|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On The Limits of Human Talent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Obviously not. The point is - as usual with you - to demand a far-right pseudo-Christianity founded upon lies.
quote: By which you mean that the dogmas of your sect should not be questioned.
quote: By which you mean that teaching should be censored to remove facts contrary to the dogmas of your sect.
quote: No. Atheists in general have no problem with real science being taught as science.
quote: It obviously doesn't say anything about that. Nor does it endorse the worship of lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I've thought about this some more and to be fair I am sure that he includes findings that are politically unacceptable to him, too. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No Marc, people LIKE YOU are the dream of every brutal dictator. Global warming may be against the political correctness of the Far Right. But it's a reality. Spewing hate and lies won't change that. And if you want to avoid tyranny, wouldn't it be better to take strong action NOW to avert a potential crisis rather than just go on letting things get worse and worse until even more extreme measures are needed? The more extreme the crisis the greater the appeal of tyranny. Alerting people to dangers, trying to encourage action to avert it is not tyranny, even if you personally - or the people who pay your politicians - don't like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course you could. What does the age of the earth have to do with politics or business ? Why do you need to drag up other issues from politics and business to explain why you place your alleged limits of human ability to conveniently protect certain of your beliefs from falsification ?
quote: Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Or that you'll understand the answer. Or that you have a right to dictate to others what is and is not true (you can certainly TRY to, but nobody has to believe you).
quote: This is a lie. What you mean is that science education isn't censored to cover up the fact that your sect is in conflict with science.
quote: How about your literalist interpretations ? Or do you declare that Genesis MUST be interpreted literally ? On what grounds ?
quote: Actually you haven't. But really you should start by looking at the internal consistency of your beliefs, and the reasoning behind them. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course this is untrue. All science is subject to verification and falsification - even the parts which contradict your dogmas.
quote: In other words, science must be prohibited from finding out that your dogmas are false.
quote: The only "incredible dishonesty"? I've seen comes FROM the supporters of Intelligent Design.
quote: I don't think that anybody says that "unrestricted free markets" are causing Global Warming. "Carbon credits' are even an attempt to harness a free market. But any economist will recognise that the free market as it exists doesn't have adequate controls for externalities, such as the effects of emissions. Some companies may choose to try and reduce them for the sake of good PR (or even out of moral conviction) but others will go on polluting and try to compete on price.
quote: There's a massive non-sequitur. But the Bible has been found to be unreliable in many ways. And in fact it's really hard to understand why you'd want research that might challenge it suppressed unless you fear that it won't pass that test. Now maybe some of the founders of the U.S. referred to the Bible in some way while writing the Constitution but it's also a fact that no specifically Biblical principles found their way into it and that the Constitution never invokes the Bible as a justification.
quote: Of course it matters if you want to be FAIR - and follow the Constitution of the United States. If you want to be fair, you have to take the concerns of every religion into consideration. If you want your religion protected from scientific challenge then the same applies to the phoney history of The Book of Mormon, or the nonsense of Scientology.
quote: You mean that the EPA takes scientific findings into account ? Isn't that exactly what it should be doing ?
quote: Let us note that your second sentence - and your posts in this thread - confirm that there ARE religionists who want to suppress scientific findings that contradict their religion. The evidence is there. Again this thread cones down not to the limits of human talent but the limits you want to place on human knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That isn't a defence. In fact it strongly suggests that the claim is a lie.
quote: In other words "uselessness" means "useless as a scientific theory" rather than referring merely to practical uselessness. THat's an important distinction that you forgot to mention,
quote: The standard of "usefulness" you are talking about is "usefulness as a scientific theory" which is clearly only applicable to things which either are or purport to be scientific theories. So the reason for not applying THAT standard is obvious to anybody with an ounce of sense. Indeed, one of the purposes of exploration is to test theories. It seems rather silly to say that theories must be testable and then decry testing them as "useless".
quote: "The natural world" is intended to cover the entirety of nature, so rather obviously the observations made by exploration WOULD tell us something about the natural world.
quote: You seem to be confusing science with creationism.
quote: It is the job of scientists to convey the best and most accurate information they can. Setting policy is the job of the politicians. Human reactions to policies is obviously outside the scope of climate science, and can't be blamed on climate scientists by any reasonable person.
quote: Why would uncontrolled, imprecise and local observations give a more accurate view of conditions then the better controlled, more precise and wider ranger observations made by climate science ? Why would the state of societies' finances make any difference to whether the Earth is warming or not ? What you mean is that politicians should be guided by your selfishness, not by what is best for the society that they govern. That is a reprehensible view but I guess, all too typical of the American Right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The simple one line summary: Marc hates the truth.
Spewing off-topic hate and lies is apparently fine. Catching him at it is a sign of "rage" that "spoils" the thread. Engaging in obvious misrepresentations is fine. Seeing through those misrepresentations is "dancing". Sorry Marc, you may think that you're so great at lying that nobody can see through your deceptions. If you rely on pulling words out of context to make your points you're the one engaging in "dancing" and we can all see that. Investigating issues that MIGHT conflict with his beliefs should be banned on the grounds that he counts it as "testing God". I'm not sure where the fact that we shouldn't be allowed to know that the Earth is warming comes in here, but he's pretty adamant on that. Clearly Marc means that there are truths that must be kept from humanity. Marc even characterises knowledge of truths contrary to the dogma of the "Christian" Right as "lack of knowledge". Amazingly on subjects where he's been shown to be badly wrong in the past, by some of the very people he's been arguing against. let's leave with this quote:
quote: Of course an honest appraisal of the evidence is that Marc took the personal opinions of people who are nowhere near central to the debate and engaged in an obvious misrepresentation even of those. People pointed that out - and this is Marc's response. Like I said. Marc can't stand people telling the truth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024