The Devil’s Delusion

[G.T.]

And there you have it, you cannot back up your big mouth. Surprised, nawt.

 

[koshergrl]

And there you have it, you cannot back up your big mouth. Surprised, nawt.

Are you diminished capacity? Because I have stated quite a few times the only evidence needed to prove your insecure idiocy are your posts. I have no need to investigate your personal life (and have no desire to do so) because your inane and insane utterances tell me all I need to know about it.

 

[G.T.]

And there you have it, you cannot back up your big mouth. Surprised, nawt.

Are you diminished capacity? Because I have stated quite a few times the only evidence needed to prove your insecure idiocy are your posts. I have no need to investigate your personal life (and have no desire to do so) because your inane and insane utterances tell me all I need to know about it.

Delusional, you are. You said that I don't state facts. You cannot back that up. You lose.

 

[edthecynic]

I get such a kick out of you, BeetsAndSpinach!

You don't realize how you have advanced my position with this statement: "That is just an opinion, other theories..."

More opinions???
No proof, just theories??

Just like religion, huh?


Next witness.

And which religion is based on advanced mathematics?

You've already rejected a proven Law of physics on the opinion of an astronomer, so God herself could tell you that you are wrong and you would reject it.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I truly wish you whackos can get science legally established as a religion so that I, as a physicist, can get the same special tax privileges the lesser religions get.

Now, now, Beets....try to be more accurate. It was a physicist who explained that the laws of physics fall apart at the singularity.
I hope this doesn't mean that your are giving up!!


If the Big Bang has proven too great a burden for you...how about this:

1. In Genesis 1:3, the Old Testament records that God said: Let there be light.” This presents a problem for the theologist, since the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day (1:14-16)… what was the nature of the ‘light’ mentioned in verse 3?

2. What a coincidence, we have the fullest of understanding of the nature of light from the science community….In his Opticks (1704), Newton argued that light was made up of tiny particles. Slightly earlier, the Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens wrote a Treatise on light, in which he proposed that light was a wave. It was only in 1789 that Thomas Young proposed a simple experiment that appeared to resolve the controversy by showing that light indeed behaves as a wave. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys1/labs/lab2.pdf

3. In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation of the photoelectric effect, a hitherto troubling experiment that the wave theory of light seemed incapable of explaining. He did so by postulating the existence of photons, quanta of light energy with particulate qualities. Wave

4. Luckily…Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Born finessed the problem by declaring ‘Young vs. Einstein’ a draw. Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief! Either that or legerdemain!

5. The mystery will not appear entirely unfamiliar to Christians persuaded of the threefold aspect of the deity: if light is a particle and a wave, religious observes might observe, God is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost. Need I say that this is an analogy that has not captured the allegiance of scientific atheists.

a.As physicist John Bell observed: “o long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrödinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory.” http://faculty.washington.edu/afine/MSdraft.pdf


So, to review....there are mysteries in science analogous to those in religion, that are solved simply by...

...faith.


Wanna take a crack at that one, Beets?
(Mini is busy excusing his inadequasies.....but he'll be back).

Actually, it's Special Relativity that breaks down at the singularity, not the proven Laws of physics. But as a know-it-all, you knew that.

The mysteries of science are never solved by faith, but by experimentation. In your wave/particle example a series of experiments were conducted and measurements taken. If you had actually taken some time to familiarize yourself with the subject rather than cut and paste crap from some religious site, you would have seen how each experiment led to where we are now by testing whether light behaved like a wave or a particle.

The religious equivalent would be to have everyone who claims to have "faith" prove it by walking on water. You first!

 

[koshergrl]

And there you have it, you cannot back up your big mouth. Surprised, nawt.

Are you diminished capacity? Because I have stated quite a few times the only evidence needed to prove your insecure idiocy are your posts. I have no need to investigate your personal life (and have no desire to do so) because your inane and insane utterances tell me all I need to know about it.

Delusional, you are. You said that I don't state facts. You cannot back that up. You lose.

What I said was that a fact is not a fact just because you say it is a fact. And I added that I doubted your ability to recognize a fact.

I stand by both statements. Like most of your ilk, you are arguing to points never made, and pretending the discussion is about something that is taking place only in your own head.

