January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    I would leave that school, possibly the state, possibly the country

    Then you are a gutless coward.

  2. #2 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Wow #94, do I feel collateral

    No, whatever “do I feel collateral” means.

    It’s pretty simple, dear: don’t talk absolute bollocks and you won’t get called out on talking absolute bollocks.

    I should like to amuse you with my answer to the question of whether ‘God’ could be a subject of science.

    Sorry, completely uninterested in what you’re thinking on the subject since you lack any conviction over it.

    Now what Dawkins is doing would be like a mathematician imposing the fact that Pi is a transcendent number on society using brutal authoritarian means

    No, it isn’t anything like that you blithering moron.

    In both cases, me and ‘delusional’ men, there is consolation and a sort of guidance.

    “Just because it makes you feel better” does not make it true, dear.

    Morals then stem from delusional authority.

    No they don’t. Only those who profess the morals told to them as being ones “from the Almighty” are so, but that may be YOUR source of morality, but it’s not the source of the vast majority of humanity. Even those who profess to be moral because of their faith are moral from their own choice of what to believe in the bible as being moral.

  3. #3 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    Wow #1, no, the world is my place and if part of it falls into the fascist swing as all parts seem to have to do once in a while, I move.
    For one, because a ‘gutless coward’ has a better chance of surviving and a 100% of surviving happily at that.
    For a second because while no-one has the right to impose on me the nonsense that Pi = 3, I have no right to battle a majority of lemmings over it. I much prefer to let them go happily over.

    Wow #2, you are proving my point. You are a typical ‘atheist’, that is a fundamental believer.
    You are so totally blinded by your zeal that you cannot even see a true atheist when you stumble over one – and with full religious zeal instead you begin scolding.

    If you don’t understand what I say, ask me a question. You might want to ask where I got my morals from, as I haven’t stated anything on that.
    But you know, before you bother me, reread, please.

    If you are ‘completely uninterested in what [cRR is] thinking on the subject’ then don’t show interest.
    But if you must show interest, please begin with understanding that I am the radical atheist with the humanitarian approach to those delude by religion. Are you jealous?

  4. #4 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #2 – ““Just because it makes you feel better” does not make it true, dear.”

    That’s what I said in that entire letter.
    I now realize you had to remind yourself.

  5. #5 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #100 – ‘But apart from that, is being nice to religion a requirement to being an atheist?’

    Of course not. Try those four method suggestions instead.

    You wouldn’t state that being not nice to religion would be required to be an atheist?

    (personally, I don’t think it’s a delusion. It is a pathology, no less)

  6. #6 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    Lionel A “Given the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of ‘The God Delusion’ that is saying something.”

    Just reread it. Lovely.
    Well, the semitic religions are example of how you succesfully begin a sekt: you start out with a genocide, and you repeat some of that when necessary.
    That, Wow, is my idea of what christianity is.
    A terror sekt that has terrorized and mass murdered and genocided ever since.
    How befitting is its symbol: an executioner’s instrument.


    25 Moses knew that the people were out of control and that it was Aaron’s fault. And now they had made fools of themselves in front of their enemies. 26 So Moses stood at the gate of the camp and shouted, “Everyone who is on the Lord’s side come over here!”
    Then the men of the Levi tribe gathered around Moses, 27 and he said to them, “The Lord God of Israel commands you to strap on your swords and go through the camp, killing your relatives, your friends, and your neighbors.”
    28 The men of the Levi tribe followed his orders, and that day they killed about three thousand men. 29 Moses said to them, “You obeyed the Lord and did what was right, and so you will serve as his priests for the people of Israel. It was hard for you to kill your own sons and brothers, but the Lord has blessed you and made you his priests today.”

    As anyone can see, with ‘the LORD’ Mozes the Slaughterer means himself. Mozes and Hitler are the same kind of thing.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Wow #1, no, the world is my place

    Woomancer babble, dear. Misspelt a word?

    For one, because a ‘gutless coward’ has a better chance of surviving

    So the reason why you would leave is because the xtians would kill you for excoriating their faith? And you claim DAWKINS is using “facist methods”!?!?!?!

    Or was that hyperbolic bullshit.

    PS the founding fathers decided that safety was not worth the cost of freedom. One of them even made a pithy quote about their substitionality.

    Wow #2, you are proving my point.

    Um, no. You’re just doubling down on the idiocy you’ve laid out earlier: be nice to the religious or I will call YOU religious!!! An astoundingly stupid and self-contradictory claim. But you love it. It means nothing, therefore has no “defence” except with more rhetoric which you will accept happily because it “proves [your] point”.

    you cannot even see a true atheist when you stumble over one

    So you’re the only one who knows this secret truth? Seems rather faithiest to me…

    Tell me, since I do not believe in god, in what way am I not a true atheist?

    and with full religious zeal instead you begin scolding.

    ROFLcopter landing alert! FFS! THAT IS FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! Here you are, scolding Dawkins and now me for what we say and then YOU whine about “instead you begin scolding”!

    FUCK
    ING
    HILARIOUS!

    If you don’t understand what I say,

    I do. However I do not share your delusion that your words are somehow cogent, accurate and not at all created solely for self serving self-approval, hence you conclude I must not understand them.

    You might want to ask where I got my morals from, as I haven’t stated anything on that.

    Yes you did. When you claimed “Morals then stem from delusional authority.”.

    If you are ‘completely uninterested in what [cRR is] thinking on the subject’ then don’t show interest.

    I did claim my disinterest. If that is not what you want, tough shit, shitlord. Just because you want to be left in peace to believe your codswallop and prattle it about in public does not mean you get to be left in peace.

    please begin with understanding that I am the radical atheist with the humanitarian approach to those delude by religion

    No, you’re not, since you would leave those people affected by the religious overtaking of education to their doom and not help them. Completely lacking in humanism there.

    Meanwhile you rant and rave at Dawkins and now me who are far more humanist than you by actions, Dawkins in his public record, me by the much smaller representation here.

    Why?

    Because you’re deluded, dear. But comfortable with that delusion and react to its attempted clearing by others in exactly the same way as those “deluded” by their faith do when THEIR comfortable delusions are disturbed.

    Which is why you defend their “right” to be deluded.

    That’s what I said in that entire letter.

    Then your tale had no point. Rather underscores why no interest in *anything* you say is the rational choice for rational thinkers.

