January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #88, “This condition is clearly satisfied. There is at least one deity definition in the world whose existence is unfalsifiable,…” – said Lotharsson.

    Challenge accepted. Please give such a definition as for me ‘that condition’ is not ‘clearly satisfied’.
    I will likely show you then one of two possibilities:
    – Your deity contains mutually excluding attributes rendering its non-existence a logical/mathematical fact (this holds automatically for all ‘omnipotent’ deities) or
    – Your deity is just another word for something that DOES exist but you just call it ‘(a) god’.

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #87 FrankD
    Checked the scale, it runs from 1 to 7 and… I’m 8. Dawkins apparently 6.9 .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

    The Humpty-Dumpty comparison can only arise from knowing about the history of the word ‘atheism’.
    First, you are working with the broad meaning of the word, while I choose it’s narrow (precise) meaning (as it stands today!!) -> first sentence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism .

    Not even so long ago, including in the continent where I live, ‘atheism’ could actually be just another theism: check that out.

    It is not at all unusual to call a position something while defining what one means by that something in order to clarify the position. Readers can try to suppy a better word, failing that they will have to make do with the author’s choice.

  3. #3 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    Correction on #2 –

    The Humpty-Dumpty comparison can only arise from knowing _nothing_ about the history of the word ‘atheism’.

  4. #4 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #1/cRR, ha, there IS a third possibility: the Secret God. It is the God that does absolutely nothing to make himself known. He has nil effect in the world, as if he actually didn’t exist. He takes up no space and whereever He is there is absolutely nothing to distinguish reality there from were he not there.

    If stating the existence of this God is unfalsifiable, then stating the existence of Nothing is unfalsifiable, because this God is Nothing.
    (short cut: therefore He does not exist by definition).

  5. #5 FrankD
    January 19, 2014

    Right – cRR says “I decide to use it my way” but the problem is that I (supposedly) know nothing of the history of the word. Doubly false, but in this case two wrongs don’t make a right.

    BTW, cRR’s assertion that his use of the term to mean “mathematically knowing there is no god” is “the simplest” (previous page of this thread) is also false, especially when that comes with the corollary that anything less that this “immune-to-evidence” position is not atheism. That stricture defies his own link to the definitions offered by Wikipedia, further emphasising that his usage of what should be fairly clear terminology remains idiosyncratic. A Humpty-Dumpty use of words if ever there was one. I wouldn’t mind so much if cRR actually took the trouble to clarify such usage.

    Finally, cRR’s characterisation of his use of the term as “precise” (and by inference that mine is not) is also false. Of course, with his habitual imprecision, he refers to the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, which contains only one definition. I presume he actually means the first two sentences, which list these definitions as “broad” and “narrow” repectively, but which are identical in scope, if not in exact meaning*. Both of these are different from the broadest definition offered in the third sentence. Is that what cRR is referring to as the broad position? Since trying to grok his meaning is a futile exercise given his idiosyncratic usage, I neither know nor care very much. I can say the second sentence does not appear to fit his own usage, and is certainly not consistent with mine.

    cRR – Words have meanings. If you want to have a sensible conversation, respecting those meanings, and clarifying usage where imprecise or idiosyncratic. Otherwise anyone who bothers to read your musings will simply wonder what the hell you are wittering on about. The only factually accurate statement I’ve really noted is that you had what I would describe as a religious epiphany during a traumatic period in your life which lead you to the firm and unshakable belief (no mathematical proof) that there is no god. But your comments are so hard to understand with the precision expected that I’m not even sure I have that right. This might be a good time to restate simply, clearly and precisely what you are trying to say.

    Consider this – you have asserted that the difference between Dawkins and you is that he feels the need to advertise his atheism (in contrast to the mathematician who feels no need to advertise a position on the irrationality of Pi).

    So – “challenge accepted”: find me any definition of atheism that considers proselytising as a component (positive or negative) of any stripe of atheism – hard or soft, implicit or explicit etc. This position – only the less-than-certain need to convince others – would imply for example that Jim Hansen is less convinced of the reality of Anthropogenic Climate Change than less vocal scientists because he chooses to advertise that conviction and try to convince others. I can’t believe that is what you truly think (unless you are an idiot); if it is not, then your assertions about Dawkins zeal are logically untenable.

    I believe from seeing your comments here and elsewhere that English is not your first language, in which case I must compliment you on your excellent grasp. However I do not consider that gives you a free pass to wave away errors – if they are semantic errors, clarify. If they are logic errors, own them and correct them. To date, you’ve done little of either, other than a couple of minor factual pick ups by Lionel (I think, I can’t be bothered verifying). What about the others?

    I’m fully aware that atheism can be just another religious belief (not a “theism”, by definition). From what you’ve posted, this fits your description of your own position. I would argue that anyone who claims a 7 on that scale is adopting a religious position, by definition (for the reasons Lotharsson has offered elsewhere).

    FD

    *We all understand that rejecting a thesis is not the same as subscribing to its antithesis, but the assertion that these are “broad” and “precise” respectively is absurd. If you think there is a relevant difference in this case between saying “I believe that people who believe in one or more gods are wrong” and “I believe there are no gods”, please elaborate.

  6. #6 FrankD
    January 19, 2014

    “because this God is Nothing.”

    Fail.
    (well at least that one was brief).

  7. #7 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Aargh! No! The god-scrap has re-ignited. Can’t we just talk about cats or something?

  8. #8 Betula
    January 19, 2014

    Bill..

    And how, according to Figueres, is China “doing it right”? The secret is communism…and the lack of civil liberties:

    “China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

    “Key policies, reforms and appointments are decided at plenums, or meeting of the governing Communist Party’s more than 200-strong Central Committee. The National People’s Congress, China’s unicameral legislature, largely enforces decisions made by the party and other executive organs

    Like I said…Three cheers for communism!

    C’mon Bill, shout it with me, you know you want to…

  9. #9 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    “I wouldn’t mind so much if cRR actually took the trouble to clarify such usage.”

    By ‘atheist’ I mean someone who knows there are no gods. For this reason ‘gnostic atheism’ is a tautology.

    I wonder how many dozen times you will ask me to repeat what I mean by ‘atheism’. By now it looks like you do not understand because you disagree with the position.

    If you have a better word than ‘atheist’ to describe my position, please come up with that. If not, let’s leave the word and talk substance.