 

[G.T.]

circle jerk^^ dipduckdodge

 

[koshergrl]

Well that certainly applies to you. I doubt if you realize it, though. You don't have enough insight for that.

 

[G.T.]

nutz, hop off em.

 

[LOki]

See the efficacy of the spanking I administered...now you're almost civil!

Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?

There's a difference PoliticalChic, between what you think is happening, and what is really happening; this is it:

(Figure it out for yourself)​

NOTE: In both cases you nothing you're doing makes your point or leads to the conclusion you have "spanked" anybody.​

Let's just examine in detail the "spanking" you have administered:

My opening response to your OP has not been refuted in any intellectually honest manner; each of your lame attempts are chronicled below:

Your first response is a failed attempt to demonstrate how science is baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence by asserting "absurdities" that scientists must accept as conclusions.

First, this proves to be an entirely meaningless quote-mining expedition expedition that fails in every way to demonstrate the assertion you advance that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept any absurdities.

Secondly, you fail in every way to demonstrate that even these "absurdities" are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

Finally, you opened the door for me to provide the following examples of "absurd" beliefs held in faith by the superstitious:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

Examples that all share in common equal intellectual (and moral, BTW) value.

Clearly, you got "spanked" here.

In your next response to me, you post a series of denials of reality. As a result, I am obligated to deliver another spanking as I point out to you that,

1. when you submit a quote to support your point, you are responsible for its content--particularly that content that is submitted to support your point;
2. that the full content of the quote you mined, appropriately within its proper context, spoke less to the absurdities appurtenant to science and more to those appurtenant to superstitions;
3. that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitions cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything;
4. that in failing to demonstrate any significant differences in the absurdity of the three examples of superstitious assertions I submitted, there is no basis for your conclusion that my position has been weakened by submitting them.

Then you earn your third spanking when you essentially ignore the fact that your intellectually dishonest tactics are transparent. You engage in more quote-mining to salvage your position; requiring me to point out to you:

1. that evidence is not the exact same thing as absolute proof,
2. and that you are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.

Having had your ass unambiguously handed to you, you change from misrepresenting experts to bearing false witness. You, of course, fail to get away it without another spanking.

So your next move is to manufacture from nothing this notion that I am adopting a "fake angry tone" to cover the "insecurity" you imagine I am experiencing. Furthermore, in your imagination, I have declared myself some kind of intellectual, and you find it necessary to express your disappointment that as an intellectual I express myself with insufficientclarity and effectiveness when it's obvious that even the repeated application of unambiguous and precise terminology (or spankings) cannot bring any point to your limited awareness.

You then affirm your stolidly held dumb by refusing to acknowledge the actual definition of the terms you use in favor of those you have assigned to them in your imaginary world, where you are the sole and supreme judge of the validity of all things. Not that anyone should expect it to impact your impenetrable stupidity, but I expose your retarded folly and spank you once again.

As a bonus, you bring Aquinas to bear, just so I could spank you by exposing your special pleading.

You then make this special effort to spank yourself as you quote-mine scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, to disprove there's evidence of the Big-Bang; I pointed that out to you.

Apparently you found your self-flagellation uninteresting, so you made sure it could only be recognized as a complete failure by repeating it, bolding it, and then declaring that scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, disproves there's evidence of the Big-Bang.

And you went on to insure that I had plenty of spanking material to work with as I pointed out your transparent conflation of the terms "evidence" and "proof."

Meanwhile, you thought your continued quote-mining would continue without further spankings.

Having been so thoroughly spanked, you become an intellectual kamikaze with this broad denial of verifiable reality.

It's worth noting again here, that it might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

If you wish to avoid getting spanked, over and over and over again, one thing you might keep in mind is that I don't conflate the terms "evidence" and "proof", and I'm always vigilant for the practice in the presence of intellectually dishonest retards cut from superstitious cloth, like yourself.

You then seem to regain your composure, and attempt to restore some of your thoroughly busted self-esteem, only to get spanked yet again.

You then grasp at the opportunity to appear clever, yet it's another spanking you're rewarded with.

You attempt to be clever again; and again, SPANKED!

Which brings us to where denial of reality has caused you to declare in a fit of retarded hubris "... the efficacy of the spanking [you] administered...".​

As it turns out, the reality of this "effectiveness" is that you have been exposed as an intellectually dishonest retard, and have yourself been spanked numerous times during that exposition.