    #100 – ‘But apart from that, is being nice to religion a requirement to being an atheist?’

    Of course not.

    Yet for not doing so, I am not “a true atheist” and for doing so you claim you are a “true atheist”.

    Your words do not match your other statements on the subject.

    Common double-think when an intelligence is faced with self deception.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    That, Wow, is my idea of what christianity is.

    So when YOU say it, it’s right and fine.

    When Dawkins says it, he’s a faithiest fundamentalist religionist atheist and not a “true atheist” at all.

    Yeah, right…

  9. #9 Betula
    January 17, 2014

    BBD…

    “The rate of ocean acidification is determined by the rate of increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2. Yes or no.”

    Yes. Maybe. It depends.

    “Are you claiming that rapid and significant reduction in ocean pH is not going to cause severe disruption to marine ecosystems? Yes or no”

    The scenario is hypothetical, therefore, the disruptions are speculative and the answer is unknown.

  10. #10 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Yes. Maybe. It depends. ”

    Despite having no clue, you seem damn sure you’re right and thousands of others who studied the problem are wrong.

    How, exactly, does that work, betty? Am I allowed to do this, or is there some club you have to join first.

    “The scenario is hypothetical,”

    It’s happened before. over 99% of the life forms died.

    The answer is known, just not by the clueless, dear.

  11. #11 BBD
    January 17, 2014

    Goodness me. I wander off for a couple of days and this breaks out!

    Now, of course, if I truly was “deputy of Deloid” I’d have to whip out my six-shooter and lay down the law.

    But I’m not, so I won’t.

    Jah Love!

    :-)

  12. #12 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Oh, PS Betty, “It depends” is completely wrong.

    Diffusion.

    It works, bitch.

  13. #13 BBD
    January 17, 2014

    Yes. Maybe. It depends.

    Nope. Basic chemistry. The answer is and can only be yes. Stop wriggling.

    The scenario is hypothetical, therefore, the disruptions are speculative and the answer is unknown.

    No it isn’t. Read Honisch et al. I linked it for you a page or so back. OA = marine extinctions.

  14. #14 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “I’d have to whip out my six-shooter ”

    Errr.

    Is that a euphemism?

    :-D

  15. #15 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Just wondered with the “luke warmists” hypotheses, in relation to the denier JAQing off over “So what temperature SHOULD the planet be, huh?”, surely their ideas deserve the query most acutely.

    E.g. if the Iris flam were true, how would the iris “know” what temperature it needs to keep? God tells it?

    And with Betty’s unknowing of chemistry, how does the CO2 in the atmosphere know it shouldn’t be in the ocean? God tells it?

  16. #16 BBD
    January 17, 2014

    Trust you, Wow.

    And by ‘eck that’s a cheesy grin!

  17. #17 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #8, “When Dawkins says it, he’s a faithiest fundamentalist religionist atheist and not a “true atheist” at all.”

    Of course not. You really need it step by step, really? Really??
    Did you still not understand my comparison with the mathematician – ‘who KNOWS there are infinitely many prime numbers and feels safe in that knowledge’?
    Does this mathematician take to the streets, get advertisements on buses etc to convince the world of this paramount fact?
    No he does not.
    He does not have to.

    I feel no urge to run around shouting there is no god, because I am safe in my knowledge of that. I am full 10 (ten) atheist. Dawkins is not, he says so himself. That is the one difference between him and me and I explain his urge to shout on the streets from this difference, that is: his uncertainty.
    And I have been corrected somewhat in this conviction by Lionel A.
    Now catch up and agree please :)

  18. #18 BBD
    January 17, 2014

    So to give Betty’s elbow the requisite nudge in the direction of truth:

    The rate of ocean acidification is determined by the rate of increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2. Yes or no.

    Yes. Maybe. It depends. YES

    Are you claiming that rapid and significant reduction in ocean pH is not going to cause severe disruption to marine ecosystems? Yes or no.

    The scenario is hypothetical, therefore, the disruptions are speculative and the answer is unknown. Betty’s claim is YES, based on a false claim and he is wrong.

  19. #19 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #7 Wow, ” And you claim DAWKINS is using “facist methods”!?!?!?!”

    I am beginning to dislike you. This is a straw man. Better beware, I come up with tungsten men.

    That claim I never made, you did.

    “Tell me, since I do not believe in god, in what way am I not a true atheist?”
    Told you: your religious-looking zeal, your not being able to read any argument pertaining to your obsession. Your not being able, even, to see who is on your side on this and who isn’t.

    Looks like Richard Dawkins is your God.

  20. #20 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    “Yes you did. When you claimed “Morals then stem from delusional authority.”.”

    Tried Wow in #7.
    Missed the word ‘then’ and… did some quote mining. Mixed up a reasoning with my reasoning. Do you ever read science articles, by the way?

    If you don’t understand me, just ask me a question.
    You might learn where I think morals come from. One hint. They didn’t arise from humanity. Humanity came already equipped with them. Like primates, like cats, like fish even. I can tell you about insects and morals, for insects show moral behaviour too (and theatre. And joking). But that would be like explaining Higgs to a student of a pseudoscience like economy.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #8, “When Dawkins says it, he’s a faithiest fundamentalist religionist atheist and not a “true atheist” at all.”

    Of course not.

    Ah, so there’s no evidence of Dawkins doing his claimed religious atheiest routine, it’s just true.

    Very faithistic.

    Did you still not understand my comparison with the mathematician

    What part of “Dawkins is doing nothing like that” did you not understand, dear?

    Do tell.

    I feel no urge to run around shouting there is no god

    But you DO feel the urge not only to demonise in your own mind anyone who does, but to run around shouting about how they’re religious not “true atheists” like you.

    I am safe in my knowledge of that. I am full 10 (ten) atheist.

    So you know, and there is no way any evidence shown to you could dissuade you from your opinion, that there is no God.

    Well happy la la for you.

    But for a start, this doesn’t make you a “true atheist”. And it doesn’t make Dawkins a non-atheist. Nor me.

    #7 Wow, ” And you claim DAWKINS is using “facist methods”!?!?!?!”

    I am beginning to dislike you.

    See, this is a big difference between us.

    You think so little of people you demand that they be held in cotton wool. Including yourself.

    And then get as shitstorming angry as you claim Dawkins to be if that isn’t being offered to you.