    “… and clarifying usage where imprecise or idiosyncratic.”
    And repeat…


    “The only factually accurate statement I’ve really noted is that you had what I would describe as a religious epiphany during a traumatic period in your life which lead you to the firm and unshakable belief (no mathematical proof) that there is no god.”

    Misunderstood. I described an experience I had that OTHERS could call ‘religious’ or ‘an experience of God’ or whatever, and others HAVE DONE SO. I never had any kind of illusion like that. It did in no way change my mind about the existence or non-existence of God. But such experenciences have changed other people’s minds and that was the theme there.

    “I would argue that anyone who claims a 7 on that scale is adopting a religious position, by definition (for the reasons Lotharsson has offered elsewhere).”
    I know. Much like not believing in fairies is actually just another believing-in-fairies position.

    Now let us do some business. “There is at least one deity definition in the world whose existence is unfalsifiable.”

    It appears you and some others find it quite easy to come up with an actual definition of such a deity.
    But I haven’t seen one. This does not surprise me in the least and you know why.

    “then your assertions about Dawkins zeal are logically untenable” – See last page #84 and find

    – 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.

    I guess you missed that?
    Or is my English just too terrible?

    #6, French Fries.
    (well that was a way to say nothing at all).
    You are not able to define a deity that I cannot prove non-existent, and you are not able to assess certain definitions of deities that are in actual use at all. You are an agnost. Please be honest about that.

    #7, BBD, my cat is almost 16 years old, is a cross of a Siamese and a Persian and is called Gödel. Do you really want to go into Gödel here?

  10. #10 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    … Escher, Bach…

  11. #11 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    All together now coz Betty’s in da house:

    Then raise the scarlet standard high.
    Within its shade we live and die,
    Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
    We’ll keep the red flag flying here.

    ;-)

  12. #12 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    All this editorialising (ie lying) by right-wing liars is reprehensible. Following the chain of links back through various distortion sites to the original source, we find this (Bloomberg):

    China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.

    The nation has some of the toughest energy-efficiency standards for buildings and transportation and its support for photovoltaic technology helped reduce solar-panel costs by 80 percent since 2008, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York.

    The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said.

    “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

    China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

    Key policies, reforms and appointments are decided at plenums, or meeting of the governing Communist Party’s more than 200-strong Central Committee. The National People’s Congress, China’s unicameral legislature, largely enforces decisions made by the party and other executive organs.

    The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

    And that’s it. That’s what you bring to the table this time. A few statements of fact by Figueres and very large helping of right-wing lies. And as Figueres points out, it is the right wing liars and corporate shills that are obstructing climate policy in the US and indeed wherever they are to be found in the world. China, however, does not have right-wing liars fucking up its political process. Now that’s not an argument for communism it’s an argument against right wing liars and corporate shills.

  13. #13 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #10, neither, but Hofstadter is okay :)
    No, I’ll only respond if there is response again. This place deals with CAGW and its agitproppers. My stance on them? Snipe once a while on them for fun.
    The lesson will only be learnt thru confrontation anyway. This gutless coward will cheer for any Sandy (but NOT NJ and NY again) and today cheers for the Californian drought.
    I’m sitting back and enjoying the mayhem really.

    Beware of defending a subset of homo sapiens like this: “China, however, does not have right-wing liars fucking up its political process.” Privately I’m calling this ‘silly’, here I will call this ‘naive’. It is, unfortunately, a mighty pace in the direction Betty’s argument.

  14. #14 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Beware of defending a subset of homo sapiens like this: “China, however, does not have right-wing liars fucking up its political process.” Privately I’m calling this ‘silly’, here I will call this ‘naive’. It is, unfortunately, a mighty pace in the direction Betty’s argument.

    I don’t really understand this. Could you re-state?

  15. #15 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    For collectors of UKIP nuttery: Gay marriage to blame for storms according to this loon. You couldn’t make it up.

  16. #16 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #14 BBD, I mean there are ‘right-wing liars’ everywhere, certainly in China too, who ‘fuck up political processes’. Happens all the damned time. Even if of some of them liars call themselves ‘left’… It would be naive to believe that some country were free of them.

    But then, worse. If some country WERE free of such rightwing liars such a country is likely to be ‘left’ and to be, sorry for lending my own phrase this time, brutally authoritarian. Such a country would be the communist regime able to deal with CAGW causes.

    My fear is that this argument actually holds. We seem to need the type of government we abhor to deal with CAGW. Huge dilemma. My escape is based on my hope for more confrontation with CAGW, see, because when people really get the heat they’ll change their minds voluntarily instead of by regime dictate.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    January 19, 2014

    Escher, Bach…

    Aha, another book I have a copy of, Hofstadter – ‘Eternal Gold Braid‘, cannot say I have read the whole of it but I do appreciate the works of both Bach and Escher.

    That leads onto consideration of recursion and also the ‘Turtles all the way down’ idea (that Paul Davies used to introduce his SALK talk . Where we ask if there is a god then who or what created that god and so on.

    This in turn gives rise to consideration of the entity of ‘The Flying Spaghetti’ that Dawkins has referenced. For one idea of god is as good and as irrelevant as any other and that believing an a god, one who created the Universe but also intercedes on our behalf if we are penitential, or not as the case may be is irrational. [1]

    Now this cognitive creation of Wow’s,

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

    IMHO misses the mark, for what I consider is how one should look at this from the point of view of an atheist is:

    “There is no such thing as God (as defined here [1]) and proof of the existence of any such entity is highly improbable if not impossible, and thus not worth worrying oneself about”

    The strong view on this would be that finding a proof for the existence of ‘some entity called god) is impossible.

    That is not to say that one should discount why others who believe in such an entity behave in the way they do.

    As in many things to do with cognition and psychology the range of beliefs and behaviours could be placed along a continuum, thus there are no precise pigeon holes into which to put people for each forms their own cognitive framework according to the innate structure of the biology born with and to the environmental experiences along life’s path.

    Thus, each person is a distinct individual with personal traits even though brought up within the same cultural influences as others.

    It is clear that culture and language both play a role in how one views the world and my guess is the cRR Kampen has a different base for both of those factors from others here, and would thus have different perspectives.

    Thus to castigate cRR for the understanding he expressed, and bearing in mind that he modified his stance slightly but importantly, would be to act no better than the ‘inquisition’.