While you're looking up the definition of the word "hubris", let me leave you with these thoughts; although science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does. You may attempt to argue the status of humility in knowledge among the faithful, but you would be the very first I have encountered or ever heard of that asserts ANY uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds he has performed; these are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence from, and it is intellectual hubris.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why the superstitious, like you and koshergrl here, are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for you retards; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate you intellectual and moral hubris.

No evidence OR proof was required from you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. This is definitely your intellectual hubris in action. So, in the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to you. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of my time to expose you for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are; to point out vividly you intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so your vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful world.

I replied to your OP saying that, "... the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition."

This is because there is no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever that any scientist must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contingent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

So I will now close with the unrefuted reply I made to your OP:

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.

OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

See the efficacy of the spanking I administered...now you're almost civil!

Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?

There's a difference PoliticalChic, between what you think is happening, and what is really happening; this is it:

(Figure it out for yourself)​

NOTE: In both cases you nothing you're doing makes your point or leads to the conclusion you have "spanked" anybody.​

Let's just examine in detail the "spanking" you have administered:

My opening response to your OP has not beeen refuted in any intellectually honest manner; each of your lame attempts are chroncled below:

Your first response is a failed attempt to demonstrate how science is baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence by asserting "absurdities" that scientists must accept as conclusions.

First, this proves to be an entirely meaningless quote-mining expedition expedition that fails in every way to demonstrate the assertion you advance that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept any absurdities.

Secondly, you fail in every way to demonstrate that even these "absurdities" are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

Finally, you opened the door for me to provide the following examples of "absurd" beliefs held in faith by the superstitious:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

Examples that all share in common equal intellectual (and moral, BTW) value.

Clearly, you got "spanked" here.

In your next response to me, you post a series of denials of reality. As a result, I am obligated to deliver another spanking as I point out to you that,

1. when you submit a quote to support your point, you are responsible for its content--particularly that content that is submitted to support your point;
2. that the full content of the quote you mined, appropriately within its proper context, spoke less to the absurdities appurtenant to science and more to those appurtenant to superstitions;
3. that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitions cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything;
4. that in failing to demonstrate any significant differences in the absurdity of the three examples of superstitious assertions I submitted, there is no basis for your conclusion that my position has been weakened by submitting them.

Then you earn your third spanking when you essentially ignore the fact that your intellectually dishonest tactics are transparent. You engage in more quote-mining to salvage your position; requiring me to point out to you:

1. that evidence is not the exact same thing as absolute proof,
2. and that you are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.

Having had your ass unambiguously handed to you, you change from misrepresenting experts to bearing false witness. You, of course, fail to get away it without another spanking.

So your next move is to manufacture from nothing this notion that I am adopting a "fake angry tone" to cover the "insecurity" you imagine I am experiencing. Furthermore, in your imagination, I have declared myself some kind of intellectual, and you find it necessary to express your disappointment that as an intellectual I express myself with insufficientclarity and effectiveness when it's obvious that even the repeated application of unambiguous and precise terminology (or spankings) cannot bring any point to your limited awareness.

You then affirm your stolidly held dumb by refusing to acknowledge the actual definition of the terms you use in favor of those you have assigned to them in your imaginary world, where you are the sole and supreme judge of the validity of all things. Not that anyone should expect it to impact your impenetrable stupidity, but I expose your retarded folly and spank you once again.

As a bonus, you bring Aquinas to bear, just so I could spank you by exposing your special pleading.

You then make this special effort to spank yourself as you quote-mine scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, to disprove there's evidence of the Big-Bang; I pointed that out to you.

Apparently you found your self-flagellation uninteresting, so you made sure it could only be recognized as a complete failure by repeating it, bolding it, and then declaring that scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, disproves there's evidence of the Big-Bang.

And you went on to insure that I had plenty of spanking material to work with as I pointed out your transparent conflation of the terms "evidence" and "proof."

Meanwhile, you thought your continued quote-mining would continue without further spankings.

Having been so thoroughly spanked, you become an intellectual kamikaze with this broad denial of verifiable reality.

It's worth noting again here, that it might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

If you wish to avoid getting spanked, over and over and over again, one thing you might keep in mind is that I don't conflate the terms "evidence" and "proof", and I'm always vigilant for the practice in the presence of intellectually dishonest retards cut from superstitious cloth, like yourself.