    It’s a little like drawing pictures of Mohammed.

    Illegal for muslims.
    Fine for non-muslims.

    Or deference to the prophet of god. Muslims think that xtians should give them largesse because muslims don’t deride JC, they put him as a prophet, not God himself. However, most christians don’t care about that, so they accord it no courtesy.

    I DO NOT GIVE A PILE OF MONKEY-DOO if you like me or are getting to hate me.

    Couldn’t give a monkey’s fist.

    This is a straw man. Better beware, I come up with tungsten men.

    That claim I never made, you did.

    Yeah, another disconnect from reality. Post 95, last page, and I quote:

    Now what Dawkins is doing would be like a mathematician imposing the fact that Pi is a transcendent number on society using brutal authoritarian means

    Facism being an authoritarian system of politics:

    Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe

    Yup, disconnect from reality.

    Back down the rabbit-hole:

    If you don’t understand me, just ask me a question.

    I’ve asked many things. None have been answered, except with a Gish Gallop of Monktonian proportions.

    “Tell me, since I do not believe in god, in what way am I not a true atheist?”
    Told you: your religious-looking zeal

    That isn’t in the definition of atheism, dear.

    DO try to keep up.

  22. #22 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Do you ever read science articles, by the way?”

    Yes.

    Ever read Dawkins or studied the definition of words?

  23. #23 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Looks like Richard Dawkins is your God.”

    Ah, yes.

    Being considerate for the “wrong people” is worshipping them and apotheosis of that human to divine form.

    ROFLCopter again.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    “So you know, and there is no way any evidence shown to you could dissuade you from your opinion, that there is no God.”

    Of course there is. The way is evidence. Failing that, no God. But worse: if part of God’s definition is given by His omnitpotence, he CANNOT exist. Looking for evidence then is akin to trying the quadrature of the circle.

    Brutal authoritianism is not synonymous with fascism. Look at your own quote of what fascism is.
    You’re logic is wanting.

    Anyway, I’m calling it quits. I don’t discuss with believers in any god about their god and yours is obviously Dawkins. A mist before your eyes when someone has the guts to criticize him hah.

  25. #25 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #22, yes.
    And you are an Asperger, like me, so you, like me, know that words have a meaning.
    Please break through and recognize, friend.

  26. #26 lord_sidcup
    January 17, 2014

    Here’s a pretty amazing development:

    http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

    Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

    Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

    Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

    Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

    In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

    Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

    I’ve never come across this ‘journal’ before, but looking at the archive I see some familiar names – Scafetta, N.-A. Mörner, Soon, Archibald, Easterbrook, and R. Tattersall. Tattersall!. My jaw hit the floor.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “So you know, and there is no way any evidence shown to you could dissuade you from your opinion, that there is no God.”

    Of course there is. The way is evidence.

    So you, a self confessed “true atheist” thinks the same as Dawkins, who you claim to be “religionist atheist”.

    Hrmm…

    Did any of this thinking EVER touch the sides, or did you just regurgitate this without that impediment?

    Brutal authoritianism is not synonymous with fascism.

    So now you’re claiming that what Dawkins does is BRUTAL?!?!?!

    But weren’t you worried about dying from faithiest gunfire, therefore not willing to speak up?

    Yet THEY should NEVER be told there isn’t a god because only religious people talk about god???

    Yeah, nothing touches the sides there. Completely fucking empty space.

    #22, yes.

    Except you think that an absence of any “religious-looking zeal” (looking to who?) is part of the definition of atheist?

    I do believe you’ve given the wrong answer.

    Twice now.

  28. #28 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    “No, you’re not, since you would leave those people affected by the religious overtaking of education to their doom and not help them. Completely lacking in humanism there.”

    This point by Wow is relevant. So I think it wants answering.

    First, this is a big dilemma for all of us not afflicted by the delusion/pathology. Because:

    1) People are not born muslim, christian, buddhist or whatever, but what does this mean? Are all people born atheist, then?
    I do not think it is mere coincidence that I grew up an atheist. Both my parents were atheists, so go figure.

    2) From this, my right to talk other people out of their god delusion is questionable to say the least. It is probably as questionable as them forcing me to believe in their god.

    3) It is inhumane to take something from someone without giving anything of value back to replace it. It results in either unhealable broken people or it elicits a response to more radical belief. Try a bit of history including those stories of regimes supressing religions for this lesson of life.

    Purely metaphorically speaking atheists have nothing to offer.
    Realistically spoken, atheists have literally the world to offer.
    Humanely neither can be forced onto anyone.

  29. #29 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    PS being aspie is not an excuse for flailing moronically, using blunt language or misapprehension through missing social context.

    It means you need to try avoiding situations where this is going to be necessary.

    You aren’t doing so in your “religious looking fervour” to either demonise or deify Dawkins.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “This point by Wow is relevant. So I think it wants answering”

    Except you’re not answering it, you’re prevaricating to avoid realisation of your spinelessness.

    Indeed in the case concerned there WERE mathematicians.

    http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-384514-culture-of-ignorance.html

  31. #31 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    “So now you’re claiming that what Dawkins does is BRUTAL?!?!?!”

    Wow’s interpretion of the following quote:

    “Now what Dawkins is doing would be like a mathematician imposing the fact that Pi is a transcendent number on society using brutal authoritarian means (okay, verbally of course).”

    A lot of modality left out. But yes, see the third point in #28 for an answer to that ‘brutal’. Answer the humanitarian question please.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    3) It is inhumane to take something from someone without giving anything of value back to replace it.

    Truth isn’t valuable?

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    January 17, 2014

    But that would be like explaining Higgs to a student of a pseudoscience like economy.

    Careful cRR, you’ll have Richard Tol fulminating to the point of conniptive explosion – and him being an expert in Antarctic science and all…

    Lord_sidcup, I’d have thought that retraction was the academic route to “remove afterwards” discredited papers, but if the publisher feels so strongly that the shenanigans warrant termination of the journal, that’s saying something indeed.

    Cue the howls of outrage from the peanut gallery as pseudoscientists and their lay drones claim definitive evidence of censorship* by the Global Climate Conspiracy…

    [*...even though the articles are there for all to see...]

  34. #34 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #29, how about ‘humanizing Richard Dawkins’? You respond to it like I’m the ultimate sinner :)

  35. #35 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “So now you’re claiming that what Dawkins does is BRUTAL?!?!?!”