    When looked into atheism, agnosticism and similar concepts have tortuous and divergent origins and so we should not be surprised that there will be differences of opinion for this is the realm of metaphysics.

    As the saying goes, proof is for mathematics and alcoholic spirits and should not be expected for the origins of the universe.

    I very much doubt that humans will ever get to the end of this particular rainbow but it sure is interesting following the explorations both practical and theoretical. As it was put in the title of one of Feynman’s popular books, this is ‘The Pleasure of Finding Things Out:

    Is that not why each of us has appreciated the various facets of science that interest us.

  18. #18 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    #14 BBD, I mean there are ‘right-wing liars’ everywhere, certainly in China too, who ‘fuck up political processes’

    They don’t appear to be capable of the same degree of civilisation-paralysing obstructionism of climate policy in China. But yes, the only system capable of robust, unilateral action is going to be dirigiste at best and authoritarian at worst.

    The democracies would be fine were it not for the influence of corporate vested interest distorting public policy with a mix of money and lies. That, as I said, is really the problem. And the political enablers of vested corporate interest are almost invariably of the right.

  19. #19 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Logically an agnostic, emotionally an atheist. Can we leave it at that?

  20. #20 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Sorry, cRR, I haven’t really answered properly. What I should have said is that we (developed democracies, aka “The West”) need to expose and eradicate the subversion of democracy by vested corporate interests. These include front organisations pretending to be “think tanks” that peddle pseudoscientific misinformation via a compliant media and both overt and covert lobbying where this same pseudoscientific misinformation is used to paralyse the development of rational public policy.

    Lying to the electorate subverts democracy. Lying to politicians subverts democracy.

    At the moment, we are all sitting on our arses and letting it happen, and that must change. And soon.

  21. #21 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #19 BBD, the exact opposite holds for me!
    I’d like to leave it at that except for the following short notes:
    1) Lionel A #17, thank you. Notwithstanding differences about the meaning of the word ‘atheist’, I expect the ‘logic’ of my stance to be the real problematic for some here, as e.g. Wow and Lotharsson made quite clear.
    2). In #17 we read the thing: “… for this is the realm of metaphysics.” This I why I began with a ‘God is either part of reality, or he is not part of reality, or he is identical to reality’. It is why I question empiricism-based methodologies to analyse the subject, and it is why I want arguments presented for the as now gratuite hypothesis ““No, this a logic error when applied to atheism. The analogy with a mathematical statement does not hold.”” (#84, previous page).

    I’ll close this with almost a koan: how could an agnost evaluate the atheist’s proof?

  22. #22 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #20 BBD… “At the moment, we are all sitting on our arses and letting it happen, and that must change. And soon.”

    O my dear. How? What else can we do than provide education and push it here and there using only retoric? Looking at you, finding ‘BBD’ on many a blog (like my other agnost partners here), you call that ‘sitting on your arse’ and it’s bloody hard frustrating work!

    “Lying to the electorate subverts democracy. Lying to politicians subverts democracy.”
    Yes and I have stated such in quite extreme ways too. But what else can we, or Mann, or even Gleick do other than what we are doing now?

    One thing that disheartened me badly was the way Peter Gleick got derided for his exposure of the HI.

  23. #23 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Use the law. Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward has got the right idea. This is how you deal with the bastards.

    And public outreach. Enough time has been spent on the science; now it’s time to go all-out to break the story about the professional, paid misinformers and their secretive sponsors to the wider public. We all know about Donors Trust, but I have never – ever – met anyone not involved in the climate wars who has heard of it. But everybody gets angry when it is explained to them.

    People hate being lied to and they are distrustful of vested corporate interests. They are emotionally far more receptive to education on these topics than radiative physics and paleoclimate.

  24. #24 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    PG had the misfortune to get caught. If you are going to play games like that, you need to be sharp enough to avoid detection or you will get hammered. I valued the information he winkled out of HI hugely and avoided criticising him openly for his methods, but those who did had a strong case. It was all most unfortunate.

    The good news is that it did a great deal of apparently lasting damage to HI. And PG seems to have quietly recovered out of the public gaze. I expect the matter is now closed, professionally, for him.

  25. #25 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    “And public outreach. Enough time has been spent on the science; now it’s time to go all-out to break the story about the professional, paid misinformers and their secretive sponsors to the wider public.”
    My mission per the year 2006. I sought and found the mud. Shortly after I began to find that those layman disinformed ‘arguments’ had to come from some small unknown source, Jules on his climate blog republished a German blog on EIKE and CFACT. Out came Hans Labohm (see the base on Smogblog) The clincher was ‘Merchants of Doubt’.
    I actually went to a NIPCC thing in The Hague last October to look at those guys, Singer, Carter et cetera and decided the climate debate was done long ago – something else is going on.
    I made my methods quite polemic. Those who would not listen, wouldn’t. Others knew the reality of AGW and I had nothing to offer to them but a show of how the ‘debate’ could be done. Finally, there was a small group in the middle and I’ve seen them learn. Over the years some of them have begun the kind of work I was doing. Actually some have taken over :)

    #24, I am Wow’s ‘gutless coward’ (not, of course) and I do prefer law, democracy and verbal educational methods.

    Thanks for the GWPF-link.
    New Zealand Climate Science Coalition got sued and fined last year.

  26. #26 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    Slight correction, I said “I actually went to a NIPCC thing in The Hague last October to look at those guys, Singer, Carter et cetera and decided the climate debate was done long ago – something else is going on.”

    But I had that insight years before and THEN grabbed a chance to see um.
    It’s like a sekt.

  27. #27 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    New Zealand Climate Science Coalition got sued and fined last year.

    And haven’t paid a penny thanks to setting up as a trust, almost certainly to limit potential liability. But they are still scuppered, so it’s still a result.

  28. #28 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    “People hate being lied to and they are distrustful of vested corporate interests. They are emotionally far more receptive to education on these topics than radiative physics and paleoclimate.”
    True, but we’ll need some of those in order to get people to trust in climate science and not in Koch lobbies. The difficulty is climate change denying people consider the IPCC and everything involved to be the lobby of some big vested interest, ranging from wind power lobbies to NWO complottery.
    People have a general habit of mistrusting the trustable and trusting the untrustable. I am very pessimistic about this type of deadlock. Can be broken only by reality, that is confrontation. See what happened to Abbott’s poll numbers as a function of two heat waves.

