written by some person who was not human.

Incorrect. On the contrary, they merely show a mathematical necessity. Any sufficiently long text will show the exact same thing. Do you really need us to post the link to assassinations predicted in Moby Dick found in the exact same way as those found in the Bible?

Are you claiming Melville wasn't human? That Moby Dick was inspired by god?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 2:31 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 11:50 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 156 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 12:08 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 154 of 258 (76278)
01-02-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-02-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Demons and epistemology
Well done, Stephen.

Now, is there a particular reason you were behaving like a jerk rather than just coming out with it when asked?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-02-2004 2:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 166 of 258 (77545)
01-10-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-04-2004 11:50 AM


Re: Moby Dick inspired writing?
Stephen ben Yeshua responds to me:

quote:
I regard it as a straw man, since it comes from some reporter's discussion of the Codes, and was never reviewed by Witztum himself as an acceptable form of rebuttal.

Indeed. I wouldn't want Witztum to rebut it as he's the one with an axe to grind. Can you say "ad hoc reasoning"? Those who tout Bible Codes have already been found doing so.

quote:
Second, the "codes" in Moby Dick are not (very) implausible

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?

quote:
If you scramble the letters in Moby Dick, you still get "codes" largely as found in the original writing.

That's because it is a natural consequence of having a random string of letters.

quote:
If you scramble the letters in Genesis, the codes disappear.

Incorrect.

quote:
Of course, chance alone produces "codes."

That's the point. It's all chance. These "codes" from the Bible are nothing more than mathematical necessity. When you flip a coin, it has to land.

quote:
They found it very, very unlikely that the codes they found occured by chance.

And they're calculations were wrong.

quote:
Fourth, the way a scientist rejects an idea as implausible is he finds the idea unconfirmed.

Indeed. That's why "codes" in the Bible are rejected. They're a natural phenomena.

quote:
Fifth, the Moby Dick code critics are untrustworthy authorities

Logical error: Argumentum ad hominem. Just because you don't like the people who proved your pet theory wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

quote:
This is called wishful thinking. Not generally recommended.

Indeed. One wonders why you cling to the Bible "codes" when it is so clearly wishful thinking.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-04-2004 11:50 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 2:05 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019