    Wow’s interpretion of the following quote:

    No you incredibly dense moron, THIS quote:

    Brutal authoritianism is not synonymous with fascism.

    I EVEN FRIGGING QUOTED IT.

    How fundamentally ignorant and dismissive of everyone else’s intelligence (if they don’t agree with you inherently, they MUST be moronic enough not to check!: Another Monckton manoever) is it to do this?

  36. #36 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #29, how about ‘humanizing Richard Dawkins’?

    The only one talking about apotheosis for him was you, dear.

    People who read his stuff without the baggage of apologetics and fake balance dragging their faculties down into the sewers already do and always have considered him a human.

    Only those who wish to paint those who do not demonise him like they demand must be done prattle this caricature. As if you either worship him as a deity or deride him as a human.

    No scope for respect him as a human is allowed in the wonderland-world apologetics and other mental defectives inhabit.

  37. #37 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #32, beyond value… Beyond. Truth and value might not fare well within one sentence. But that’s for the prof philosophers.
    Alas, sometimes education needs a lot of tenderness and time. Otherwise it may result in hurt, and in resistance – both effectively move away from truth appreciation. I think Dawkins’ method might backfire more than mine, say.

    #33, Tol, yeah, bring it on!!

  38. #38 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #36, are you really that sore from a small criticism of Dawkins’ activism?

  39. #39 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #35, you gave a quote of fascism as that special brutal authoritarian system being characterized by nationalism.

    There are more brutal authoritarian systems, fascism is only one of them.
    The kind I was thinking of looks more like Inquisition. Which is not nationalistic at all (did u know), and cannot be fascism therefore.

  40. #40 FrankD
    January 17, 2014

    For someone who claims “words have meaning”, you seem remarkably loose in your own choice of words. Your assumption that “zeal” = “religiosity” is just that – your assumption, and a particularly stupid one. I think you would do well to turn down what reads to me as argumentative smugness and reread the conversation with fresh eyes. You have stated your own immunity to new evidence (self-appointed 10) which proves that you are the “religious athiest”, not Dawkins, or Wow.

    …looks more like Inquisition. Which is not nationalistic at all …

    Is that something else you “know” with mathematical precision? Because the statement as it stands is simply wrong. Which Inquisition – there were several, did u know? Some were indeed nationalistic. Anyway, on what level was the inquisition (any of them) more brutal than good-old 20th century fascism?

    Wow’s zeal in calling you out has everything to do with your faulty reasoning/logic/understanding and little or nothing to do with “atheism”(intentional scare quotes).

  41. #41 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “#32, beyond value… Beyond”

    So point 3 doesn’t apply to telling people “There is no God”.

    “Alas, sometimes education needs a lot of tenderness and time.”

    Not really. Learning “fire hot, burns hands” is taught every kid just about in the world. The world doesn’t give them comfort.

    When the kid realises that the world in truth is a hard place, they’re comforted, they’re NOT told “The BAD fire hurt you?!?”.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “#36, are you really that sore from a small criticism”

    How sore am I? Do tell.

    And how small was that criticism?

    Tell me, why are you so incensed that someone who doesn’t ascribe to your philosophy doesn’t do like you want them to, that you have to prattle round about how they’re not an atheist, when they definitely are, and how everyone who doesn’t ascribe to that must be religious too, having Dawkins as their god?

    If you’re not, why the fuck did you post that shite?

  43. #43 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Thanks Frank.

    Maybe you can find the hole in kamper;s head that lets an idea he doesn’t wish to entertain in.

  44. #44 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    There are more brutal authoritarian systems, fascism is only one of them.

    Was that the WHOOOSH of goalposts there?

    You claimed that Dawkins’ authoritarianism wasn’t facism because brutality wasn’t core to facism.

    Now you claim that you’re not wrong still because things other than facism were more brutal.

    20-dimensional thinking is probably quite easy when you’re in Wonderland…

    As long as you get to decide the rules of geometry.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Otherwise it may result in hurt, and in resistance”

    So what? That makes THEIR actions wrong, not mine.

    If I stop a mugging and the result is that the mugger calls his mates over to help the beatdown, was that my fault?

  46. #46 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/01/17/1459234/creationism-in-texas-public-schools

    More “religious atheists” demanding that creationism is wrong, huh?

  47. #47 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #41, “Not really. Learning “fire hot, burns hands” is taught every kid just about in the world. The world doesn’t give them comfort.”

    This mentality is conform to brutal authoritarianism, whose message for children it so often is.
    You whip your kids, you do not teach them kindhess, integrity, honesty – things that exist in the world as well as greed, fear and evil?

    “Tell me, why are you so incensed…” – I can’t. I’m not and never was.
    But I am falling over from surprise you just don’t seem to get how much we actually agree on this subject. Damn, I even shared four ways to prove you right!

    Except for one small point: I don’t believe in activism as a way to educate people out of their god delusions, but Dawkins does.
    And I even openly questioned my own criticism on this in this thread.

  48. #48 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #45, are you trying to convey that having a religion is a criminal act, like mugging?

    #46, why confront me with that? I already told you I would instantly leave such a school, ‘gutless coward’ I am! (as if such an uprising against school and probably own parents would be cowardly at all…).

  49. #49 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #41, “Not really. Learning “fire hot, burns hands” is taught every kid just about in the world. The world doesn’t give them comfort.”

    This mentality is conform to brutal authoritarianism

    No it isn’t, it’s taking responsibilities for your actions, facing reality as it is, not what you wish it to conform to, in order to appreciate how your actions can choose your own path, therefore no god or instructional text is necessary.

    Just because YOU are a fucking retard doesn’t mean your claims about what things are is correct.

    E.g. “Atheism means you don’t appear to have religous-like fervour”.

    You whip your kids

    Why would I do that? All it teaches them is that you can make people do what you want with violence.

    Or is this yet another caricature that you can beat down?

    “Tell me, why are you so incensed…” – I can’t. I’m not and never was.

    Then explain the religous zeal you have in lambasting anyone who dares utter uncomfortable truths that you personally think should not be done?

  50. #50 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “#45, are you trying to convey that having a religion is a criminal act, like mugging?”

    Yes.

    Why the fuck not? You never hear what’s said, only what you think is going on, so have a ball, dear.