  29. #29 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #27, the main thing about this is: the public have seen the thing.
    I expect this to drag like the tobacco kind of war. At some point payback for continuous disinformation WILL rise into the many billions. That point will be determined by confrontation – in this there is actually a difference with the tobacco situation (there was no escalating confrontation with the dangers of tobacco, and it was always damage to the smoking individual anyway).

  30. #30 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    We in Holland just cracked out – actually from a remark by the man himself – that our main climate revisionist of the day, Marcel Crok, is paid by GWPF. He is an ‘independent advisor of the government’ re AGW and now is shown to be not independent at all.
    Crok is one of the smarties. Lukewarmer. A dealer of doubt.
    Awaiting developments.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2014

    Crok is also linked with some pretty atrocious web logs here in Holland such as Climategate.nl. These people debate at the level of sophomores.

  32. #32 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    Jeff, that could still be explained as Crok having to move in the middle position and communicate from the diverse collectives and viewpoints involved.
    But, hah, yes, we know better.

  33. #33 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    cRR

    By sheer coincidence, I’ve only just learned that Richard Tol (advisory board, GWPF) is also on the advisory board of De Groene Rekenkamer, of which I’m sure you have heard.

    Small, small world, isn’t it?

  34. #34 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #17 Lionel A – “Hofstadter – ‘Eternal Gold Braid‘”- read it multiple times and into tatters while drifting, as an academic student originally of meteorology, into mathematics for the Butterfly Effect and, different subject, into ‘Formal unentscheidbare Sãtze…’ et c.
    So at some point in my life I got this cat, who spent a couple of days hours studying the phenomenon of the mirror, after which I decided this sweet bouncing fluff item just had to be called ‘Gödel’…

    To adress something you and someone else mentioned: whether English is my native language is a little hard to tell. Facts: born 1967 in Holland, couple months nomadic in Britain 1971, then 1972-76 Australia. That was Adelaide including primary school and the last 1.5 year or so nomadic, in a tent, across the country, my father become an artist painter and painting and selling well on the way.

    Since, I think in English most of the time. Read it a lot, of course. All this in a Dutch environment, but what does this matter exactly to me? Let me formulate like this: my native language has similarities to both Dutch and English but both were developed in my own (i.e. ‘native’) way.

    In professional writers it is called ‘style’ ;)
    ‘Archaic’ ways of speech are of course rather native Aspergian.

  35. #35 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    cRR

    Re Crok, is there anything online about this yet? I have a particular interest in our very own GWPF and would like to follow this up, verify etc.

  36. #36 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #33, yes. Tiny world. It just looks real big from all those astroturf reflections. Indeed ‘De Groene Rekenkamer’ is one of them in Holland, another is the despicable http://www.climategate.nl .

  37. #37 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    BBD #35, nothing online as far as I know (and I’d be among the first) re consequentials. Work and research are being done that wil hit the www some time soon, I’d guess.

    The spot of confession can be found at /Marcel Crok 11 januari 2014 at 19:46/ here: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/01/09/nieuwsuur-over-voetnoot-16/#comment-5072 .
    You will recognize ‘Neven’ as the Arctic Sea Ice Blog by Neven, http://neven1.typepad.com/ .
    I will translate part of Crok’s words there for you (that is, y’all).

    “Wat zou jij hebben gedaan als je in onze schoenen stond? Dus als je een paar maanden bijna fulltime aan een rapport had gewerkt dat het IPCC bekritiseert en waarvan je wilt dat mensen er via de media over horen? En, voor Lewis onbelangrijk, maar voor mij wel, dat wordt uitgegeven door een organisatie die bereid is iets van al het werk dat erin is gaan zitten te vergoeden?”

    Trans MC: ‘What would you have done in our place? So if you’ve worked about fulltime on a report that criticizes the IPCC and of which you want people to hear in the media? And, not relevant for Lewis but relevant for me, that is being published by an organization that is willing to pay a bit for all the work invested into it?”

  38. #38 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    #37 – I am always one to pay attention to minunscule words (like ‘if’, and ‘not’ – the two hardest in any vocabulary to grasp). In this case, it is ‘our’.
    “What would you have done in our place?” exasperates Crok. We never knew there was a ‘we’. We never knew officially, that is, we guessed and now we know.

    At this point I have to leave it at this. The machine’ll take care and I guess we will hear online. The process has government involved, including some material investments, and it wil take some time.

  39. #39 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    Thanks for that, cRR.

    I know that the Climate Dialogue project has government funding, so this is potentially rather juicy. As you say, we’ll have to see how it plays out. But this is exactly what I’m talking about – lifting the lid on organised denial. Joe Public doesn’t like being systematically conned and tends to pay attention to reportage which reveals systematic attempts to do just that.

  40. #40 cRR Kampen
    January 19, 2014

    Well summarized BBD. The ‘material investments’ have to do with CD, correct.

    The needs of Joe Public are hopefully served sooner than later on this one.
    For me the feeling is a bit like the sniper got the target under the cross, just a tiny press on the trigger… (yeah i know what I’m saying, sports shooter huh) And I won’t. Gutless coward considers the thing not worth the lead, or something. Gutless coward got a vision of the future of the guy, and it is enough see.

  41. #41 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    As a humble student of the long game, I can only agree.

  42. #42 BBD
    January 19, 2014

    And there’s nothing wrong with sports shooting (I’m assuming you mean target, given your mention of light trigger pull).

  43. #43 Sceptic
    January 19, 2014

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/19/australia-john-howard-climate-change-attitudes-polling-agnostics

    Denialists like John Howard don’t like reality, so they have to make it up as they go along.

    If you have to make things up when explaining your ideas, and those things are demonstrably wrong, should that not be a hint that your ideas need rethinking?

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2014

    BBD, Tol is on the advisory board of the groene rekenkamer????? It gets worse! I was going to invite Tol to present a lecture at a course I am running at the Free University in Amsterdam (VU) on Science and Society (you know, to get some kind of ‘balance’ as demanded from above) but if this is true then his position is becoming untenable IMHO. The groene rekenkamer is, as far as I am concerned, a kindergarten level site, and anyone associated with it does not deserve any kind of attention. Tol has a position at the VU and I’d like to meet him. But why on Earth does he associate with such appalling groups. if indeed this is true?