You then seem to regain your composure, and attempt to restore some of your thoroughly busted self-esteem, only to get spanked yet again.

You then grasp at the opportunity to appear clever, yet it's another spanking you're rewarded with.

You attempt to be clever again; and again, SPANKED!

Which brings us to where denial of reality has caused you to declare in a fit of retarded hubris "... the efficacy of the spanking [you] administered...".​

As it turns out, the reality of this "effectiveness" is that you have been exposed as an intellectually dishonest retard, and have yourself been spanked numerous times during that exposition.

While you're looking up the definition of the word "hubris", let me leave you with these thoughts; although science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does. You may attempt to argue the status of humility in knowledge among the faithful, but you would be the very first I have encountered or ever heard of that asserts ANY uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds he has performed; these are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence from, and it is intellectual hubris.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as fast of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why the superstitious, like you and koshergrl here, are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for you retards; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate you intellectual and moral hubris.

No evidence OR proof was required from you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if should be considered valid in the first place. This is definitely your intellectual hubris in action. So, in the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to you. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of my time to expose you for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are; to point out vividly you intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so your vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful world.

I replied to your OP saying that, "... the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition."

This is because there is no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever that any scientist must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contingent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

So I will now close with the unrefuted reply I made to your OP:

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.

OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.​

Half of your posts could be obviated simply by removing "intellectual" and "dishonest," which have no bearing, and serve only as your attempt to stroke your needy ego.
I have no need to resort to that kind of aggrandizement.
Now, why is that?
This thread is the answer.

Your ploy doesn't work.

A reminder, there is no such critique known as 'quote mining,' outside of out of context usage...and since my quotes are in context, it simply appears to be the kind of perseveration of those afflicted in the manner of the Rainman.

Don't you have to get back to watching Judge Wapner?


Let's see if we can get you back to the point, here.

1.Again, Berlinski's theisis is that in so many ways, our atheistic physicists are not really very different from the religious folks that they criticize.

a. As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. And endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.
The lap dogs who run along with every pronouncement seem to hope that the word 'intellectual' will stick to them....hmmmm...sound familiar?

b. Far less endearing is the manner in which many of our atheistic scientists react with sullen contempt (sounds like you, doesn't it?) when the religious behave in precisely the same way to speculate about that which cannot be grasped in any other way.

2. As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction.

3. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

And, yes...in several ways you have received a spanking....some self-administered.

Now, by all means, go right back to your pro forma 'is not, is not.'

Write soon, Lowest!

 

[koshergrl]

PC, I admire your fortitude. I no longer can bring myself to waste my time reading Loki's mindless self-aggrandizing drivel.

Though I don't believe it is necessary to wade through all the ridiculous posturing crap he lays down; I think after laboring through one of his pseudo intellectualisms any person of normal intelligence has all the fodder they need to effectively respond to and put down any future Loki ramblings.

But your stamina is admirable. I salute you!

 

[LOki]

See the efficacy of the spanking I administered...now you're almost civil!

Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?

There's a difference PoliticalChic, between what you think is happening, and what is really happening; this is it:

(Figure it out for yourself)​

NOTE: In both cases you nothing you're doing makes your point or leads to the conclusion you have "spanked" anybody.​

Let's just examine in detail the "spanking" you have administered:

My opening response to your OP has not beeen refuted in any intellectually honest manner; each of your lame attempts are chroncled below:

Your first response is a failed attempt to demonstrate how science is baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence by asserting "absurdities" that scientists must accept as conclusions.

First, this proves to be an entirely meaningless quote-mining expedition expedition that fails in every way to demonstrate the assertion you advance that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept any absurdities.

Secondly, you fail in every way to demonstrate that even these "absurdities" are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

Finally, you opened the door for me to provide the following examples of "absurd" beliefs held in faith by the superstitious:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

Examples that all share in common equal intellectual (and moral, BTW) value.

Clearly, you got "spanked" here.