    “#46, why confront me with that?”

    Why not? Are you not offended that there are boplogists who are saying that teaching creationism or sidelining actual verifiable biology because the bible is a fictional tale on this subject?

    Or is it only when Dawkins does it you feel offended?

    In which case, your claim:

    “Tell me, why are you so incensed…” – I can’t. I’m not and never was.

    Is disproved by evidence.

    You DO know what evidence means, right? “That which is seen”.

  51. #51 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #40 -

    “Your assumption that “zeal” = “religiosity”
    Not mine. I used the prhase ‘religous zeal’, see, and I did not mean that as a tautology at all.

    ” You have stated your own immunity to new evidence (self-appointed 10) which proves that you are the “religious athiest”, not Dawkins, or Wow.”

    First, I have given a motivation (re omnipotence) for that, which you have read like climate revisionists read climate science…
    Second, the atheist is on the mathematical full ten.
    Agnosts like Dawkins and Wow are not.
    It follows both hate atheists with religious zeal :D

  52. #52 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #50, yes, I have seen the evidence, like you shouting on internet… Capitals.

  53. #53 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #50 “Are you not offended”… Why do you think I state time and again I will leave that school instantly?

    Are you trying to get me into threatening such a school with violence, that being as it seems to me virtually my only alternative from just fleeing the place?

  54. #54 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Your assumption that “zeal” = “religiosity”
    Not mine

    So your post was written by the Easter Bunny?

    Agnosts like Dawkins and Wow are not.

    Yup. You know when you said you knew what words meant?

    Check what agnostic means, dear.

    Failed again.

    #50, yes, I have seen the evidence

    And I’ve seen the evidence of your frothing madness: every insane twist and turn of your illogic, constructed on the fly to ensure that no dangerous “new thought” enters.

    Capitals are easier than bolding for emphasis, dear.

    But making up your own meaning is fine, if it contents you, isn’t it, darling?

  55. #55 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #50 “Are you not offended”… Why do you think I state time and again I will leave that school instantly?

    Yeah, the “insanity defence”.

    “Where were you on the 15th of last June?”
    “I have no elephants in my appartment!”

    Wish to try again with less insanity?

  56. #56 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #49, “All it teaches them is that you can make people do what you want with violence.”

    You just told me that is one of the things kids ought to learn. It is the reality, you see.
    You responded that when I stated some education would be best done with some tenderness.
    You gave the suggestion that tenderness is a dirty word in your ears.

    “Then explain the religous zeal you have in lambasting anyone who dares utter uncomfortable truths that you personally think should not be done?”

    Yes, tell me. Like I said you have me rolling over from suprise.

  57. #57 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #55, sure. I will leave any school instantly that teaches nonsens instead of reality. That includes schools teaching creationism.

    You call that insane?

  58. #58 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #54, ‘agnostic’? I don’t know.

    “Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.”

    Unknown. Agnost. Atheists know better.

  59. #59 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #49, “All it teaches them is that you can make people do what you want with violence.”

    You just told me that is one of the things kids ought to learn

    No I didn’t.

    Next fabrication du straw, please!

    You gave the suggestion that tenderness is a dirty word in your ears.

    Even if that were the case, it doesn’t say “Whip your kids. Because”. Several levels of idiocy resides in that pumpkin head of yours.

    #54, ‘agnostic’? I don’t know.

    It’s not “not an atheist” is it, dear?

    Like Frank says, you’re the fundie.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Unknown. Agnost. Atheists know better.”

    Gnosticism: What is knowable.
    Theism: what is believed.

    Orthogonal issues. Look it up, dear, your dribbling is showing.

  61. #61 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #55, sure. I will leave any school instantly that teaches nonsens instead of reality. That includes schools teaching creationism.

    You call that insane?

    I called YOU insane.

    Your response is the response of an insane mind. It is a non-sequitur. Look that word up, dear.

    I even gave you the example:

    “Where were you on the 15th of last June?”
    “I have no elephants in my appartment!”

    But your insanity knows no reason.

  62. #62 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    So, care to answer the question, dearie?

    Read #46.

  63. #63 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #59, I am a fundamentalist atheist but I don’t behave like one (except, strangely, in this quagmire called Deltoid).

    You do not know there is no god – and you operate like a fundi.

    It would be a case to research, but well I did that for you – check out the methaphor with the mathematician, the most extreme fundamentalist there is: he doesn’t even want to talk about it :)

  64. #64 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #62, what is the question there? ‘Religious atheists’ cannot exist, so please rephrase.

    I might have forgotten to mention that that school I left might not be free from my fighting that kind of curriculum. On the other hand, it might. My life is not worth fighting the 33 to 66% of idiots every society seems to have to contain.

    What do you do about it?
    There is comparison with battling climate revisionism, isn’t there?

  65. #65 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #59, I am a fundamentalist atheist

    So when you complained of Dawkins being religious because of his zeal, your fundamentalism makes you a “true atheist”.

    THIS is why you’re mad, dear. Stark raving strawberry bonkers.

    You do not know there is no god

    A “9″ means “I could be persuaded of the existence of god if I can verify it”.

    A “10″ means “There is no such thing as God and no proof would change my mind”.

    They are both atheists. One is not truer than the other.

    If your 10 is “I KNOW there is no such thing, and therefore KNOW there is no possible proof of it”, then you’re an gnostic atheist.

    If your 10 is a “I would not change my mind if proof were available”, you’re an agnostic atheist.

    Indeed to some theologians, if god proved himself, then there would be no faith, just as there is no “faith” that tables exist.

  66. #66 BBD
    January 17, 2014

    @Lord_Sidcup ages ago

    I’ve never come across this ‘journal’ before, but looking at the archive I see some familiar names – Scafetta, N.-A. Mörner, Soon, Archibald, Easterbrook, and R. Tattersall. Tattersall!. My jaw hit the floor.

    Well, well, well. Another attempt to subvert scientific publishing by fake sceptics pushing fake science. I had absolutely no idea that this was going on, so thanks for the flag.

    And Tallbloke? Tallbloke? Jeebus on poppers.

  67. #67 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    I might have forgotten to mention that that school I left might not be free from my fighting that kind of curriculum.

    Oh yes indeedy you missed that entire action out.