  45. #45 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    BBD #42, pacifist not in denial about certain instincts… Sports it is and nothing else.

    Jeff, trouble, the shit ever higher & deeper. Imo we can safely assume all higher profile climate revisionists are affiliated with lobby (until proven otherwise – but it doesn’t seem to happen). My conviction is you should never invite them, but well perhaps you (still) have to.

    When Climate Dialogue was set up I dismissed the initiative out of hand there and then in inner circles. CD could never work because dialogue on climate change is over.
    If the initiative be called like ‘climate change policy dialogue’ the thing would have been fair, as long as moderation would cut out any discussion on CAGW itself and as long as all participants really talk policy and all readers know this. On CD the situation is like Archer’s “The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR.”

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2014

    cRR Kampen,

    I certainly do not want to invite them, but if I do I am prepared. I debated Lomborg in Ede in 2002 and gave him a rough time. Since then he’s either withdrawn or politely declined to face me again. He knows I’ll skewer his ‘facts’ with more gusto the next time around, so he sticks on safe ground. These guys don’t scare me, because they don’t have science on their side and, if truth be told, there science is very poor.

  47. #47 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    Roger that Jeff, if that is the case, well… welcome him :)
    Audience much more knowledgeable than that of the NIPCC scam of course.

  48. #48 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “The needs of Joe Public are hopefully served sooner than later on this one.”

    Where Joe is given leave to act and not forbidden by corporations from taking their own way (see also Municipal WiFi and ISPs for an example in a different field), they are doing quite well.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/solar-panels-on-half-a-million-uk-buildings-figures-suggest

  49. #49 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    Now this cognitive creation of Wow’s,

    Not mine, Lionel. Kampen was claiming that Dawkins claimed himself, on an atheist scale of 1 to 10, a 9.

    The definition Dawkins used was not the one Kampen used, but the one I put and you attributed to me. To whit:

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

    Not my creation. The accurate one that Kampen distorted to ensure Dawkins was “no true atheist”.

    IMHO misses the mark, for what I consider is how one should look at this from the point of view of an atheist is:

    Doesn’t matter: it was about what scale Dawkins self confessed as a 9 as an atheist.

  50. #50 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “There is no such thing as God (as defined here [1]) and proof of the existence of any such entity is highly improbable if not impossible, and thus not worth worrying oneself about”

    Theists do this too.

    About every other god.

  51. #51 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “I wouldn’t mind so much if cRR actually took the trouble to clarify such usage.”

    By ‘atheist’ I mean someone who knows there are no gods. For this reason ‘gnostic atheism’ is a tautology.

    That is your own personal definition. Might as well call it “Cabbage”. The definition of atheist is: lacks a belief in god or gods.

    If you’re going to make up your own dictionary, please publish its entire contents, or we’re left in Wonderland, talking to Humpty-Dumpty.

    Knowledge is in the realm of gnosticism. Belief in the realm of theism. Lack of one is denoted by the negation modifier “A-“.

    If you have a better word than ‘atheist’ to describe my position

    Nobody here, unlike you yourself, has ever claimed that you’re not an atheist. Please stop trying to play martyr here.

    I know. Much like not believing in fairies is actually just another believing-in-fairies position.

    And bald is a hairstyle, dark is a colour, not collecting stamps a hobby. No, it’s a lack of belief.

    A privative.

    Do you claim that you should keep the curtains closed in the winter “to keep out the cold”?

    It appears you and some others find it quite easy to come up with an actual definition of such a deity.
    But I haven’t seen one.

    The Christian Bible. Old Testament.

    This does not surprise me in the least and you know why.

    Yeah, you’re a moron.

    Most atheists know more about the religion their society believes in than that believing section of the society do.

    It informs their atheism.

    You, however, are as clueless about the religions you refuse as they are about the religion they profess.

    Another faithiest-like tell from you.

  52. #52 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    ” the corollary that anything less that this “immune-to-evidence” position is not atheism”

    It is atheism: lack of belief in God.

    It’s as dogmatic as any religion, but it doesn’t make it a theism.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    *We all understand that rejecting a thesis is not the same as subscribing to its antithesis, ”

    Which would be what?

    What is the anthithesis of “cutting your hair”? Remember, “letting it grow” is what it does to require cutting in the first place.

    Some things don’t HAVE an anthithesis.

    Speed of light’s antithesis? Speed of Dark? Stillness of light?

  54. #54 Wow
    January 20, 2014

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

    Go read The God Delusion.

    The definition is in there.

    10 means as dogmatically for there being no god as Eric Hovind is for there being a god.

  55. #55 Wow
    January 20, 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.

    On the Dawkins scale, that would be anywhere from a 7 to 9. I.e. “If God turned up in front of me and proved himself, I’d change my mind”. Remember, at that point it isn’t a matter of belief, any more than seeing a platypus is a matter of belief in such an animal existing.

    The only gods (that exist as gods) that are immune to falsification are deist gods and pantheism, where the former does nothing on this reality, and the latter is the sum of all this reality, and says nothing about whether there is a drive rather than merely action and reaction (a la amoeba).

  56. #56 Lionel A
    January 20, 2014

    Most atheists know more about the religion their society believes in than that believing section of the society do.

    It informs their atheism.

    Which is true of myself. I was the grandson of Baptist minister [1] and grew up with constant reminders of ‘the will of god’. Little wonder then that in my early teens I was Baptised and even sat a scripture examination under the auspices of the National Sunday School Union and gaining top place in the Upper Middle Division. I have just pulled out, from a concordance I was given about that time, the side slip of the paper with the questions upon it.

    The questions were nearly as searching as those in an examination I sat in Aeronautical Engineering Science (AES) at a later date, each question of which involved knowledge of the whole curriculum. Indeed these AES question were so stiff that the invigilator nearly blew a fuse before handing the papers out.

    At a later date I picked up a copy of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, in a branch of SPCK of all places, and the rest is history. Back then, about 1962, much less was known about evolution and geological dating and extinct species had a long way to go. It is clear that there is still much to learn, that is part of the fun even now nearing seventy.

    Alongside extra studies involved in my day job (with frequent night watches too) I continued attempting to keep up with the field of palaeontology and biology the latter having a qualification in.