In your next response to me, you post a series of denials of reality. As a result, I am obligated to deliver another spanking as I point out to you that,

1. when you submit a quote to support your point, you are responsible for its content--particularly that content that is submitted to support your point;
2. that the full content of the quote you mined, appropriately within its proper context, spoke less to the absurdities appurtenant to science and more to those appurtenant to superstitions;
3. that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitions cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything;
4. that in failing to demonstrate any significant differences in the absurdity of the three examples of superstitious assertions I submitted, there is no basis for your conclusion that my position has been weakened by submitting them.

Then you earn your third spanking when you essentially ignore the fact that your intellectually dishonest tactics are transparent. You engage in more quote-mining to salvage your position; requiring me to point out to you:

1. that evidence is not the exact same thing as absolute proof,
2. and that you are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.

Having had your ass unambiguously handed to you, you change from misrepresenting experts to bearing false witness. You, of course, fail to get away it without another spanking.

So your next move is to manufacture from nothing this notion that I am adopting a "fake angry tone" to cover the "insecurity" you imagine I am experiencing. Furthermore, in your imagination, I have declared myself some kind of intellectual, and you find it necessary to express your disappointment that as an intellectual I express myself with insufficientclarity and effectiveness when it's obvious that even the repeated application of unambiguous and precise terminology (or spankings) cannot bring any point to your limited awareness.

You then affirm your stolidly held dumb by refusing to acknowledge the actual definition of the terms you use in favor of those you have assigned to them in your imaginary world, where you are the sole and supreme judge of the validity of all things. Not that anyone should expect it to impact your impenetrable stupidity, but I expose your retarded folly and spank you once again.

As a bonus, you bring Aquinas to bear, just so I could spank you by exposing your special pleading.

You then make this special effort to spank yourself as you quote-mine scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, to disprove there's evidence of the Big-Bang; I pointed that out to you.

Apparently you found your self-flagellation uninteresting, so you made sure it could only be recognized as a complete failure by repeating it, bolding it, and then declaring that scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, disproves there's evidence of the Big-Bang.

And you went on to insure that I had plenty of spanking material to work with as I pointed out your transparent conflation of the terms "evidence" and "proof."

Meanwhile, you thought your continued quote-mining would continue without further spankings.

Having been so thoroughly spanked, you become an intellectual kamikaze with this broad denial of verifiable reality.

It's worth noting again here, that it might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

If you wish to avoid getting spanked, over and over and over again, one thing you might keep in mind is that I don't conflate the terms "evidence" and "proof", and I'm always vigilant for the practice in the presence of intellectually dishonest retards cut from superstitious cloth, like yourself.

You then seem to regain your composure, and attempt to restore some of your thoroughly busted self-esteem, only to get spanked yet again.

You then grasp at the opportunity to appear clever, yet it's another spanking you're rewarded with.

You attempt to be clever again; and again, SPANKED!

Which brings us to where denial of reality has caused you to declare in a fit of retarded hubris "... the efficacy of the spanking [you] administered...".​

As it turns out, the reality of this "effectiveness" is that you have been exposed as an intellectually dishonest retard, and have yourself been spanked numerous times during that exposition.

While you're looking up the definition of the word "hubris", let me leave you with these thoughts; although science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does. You may attempt to argue the status of humility in knowledge among the faithful, but you would be the very first I have encountered or ever heard of that asserts ANY uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds he has performed; these are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence from, and it is intellectual hubris.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as fast of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why the superstitious, like you and koshergrl here, are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for you retards; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate you intellectual and moral hubris.

No evidence OR proof was required from you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if should be considered valid in the first place. This is definitely your intellectual hubris in action. So, in the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to you. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of my time to expose you for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are; to point out vividly you intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so your vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful world.

I replied to your OP saying that, "... the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition."

This is because there is no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever that any scientist must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contingent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.

So I will now close with the unrefuted reply I made to your OP:

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.

OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.​

Half of your posts could be obviated simply by removing "intellectual" and "dishonest," which have no bearing, and serve only as your attempt to stroke your needy ego.

Non-Sequitur.

I have no need to resort to that kind of aggrandizement.
Now, why is that?

You possess the hubris of believing you're absolutely right validated solely by your absolute conviction of certainty that you are absolutely right.

This thread is the answer.

Same thing.

Your ploy doesn't work.

I don't have a "ploy," but what is working, is working perfectly.

A reminder, there is no such critique known as 'quote mining,' outside of out of context usage...