    Probably because in the context of that response “I would leave” the mentioning of “I would gight that kind of curriculum” is EXACTLY what you deride in others with your “You don’t see mathematicians with billboards saying ‘Pi is NOT 3′”.

    Why?

    Because you have no reason to hate Dawkins.

    You just hate.

  68. #68 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #61, it is what I would do.
    Is the act of moving to another school a ‘non-sequitur’?
    Is moving to another school proof of being insane?

    If so, then so what?
    You may not be interested in my feeling for you, dearie, but I wasn’t even interested enough to even respond to that. Like I’m not at all interested in assessments of my sanity, even if those WERE based on some more than some hot debate on damned religiousity or lack of it.

  69. #69 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    “Is the act of moving to another school a ‘non-sequitur’?”

    Yes.

    When you’re asked the question in #64, “the act of moving schools” is a non-sequitur.

    Do you know what it means, dear? You’ve managed nil points so far, having found the right definition of a few words, but that definition being other than the one that applied to your use of it.

    So I’m not hopeful you know. You just know how to google “define $WORD”.

    but I wasn’t even interested enough to even respond to that.

    Sorry, double fail there.

    That WAS a response.

    Telling you my disinterest is the clearest way of letting you know that such perambulations of your diseased mind are of absolutely no point to their presentation to me. It is is NOT showing interest.

    So, you probably thought “Ah HA! I’ve got ‘im!”.

    Hence the double fail, retard.

  70. #70 lord_sidcup
    January 17, 2014

    @BBS

    And Tallbloke? Tallbloke? Jeebus on poppers.

    Stunning. The reviewer for the paper “Responses of the basic cycles of 178.7 and 2402 yr in solar–terrestrial phenomena during the Holocene” by Charvátová and Hejdais was (drum roll)…. R. Tattersall.

  71. #71 chek
    January 17, 2014

    And Tallbloke? Tallbloke? Jeebus on poppers.

    … which is likely – despite the potential for another The Downfall parody – the very words the publishing board uttered when they realized.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    January 17, 2014

    cRR and others

    I have just looked up a series of talks given by luminaries in the cognition and belief field that took place at the SALK Institute in 2006. I watched most of the segment back then.

    Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival

    Just look at the role call, apart from Dawkins we have:
    Sam Harris, *
    Steven Weiberg *
    Lawrence Krauss *
    Neil de Grass Tyson
    V.S. Ramachandran
    Paul Davies *

    * indicates I have, and have read books by these as I have Daniel C Dennett who was not there being recovering from a heart attack and by-pass at the time. Dennett is well worth reading I have and have read:

    Freedom Evolves
    Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
    Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

  73. #73 Lionel A
    January 17, 2014

    The Richard Dawkins Foundation web site is always worth a visit, those that have noticed my web site will have seen a link there, which did break through changes at the RDF end, but works at present.

    John Sargeant has an apposite article posted yesterday: We Need Richard Dawkins And You</a.

    The underhand way that some go to get creationism taught in schools is once again highlighted here and Slashdot – Creationism In Texas Public Schools.

    Just as with fraking, no honest policies expected from that direction – creationism.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    January 17, 2014

    Argh!

    The Richard Dawkins Foundation web site is always worth a visit, those that have noticed my web site will have seen a link there, which did break through changes at the RDF end, but works at present.

    John Sargeant has an apposite article posted yesterday: We Need Richard Dawkins And You.

    The underhand way that some go to get creationism taught in schools is once again highlighted here and Slashdot – Creationism In Texas Public Schools.

    Just as with fraking, no honest policies expected from that direction – creationism.

  75. #75 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #72 Lionel A, just checking in, reading from below, stopped at #72 to find we are in love with the same mind. Dennett. I am aghast at him having had heart problems, didn’t know that.
    Recently lost Francisco Varela.
    For me this is all about cognition science (which I dub to be the follow-up of psychology like chemistry followed alchemy :) ).
    Mentioned Sam Harris in one of my first attempts to ward off over enthousiastic Wow today…
    Weiberg and Tyson appear new authors to me. If they are, please, into cognition science? I only incidentally do the atheismdiscussion really, as I am quite finished with God myself :)

    A present for Wow. Could’ve asked me what is my opinion about the activistic ways of Michael Mann re CAGW. It is so comparable in ways. If Wow calls teaching creationism or preaching christ is criminal, I call climate revisionism that, and climate revisionists actually too push there ‘educational’ materials on kids. Not to mention the affiliations of many of them, of course.
    Now, I fully support Mann and his ways.
    But I still have a problem with feeling the same way about counter-religious activism. Apparently this paradox is hard to explain.

  76. #76 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #69 Wow, actually I thought at first the link you presented in #64 was FROM creationists, not against them (operating on a certain school).
    So there was a misunderstanding.

    Still I will jump any country where creationism as presented the superior theory over evolution becomes obligatory school curriculum. That is a statement.

  77. #77 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #67, I love Dawkins. ‘The Selfish Gene’ is one of my bibles, oops, inspiration guides, whatever :)
    I think one can make a complete pic of what life is from those two Books by Darwin and Dawkins. It is a small step to understand from that subjects like consciousness and cognition.
    It does not mean I cannot or will not vent criticisms on statements or actions of either. Neither would I fly into a rage if someone criticises them. There’s the difference between me and the adept.

  78. #78 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #65…

    “A “9″ means “I could be persuaded of the existence of god if I can verify it”.”

    cRR: A ’9′ means I could be persuaded of Pi being an integer if I can verify it.
    Allright, so I am a ’9′.

    “A “10″ means “There is no such thing as God and no proof would change my mind”.”

    cRR: ‘Pi cannot be an integer and no proof of the contrary would change my mind.’

    This cannot be. If this is your interpretation of ’10′ then I fully understand why you call me stark raving mad. You would be so right you should call the white van now!
    Problem with that way of formulating ’10′ is that it is contradictory. If I state that ‘Pi cannot be an integer’ then I imply I have proof for Pi not being an integer, rendering the clause ‘no proof of the contrary would change my mind’ void.

    ’10′ applies when one possesses proof, while ’9′ still keeps open the possibility of there existing counterproof. I do not hold that door open.

  79. #79 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    Am ’10′ on CAGW too :)

  80. #80 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    A ‘gnostic atheist’.
    Why double things up all the time?
    Of course atheists know.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    January 17, 2014

    cRR

    Weiberg and Tyson appear new authors to me.