    Study of psychology and cognitive development came later during a University degree course with more Maths and Science. The humanities (the role of Multi-nationals featuring large) and the arts were not neglected. I thus consider myself pretty broadly educated with depth in some areas. These latter never deep enough hence my continued push to learn more.

    I think this outlook, of wishing to learn more, is in stark contrast to arguing the pro’s and con”s of the meaning of sentences in some ‘Holy Writ’ which are probably nothing more than the edited memory collective of a selective set of human tribes. As a comment on the mores of these past civilizations they may have some historical value but as rules for behaviour – which rules would you like to follow seems the order of the day.

    One only has to read English dynastic history from the Angevines to the Stuarts to realise what an explosive (sorry for the image of Fawkes) mix these Holy Writings can be. True ‘The Word of God’ is often used as cover for naked greed and dynastic feuds. And this without touching on the behaviour of Israel and the Palestinians The long dark shadow of Jericho etc..

    [1] He always wanted me to join the ministry. I kinda a got it wrong by working for the Ministry of Defence. ;-)

    Although in truth when I joined it was under the auspices of The Admiralty.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2014

    Please give such a definition as for me ‘that condition’ is not ‘clearly satisfied’.

    Well, you got pretty close on your own.

    …the Secret God. It is the God that does absolutely nothing to make himself known. He has nil effect in the world, as if he actually didn’t exist.

    As Wow indicated, various forms of deism claim that a deity created the universe and then left it alone. Some specifically claim that this was done by specifying “natural laws” and simply letting them take their course so that the universe is indistinguishable from one that arose with the same laws but wasn’t created by their deity.

    Other “sophisticated theology” defines God in very waffly language as the “uncaused cause” or “the ground of all being” or the “unmoved mover” or the “non-contingent contingency” or some such. The existence of these types of deity is generally unfalsifiable – by design, one suspects.

    The fact that you haven’t come across these yourself doesn’t mean these definitions aren’t provided by believers.

    Much like not believing in fairies is actually just another believing-in-fairies position.

    Logic fail. That isn’t a valid analogy to what was actually said.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2014

    I was the grandson of Baptist minister [1] and grew up with constant reminders of ‘the will of god’.

    I go two better ;-) I have ministers in the last three generations of my family.

    Most atheists know more about the religion their society believes in than that believing section of the society do.

    In a lot of cases, atheists know more about the holy books of that religion than believers do too. For Christianity one of the common causes of becoming an atheist is actually reading the thing!

  59. #59 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “In a lot of cases, atheists know more about the holy books of that religion than believers do too.”

    Well, that’s what I said too, except I was couching it such that it was just the religion most known about where they grew up.

    So Zoroastraism isn’t well known in Western Europe or the USA. By either atheists or theists in those countries. Better well known by people living in the middle and far east, but not so much here.

    Bhuddism has many sects, and the one known most by atheists in the west is the oldest one, but not the most relevant when talking about the believers.

    Exceptions to the rule will exist in numbers, but those numbers will be slanted more to the atheist than theist, since the former has no dogma telling them they should not believe that rubbish.

    I probably know as much as the equally-educated theist on, for example, mayan religion. Poppa-putta-kettelon, for example… :-D

  60. #60 FrankD
    January 20, 2014

    Wow #51 & #52 has picked up on the points I was making. Regrettably, they seem to have passed cRR by.

    Just to reiterate/clarify – my statement that Wow quotes at #51 is a falsehood embedded in cRR’s “definition”, not my own construct, and that quoted at #52 was simply a general qualifier to the point that in this case at least both thesis and antithesis are effectively the same (despite cRR claiming to perceive some difference).

    WRT BBD going all gatekeepery (/sarc) about goddy stuff, I would agree that its a pretty uninteresting topic generally (my own religious position being best summed up briefly as “I couldn’t give a toss about anyones imaginary friend”), but I have been intrigued throughout the cRR’s discussion / argumentation style is often uncannily similar to that of AGW deniers. That has been my point of engagement, and since he seems reasonable enough, hopefully, that will be something cRR might choose to learn from. Regardless of the merits of his position, his approach to discussing it is very broken.

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2014

    One of the wonderful outcomes of our corporate inverted totalitarian capitalist system:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/oxfam-warns-davos-of-pernicious-impact-of-the-widening-wealth-gap-9070714.html

    I am sure that Betty would like to comment on this. In my view, its abhorrent, and largely underpins the massive social, economic and environmental problems that we are facing. Unless this is remedied, I don’t see much hope for our species.

  62. #62 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    #50 Wow – “The Christian Bible. Old Testament.”

    – Which one. Genesis? JHWH? Having chosen one, define him/Him precisely.
    E.g. how does the OT definition of JHWH which is something like ‘I am what/who I am’ or ‘I am becoming who/what I am becoming’ et cetera define JHWH as a deity?

    I repeat: you are not able to come up with even one example. So you do a bit of handwaving direction OT and I’m to sort the mess out. Well, I obliged, see above, because I’ll be damned if don’t trust you. But please quit the namecalling, it only distracts from what you wish to convey.


    I know. Much like not believing in fairies is actually just another believing-in-fairies position.

    And bald is a hairstyle, dark is a colour, not collecting stamps a hobby. No, it’s a lack of belief.

    You understood my remark, well done.

    —-
    Original Dawkins Scale is 7 points, not 10.
    The scale is circular, therefore hardly usuable.
    See: 7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”
    This suggests ‘not believing in fairies is just another belief-in-fairies position’.

    Furthermore, it corrupts the meaning of ‘to know’, effectively equating it with ‘to believe’.

    On this, his, scale Dawkins mentioned in an interview he’d place himself at ‘6.9’.
    I will make and take in spot 8. The reason is I do not know my thesis ‘there are no deities’ in the same way as Jung ‘knows’ there is/are. The difference being I know, but Jung believes with utter conviction.
    The math metaphor not for nothing, mate.

    Now you may disagree with my position, but you cannot take the position away wholesale, putting your interpretation of my position in its stead.

    How could an agnost like you evaluate the proof of an atheist like me?

  63. #63 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    #50 Wow – “The Christian Bible. Old Testament.”

    – Which one. Genesis? JHWH?

    Genesis is the chapter title.