Don't you have to get back to watching Judge Wapner?

Really?

• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote mining - Iron Chariots Wiki
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• Quote-mining.
• [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFtNuGt4rw"]Quote-mining.[/ame]
• [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1XgqSR7WRE"]Quote-mining.[/ame]

Hmm. There apparently is however, such a critique known as "quote mining," that refers to a kind of "out of context" usage.

... and since my quotes are in context, ...

... and since your use of quotation has been proven to unambiguously out of context, ...

... it simply appears to be the kind of perseveration of those afflicted in the manner of the Rainman.

... your objection to the term appears to be yet another one of your desperate denials of verifiable reality.

Let's see if we can get you back to the point, here.

Yes. Let's do that.

1.Again, Berlinski's theisis is that in so many ways, our atheistic physicists are not really very different from the religious folks that they criticize.

a. As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is.

Really?

"The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of." is a pretty bold statement from someone who "found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is."

And endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

And with religion, you can apply it universally.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.
The lap dogs who run along with every pronouncement seem to hope that the word 'intellectual' will stick to them....hmmmm...sound familiar?

Nope. It sounds like you're making up some crap though.

b. Far less endearing is the manner in which many of our atheistic scientists react with sullen contempt (sounds like you, doesn't it?)....

Only in your superstitious imagination.

... when the religious behave in precisely the same way to speculate about that which cannot be grasped in any other way.

The religious don't speculate; they are certain. They are certain that this "God" thing of theirs is real; they are certain of His powers; they are certain of His deeds.

A point I made that you clearly missed is that science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does.

2. As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts.

"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and the beliefs most usually constrained by well described qualifications follow from valid logic applied to verifiable evidence."​

Fixed that for you.

No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction.

The doctrines of religious belief and the doctrines of quantum cosmology are entirely different in that quantum cosmology remains established in verifiable evidence (even if woefully scant) and remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.

Religious belief, held as faith is only coincidentally in agreement with objective reality, and is validated only by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

The two are barely comparable.

3. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

So you say. But the end game, the actual crux of the biscuit is that science understands FULLY that Quantum Cosmology is speculative. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unqualified certainty. EVERY SINGLE CLAIM made by scientists in the field of Quantum Cosmology remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.

And YES!, IF you remove the mathematics--the demonstrable valid logic from the subject (why not take all the valid and verifiable evidence away too)--it would certainly "... appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."

That's a big "IF" there, and it demonstrates my point precisely.

And, yes...in several ways you have received a spanking....some self-administered.

You'd really think you would link to one of them if you could.

Now, by all means, go right back to your pro forma 'is not, is not.'

Correction, "is not, is not, and here's why and here's a link demonstrating it."

Write soon, Lowest!

ENJOY!

 

[koshergrl]

Think of all the air, space, bandwidth that was just wasted.

*shuddder*

 

[LOki]

Think of all the air, space, bandwidth that was just wasted.

*shuddder*

And it all would be unnecessary if people like you weren't so stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not the one sucking the oxygen, and the intelligence, out of every conversation I enter. That's all you.

 

[LOki]

I'm not the one sucking the oxygen, and the intelligence, out of every conversation I enter. That's all you.

TRANSLATION:

"Failing to have any substantive contribution or valid rebuttal to LOki's assertions, I'll just reassert my denial of the facts of reality."​

 

[koshergrl]

Per usual, bloviation with no substance. Just more posturing and nonsense.

 

[LOki]

Per usual, bloviation with no substance. Just more posturing and nonsense.

And your usual pathological projection.

Here's a little pro-tip for you, retard: Look up big words like "bloviation" and "posturing" before you use them, to be sure that you're not the one posting insubstantial nonsense.

 

[koshergrl]

Pray continue to blather. I find the combination of the lowered oxygen level and the drone of your voice induce a sort of euphoria. Of course, I know it also signifies the death of brain cells, but I still find it rather mesmerizing. Though I can't say I enjoy the sound of your voice quite as much as you do.

 

[LOki]

Pray continue to blather. I find the combination of the lowered oxygen level and the drone of your voice induce a sort of euphoria. Of course, I know it also signifies the death of brain cells, but I still find it rather mesmerizing. Though I can't say I enjoy the sound of your voice quite as much as you do.

You hear my voice?

Seek help now.