    Oops! My fault (I don’t have much feeling in fingertips so touch typing ain’t what it used to be), I dropped the ‘n’ in Weinberg. Steven Weinberg is a Nobel winning theoretical physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. Laurence Krauss is another theoretical physicists with a book of his joining those of Penrose, Smolin, Hawking, Sagan and Feynman amongst others.

    Two of my favourite Dawkins are ‘Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder‘ and ‘Climbing Mount Improbable‘ my favourite chapter ‘A Garden Enclosed being in that latter.

    Some fine essays from other notable writers, with introductions by Dawkins, are found in ‘A Devil’s Chaplain‘, Postmodernism Disrobed being a classic.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2014

    cRR Kampen, whilst I would prefer to discuss climate science, since atheism has been a big topic lately let me add a couple of observations.

    I explain his urge to shout on the streets from this difference, that is: his uncertainty.

    FWIW, I think the evidence points away from this hypothesis, and fairly clearly too. The stated reasons are rational and comport with much evidence.

    I would urge you to reconsider this line of reasoning.

    cRR, I find Wow’s interaction style challenging at times, but he has a number of good points and some of them you reconsider.

    As he and others have pointed out, from what I remember of The God Delusion your claim to be a “10″ on the scale Dawkins gave is in conflict with your claim to be open to new evidence of the supernatural and your claim not to be a fundamentalist atheist because a 10 is (by definition) a fundamentalist on this issue. Perhaps you meant a “10 for certain definitions of deities, but not for all such definitions”? If so, this distinction is absolutely crucial and you might want to take care to make it clear. And if so making the unqualified statement “I’m a 10″ is erroneous.

    Thirdly, you give a very strong impression of using a definition of “atheist”, at least when you qualify it as “true atheist”, that is more constrained than the base meaning of the word. Atheist simply means “lacking theistic beliefs”, so one may be a “6″ on the Dawkins scale and still truly be an atheist. The word “atheist” need not and most often does not imply “10 on Dawkins’ scale”, and usage of the word that implies that is far less common – and frequently causes confusion.

    If I state that ‘Pi cannot be an integer’ then I imply I have proof for Pi not being an integer, rendering the clause ‘no proof of the contrary would change my mind’ void.

    That implication does not follow, especially when the discussion has the context of fundamentalism. I might be convinced that my god would not allow pi to be an integer, for example, but would also honestly and accurately admit that I had no proof of that claim.

    ’10′ applies when one possesses proof,…

    No, this a logic error when applied to atheism. The analogy with a mathematical statement does not hold.

    “Atheism” is non-belief in the existence of every member of the set of proposed deities. You may have proof for a subset of those deities – and I claim that myself – but I guarantee that you do not have proof for each and every member of the set because some are defined in such a way as to be “logically possible” (i.e. not violating logic) but rendering the question of their existence unfalsifiable.

    Since one must not believe for each and every member of that set, some of which one does not have proof for, then one cannot be an atheist “10″ in the sense that you are using the term. (And IIRC Dawkins does not define 10 in the way you do, presumably for exactly this reason.)

    Please reconsider.

  83. #83 andyuk
    January 18, 2014

    “A “10″ means “There is no such thing as God and no proof would change my mind”.”

    disagree. its more like certainty there is no god – BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. its the exact inverse of a ’1′ type theist belief, which would is certainty there IS a god based on all available evidence.

    obviously a 10 atheist is much less irrational than a 1 theist as at least he has evidence to back it up!

  84. #84 cRR Kampen
    January 18, 2014

    #81 Lionel A, vaguely remembered the Nobelwinner but didn’t read thru the typo, it happens. Thank you again.

    #80 cRR (inner thought) – ‘gnostic atheism’ looks about as dumb a phrase as ‘postmodernism’…

    #82 Lotharsson, thank you for a great reply. Okay, notes:

    - to Dawkins’ activism, “I would urge you to reconsider this line of reasoning.” – I did so repeately, e.g. first lines of page 4/#99 and by comparing him to Michael Mann who’s activism I do support. I am inclined to agree with Lionel A and you on this.

    - “The word “atheist” need not and most often does not imply “10 on Dawkins’ scale”, and usage of the word that implies that is far less common – and frequently causes confusion.”
    True. This was the case as of the day it was coined. I decide to use it my way, which is the simplest, even if apparently not quite acceptable in discussions. Kind of vehicle to express my position.

    - “No, this a logic error when applied to atheism. The analogy with a mathematical statement does not hold.”

    You will need to back up this hypothesis.
    For this you will need to perform the operation that for some reason always lacks in debates like this. I’ll reserve some whitespace for it, because it is of paramount importance:

    Define God – so we know what we’re talking about.
    Then we can analyse the mathematicity of arguments proving/disproving His existence. Also only then can we determine whether the empirical-scientific method of studying the subject (you all so favour that practical method – which is why you can never win debates with theists :) ) is applicable at all.

  85. #85 cRR Kampen
    January 18, 2014

    #83 andyuk, no worries, we can agree to disagree, also we can agree to learn a bit one from the other’s position :)

    Note for Lotharsson, I might have to work with Russel’s Paradox: is the set of all sets a set? Then, what grounds the ‘existence of a set’?

  86. #86 cRR Kampen
    January 18, 2014

    “Perhaps you meant a “10 for certain definitions of deities, but not for all such definitions”? If so, this distinction is absolutely crucial and you might want to take care to make it clear.”, #82.

    Omnipotence as an attribute excludes His existence. I’m looking for more definitions of God, I hope participants would provide some.

  87. #87 FrankD
    January 18, 2014

    As is often the case, +1 on Lotharsson’s remarks.

    “The word “atheist” need not and most often does not imply “10 on Dawkins’ scale”, and usage of the word that implies that is far less common – and frequently causes confusion.”
    True. This was the case as of the day it was coined. I decide to use it my way, which is the simplest, even if apparently not quite acceptable in discussions.

    Which says that cRR’s position relies on a certain degree of Humpty-Dumptyism: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    cRR critiques Dawkins’ position on Dawkins’ scale based on his own interpretation of Dawkin’s scale, and then seems surprised that, in the absence of adequate clarification of that point people disagree.