    E.g. how does the OT definition of JHWH which is something like ‘I am what/who I am’ or ‘I am becoming who/what I am becoming’ et cetera define JHWH as a deity?

    How? By not definiing god as ” something like ‘I am what/who I am’ or ‘I am becoming who/what I am becoming’ et cetera”. That’s how.

    Go read it.

    I repeat: you are not able to come up with even one example

    I did. You however just went “No, that’s not the definition you’re looking for” whilst waving your hands at me.

    You understood my remark, well done.

    Then you admit you were talking bollocks. You’re getting better. Try not talking bollocks in the first place next time, everyone wins then.

    Original Dawkins Scale is 7 points, not 10.

    Nope, it’s a 10. It has to be for him to define himself as a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10, otherwise he’d have to say he was a6 on a scale of 1 to 7. You know, using numbers in the set assigned.

    I realise it’s all a bit mathy for you, but that’s Hilbert for you!

    The scale is circular

    No it isn’t.

    On this, his, scale Dawkins mentioned in an interview he’d place himself at ’6.9′.
    I will make and take in spot 8.

    If you’re now claiming he’s saying he’s a 7 on a scale of 1-8, why did you claim he said he’s a 9 on a scale of 1-10?

  64. #64 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    “If you’re now claiming he’s saying he’s a 7 on a scale of 1-8, why did you claim he said he’s a 9 on a scale of 1-10?”

    Because I was mistaken and took a quote from some media outlet when I composed that post (over a year ago, mind you). The thing it’s about is that Dawkins doesn’t put himself at the extreme end of his scale. Surprised me.


    The scale is circular

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is. Now this serves as a nice example of the situation here. You BELIEVE the scale is not circular (and cannot provide arguments). But I KNOW it is and I showed how.

    Unless you really do think knowing and believing are synonyms.


    “Then you admit you were talking bollocks.” Of course, except I call that sarcasm :) You ARE catching up :)

    “Go read it.” – so you didn’t even know there are a host of totally different ‘deities’ in the OT?

  65. #66 BBD
    January 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey

    BBD, Tol is on the advisory board of the groene rekenkamer????? It gets worse! I was going to invite Tol to present a lecture at a course I am running at the Free University in Amsterdam (VU) on Science and Society (you know, to get some kind of ‘balance’ as demanded from above) but if this is true then his position is becoming untenable IMHO.

    Apparently it is true, but you can always ask him to verify this – and you obviously will if you do consider inviting him to lecture. I have to say now that I have had several online exchanges with RT recently and found him to be consumed by bad faith and astonishingly anti-climate science. Astonishingly.

    Apparently, he’s also messing up young people’s minds with the help of DGR. Look here:

    Our Green Court Foundation is gaining momentum. Niek Rodenburg a new president, private accommodation in a beautiful building in Apeldoorn, two economics students carry out research supervised by Prof. dr. Dr. Richard Tol (about which more soon), a new logo, and last but not least, this new website with iDeal donation option.

    (Dutch language original page)

  66. #67 Lionel A
    January 20, 2014

    For Christianity one of the common causes of becoming an atheist is actually reading the thing!

    Darwin aside, that was partly the case with myself and the memory of reading e.g. Genesis and Exodus is why I found Dawkins’ description in Chapter 2 of The God Delusion’ so apt.

    Dawkins on page 239 of TGD (hardback) writes WRT the Dover School Board case over creationism in the US and Pat Robertson’s warning about risking god’s wrath by invoking disasters:

    Pat Robertson would be harmless comedy, were he less typical of those who today hold power and influence in the United States.

    This is the tragedy of humanity, held ransom by those who cloak themselves in a theology which believes that The Bible is the truth because all the works of Science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house.

    It so happens that it was Republican John Shimkus who stated WRT CO2, and one can almost hear Morano’s voice:

    It’s plant food … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.

    He also invoked Noah as having promised that Earth would not again be destroyed by flood as an attempt to allay fears about global warming induced sea level rise.

    Of course he probably didn’t realise that he was challenging Jim Inhofe’s claim that ‘global warming is a hoax’.

    Is what we see in the US the result of much ‘Home Schooling’ or similarly narrowly focused curricula? This is what bothers me about Gove’s education policies, if one can stretch the meaning of that term, in the UK.

  67. #68 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    #62 Wow, ” By not definiing god as ” something like ‘I am what/who I am’ or ‘I am becoming who/what I am becoming’ et cetera”. That’s how.”

    According to the OT that is the definition JHWH gave of ‘himself’ when asked by Mozes who He is:
    “I am the eternal God. So tell them that the Lord,
    whose name is “I Am,” has sent you. This is my name forever, and it is the name that people must use from now on.”
    (Ex 3:13-15 according to http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bible=Bible&m=Ex+3&id32=1&pos=0&set=3&l=en ).

    But in Ex 6:1-3 we find something else: ” 1 The Lord God told Moses:
    Soon you will see what I will do to the king. Because of my mighty power, he will let my people go, and he will even chase them out of his country.
    2 My name is the Lord.
    3 But when I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I came as God All-Powerful and did not use my name.”

    In Genesis, things are way different. There we find an undefined God unless we consider the very first lines a ‘definition of God':
    ” 1 In the beginning God
    created the heavens
    and the earth.
    2 The earth was barren,
    with no form of life;
    it was under a roaring ocean
    covered with darkness.
    But the Spirit of God
    was moving over the water. ”
    (Gn:1-2).

    That definition is actually even schizofrenic… There are God and like a quantum symmetry break already happened there’s His Spirit as well.

    Take it from here, I tired of walking you through everyffwhere.

  68. #69 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    Because I was mistaken

    God Delusion, however, DOES have his definition as I claim. I’m not mistaken on that. I think you read what you think reinforces your preconceptions and, since they are unsurprising, do not bother to check further.

    I had, before reading that book, “taken it as read” that Dawkins was abrasive and abusive to christianity and religions in general. I bought the book eventually to see for myself.

    It wasn’t anything like it had been portrayed as.

    Yes it is.

    No it isn’t, any more than the X axis scale is circular. On a scale of atheism, it IS NOT circular.

    On a scale of dogmatism WHICH IS NOT ATHEISM, IT IS ORTHOGONAL, it is as dogmatic on either end of the scale, and is so on the 1-10 scale used in TGD.

    But it isn’t circular on atheism.