    A page of hand-flapping back-and-forth and all we know is that Dawkins is a 9 and cRR a 10 on cRR’s scale, which is essentially undefined, but appears to top out at “I’m immune to any proof because I don’t believe that such a proof can exist”. I’m excited by the new-found knowledge that someone on the internet believes something quintessentially irrational.

    cRR has also alerted us that aggressively confronting people about their beliefs can harden rather than soften those beliefs, a point stated textually in various posts but also abundantly clear from cRR’s reaction to being confronted aggressively – to double-down on his errors, or simply ignore them.

    Since all of us have done time in the trenches against people who feel their beliefs trump the evidence, this has about the same revelatory quality as 50 posts reminding us that water is wet.

    Thanks for the heads up.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2014

    You will need to back up this hypothesis.

    It’s not a hypothesis. It’s a logical argument grounded in an axiom (and that is clearly valid in this universe).

    For this you will need to perform the operation that for some reason always lacks in debates like this.

    That is entirely unnecessary to my argument.

    Please read it again! It holds regardless of the definitions of the gods in the set. More specifically, it holds regardless of who specifies the definitions, regardless of whether I specify a definition myself for zero or one or any number of the set members, and it even holds if some of the definitions are unspecified! All it requires is that at least one of the god definitions has the property that its existence claim is unfalsifiable.

    This condition is clearly satisfied. There is at least one deity definition in the world whose existence is unfalsifiable, as the unfalsifiability is a common objection from atheists (and may be raised by some theists about other theists’ deities).

    Then we can analyse the mathematicity of arguments proving/disproving His existence.

    This is not a topic that I raised. Furthermore your response has the wrong multiplicity to address my argument which might indicate where some of your misunderstanding lies. My argument is about your use of the term “atheism” which is a claim about a property evaluated over the entire set of deities which have been claimed to exist by anyone at any time, rather than one specific deity.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2014

    Maybe I can put it as a three liner in case that gets through:

    1. The “10″ position on the Dawkins scale is an assertion that all gods do not exist.

    2. And one cannot prove non-existence for all gods as some of them are unfalsifiable, hence a “10″ position can never be proven.

    3. The proof that any specific god does not exist (even if someone calls that god “God”) changes neither (1) nor (2) nor (2)’s conclusion.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    January 18, 2014
  91. #91 FrankD
    January 18, 2014

    Scafetta’s quibbling about the literal meaning of “nepotism” (when the sense of the statement is perfectly clear) made me laugh hardest.

    This is rippling through the deniosphere, leaving a spume trail of outrage and conspiricy ideation in its wake. JoNova also has an article – unaccountably forgetting to include the “nepotistic” sentence until Stoat called her out.

  92. #92 BBD
    January 18, 2014

    It’s hilarious, but not so funny is the blithering incompetence at Copernicus. WTF were the publishers thinking of? Those responsible would be out on their arses had they worked for me.

  93. #93 Bernard J.
    January 18, 2014

    BBD, I suspect that Copernicus probably believed (or wanted to believe) that the nepoteurs would be true to their word – in which case PRP was another arrow in their quiver, which is always a commercial imperative for this sort of publisher. They’ve been stung, and embarrassingly so, and I suspect that they fell over themselves to jettison the denialist astrology once they realised what was being printed under their banner.

    Of course there were bells ringing from the outset and Copernicus should have seen past the wheedling rhetoric and looked at the roll-card of the promotors – anyone experienced with climate change denial would have immediately recognised a concerted campaign of a good slice of the who’s who in the Denialati. In this sense Copernicus is guilty at least of inexperience, but they have partially redeemed themselves by ceasing further publication.

    It will be interesting now to see which authors, if any, have the grace to retract their papers. I’m wondering if Copernicus might do so themselves down the track, in order to maximise the smack across the face of those who perpetrated this smuggling of climastrology into a nacent scientific publisher’s ledger.

    All this aside, I don’t think I’ve laughed this much about the Denialist modus operandi for months. Their pontificating is hilarious, and tragic at the same time – many really seem to believe that their stuff is science, rather than the fodder favoured by Nexus magazine.

  94. #94 BBD
    January 18, 2014

    Executives at Copernicus failed to exercise due diligence. They did not look into the background of the fake sceptics involved *despite* having misgivings and they were naive. Either failing at senior executive level would justify dismissal, so I would be terminating a contract or two.

  95. #95 chek
    January 18, 2014

    While it’s good and necessary to see some semblance of quality control asserting itself at Copernicus, the problem-ette now is that the story becomes the freezing out of “alternative” theories, (never mind the ATs complete inability to describe all the convergent lines of evidence and the authors’ previous) which he peanut gallery loves.

    On the bright side, by this time next week it’ll be some other nonsense occupying them.

  96. #97 bill
    January 19, 2014

    Batty, please link to the quote from Figueres – not an interpretation of the original interpretation provided by Bloomberg – that actually says ‘Communism is best for dealing with global warming.’

    While you’re doing that, you can also ponder that it’s people like you who are increasing the likelihood of the resort to totalitarian solutions to deal with the problem in future, precisely because you all insist that a democracy must be as stupid as you are. If you strident ideologues had got out the way, we could have been tackling these problems decades ago, preserving your beloved market, and the liberal democratic principles you claim to cherish, in the process.

    Your idiot tribe, for instance, is about the destroy a carbon take here in Australia, in the name of a slavish worship of billionaires that you hilariously conceive of as ‘libertarian’, twinned with a ‘you’re not the boss of me’ infantilism…

  97. #98 bill
    January 19, 2014

    Oh, and fans of the PRP fiasco might wander over to Watts’ and check out the proprietors remarkable comments about Scafetta’s work , and the surprisingly general commentary on the ‘curve-fitting skeptics’. A pattern really does emerge: the split with the Slayers; the split with what we might deem, onomatopoieacally, as the PaRPers; the centre of Denial simply cannot hold…

    Counteraccount? Hardly! AGW is a theory; its would-be Nemesis is a shambles.

    Fortunately for it, and sadly for history, there are many people as dumb as Batty..

  98. #99 bill
    January 19, 2014

    For the hatrick – who’s surprised that Batty is a Fox shill?

    There’s Dirt Stupid, and then There’s Fox Stupid

  99. #100 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2014

    Its pretty clear what kind of web sites Betty reads to gain his insights on the world. No wonder he can’t argue his way out of a soaking wet paper bag.

1 3 4 5 6 7 13