    But if it were, are you saying that YOU are the relgious atheist? Because before you were claiming Dawkins as being so, but now you claim you’re on the adjacent side of the circle to the “1”. The least atheist side.

    Unless you really do think knowing and believing are synonyms.

    That “unless” doesn’t fit, dear.

    YOU are the one claiming you KNOW and therefore you’re “more atheist”.

    *I* am the one telling you that’s not (a)theism, that’s (a)gnosticism.

    Unless you still believe that knowing is the same as believing, therefore (a)theism == (a)gnosticism.

    “Go read it.” – so you didn’t even know there are a host of totally different ‘deities’ in the OT?

    So you’re saying that all of them are different, but their differences aren’t in the OT?

    Because otherwise, the differences and the “template” are both described there, so a plurality of gods are defined.

    THEY ARE STILL DEFINED.

    Apparently you haven’t a clue what’s in there other than a “gut feeling”.

    PS they put Baal to the scientific test. They “proved” he didn’t exist.

  69. #70 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    According to the OT that is the definition JHWH gave of ‘himself’ when asked by Mozes who He is

    Yeah, there’s more to the bible than that, dear.

  70. #71 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    #69, then JHWH does not exist, if He is defined by ‘all-powerful’.
    The only solution to the medieval riddle ‘Can He make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?’.

    “So you’re saying that all of them are different, but their differences aren’t in the OT?”
    They are. In some cases the God is omnipotent, in others He is not. In some cases the God is personal, in others he is above all personality.

    Question: multiple deities, or different manifestions of one?

  71. #72 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    And I don’t even want to begin about the various Gods who sent a son to earth…

  72. #73 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    #69, then JHWH does not exist, if He is defined by ‘all-powerful’.

    Therefore your demand that the god that is in the bible be determined as to whether it can be falsified has been answered, despite your assertions that it was not possible.

  73. #74 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “And I don’t even want to begin about the various Gods who sent a son to earth”

    Only one in the bible did that.

  74. #75 Wow
    January 20, 2014

    “In some cases the God is omnipotent, in others He is not. In some cases the God is personal, in others he is above all personality.”

    And some days I’m chatty and some day’s I’m morose and disinclined to be sociable.

    This doesn’t mean there are two me or that I don’t have my own definite character.

  75. #76 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    #74 Wow – we are converging.
    Skip it and begin treating the attribute of omnipotence.

  76. #77 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    Looks like Wow is solving a kind of NP-completeness theorem.

  77. #78 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    “PS they put Baal to the scientific test. They “proved” he didn’t exist.”

    In the realm of metaphysics, this is entirely void.
    You need different tools.

    I read ‘Der Antichrist’ by Nietzsche some 20 years before ‘The God Delusion’. Try it, texts are online. I mean, was seasoned. I didn’t confuse ‘abrasive’ with ‘rational’. But of course, so don’t you.

  78. #79 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    Lotharsson. Thanks for those responses I finally got to (personalizing my reading thru all the rough styles here).

    “… various forms of deism claim that a deity created the universe and then left it alone. Some specifically claim that this was done by specifying “natural laws” and simply letting them take their course so that the universe is indistinguishable from one that arose with the same laws but wasn’t created by their deity.”

    Alright, trust me, I know these and a nice collection of other thinkings.
    In quote, you cite two possibilities. In both, the meaning of existence comes into question. Pushing a deity beyond the universe is effectively taking that deity out of existence.
    _OR_
    The existential question of this deity is equivalent to the existential question of universes (or castles, with theapots) outside ‘our own’. The latter is a purely scientific question rendering the deity open for falsifiable attribution hypotheses.

    I, then, am probably unable to falsify for you the following statement: ‘Physicist Hawking is hunting for God’. Otoh, I win again :)

  79. #80 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    #78, deities outside of this realm have nothing to offer to believers.
    (I know this is an entirely different subject from existential proofs. Also, lol)

  80. #81 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    FrankD #59.

    In the ears of AGW deniers, we AGW-realists meet the exact same kind of mistrust.
    As reality keeps the same, as we keep telling people about reality we push and push the same message over and over again, because wth else can we do. So they hear agitprop.

    I have introduced for all the following.

    I have erected the Pi Sekt and I am its leader. We believe the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle is a transcendent number. And we simply boot those who believe otherwise.

    Attack the mathematicians for their religious stubornness re truth. They are the real evil. They even believe there are exactly one hundreds cents to every dollar. They believe there is no universe in which two cherries can be divided evenly over three hands without cutting either or both. Fuck mathematicians!
    And logicians (we know predicate logic and cherry dividing are identical).
    Ah, the Pi Sekt :)

    No worries, I tend to use that against revisionists. For some reason they don’t like it much.

  81. #82 cRR Kampen
    January 20, 2014

    One hundred cents./erratum

  82. #84 Olaus Petri
    January 21, 2014

    I have to admit that you were right all along Jeff. Cold weather is a right wing conspiracy:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152181393010281&set=a.10150141139700281.328977.140379955280&type=1&theater

  83. #85 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #82, checked on that page. None of the responders ever checked whether it was really cold during the ships entrapment.
    Because is wasn’t. Temps during that week ranged from normal to very mild indeed (anomalies +10° C or more).

    http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD_LSTAD_D

  84. #86 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #83 (of course I assume ‘everyone’ knows in which spot that happened)

  85. #87 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “I have introduced for all the following.

    I have erected the Pi Sekt and I am its leader. …load of boring bullshit…”

    Yes, Kampie, we know you blather on about Pi.

    So you don’t like people telling other people what they think unless it’s you.

    We know.

    It’s fucking tiresome, but fuck do we know…

  86. #88 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #74 Wow – we are converging.
    Skip it and begin treating the attribute of omnipotence.

    Only by your backtracking to somewhere on the parallel dimension back to the rabbit hole.

  87. #89 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Woof Woof Woof, Olap

  88. #90 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #85, re Pi, yes of course, and you seem to be the only one who continues unable to understand why.
    Also in this case you totally missed the meaning of that use of Pi, which is a pity, because you could use it on topic.

    I wonder if you got the remark about NP-Completeness :) Better not respond, it’s just a little to ‘abstract’, huh, while of course deities are always open to scientific research :)

  89. #91 Olaus Petri
    January 21, 2014

    Wow, I’m sure it was common knowledge to you. I’m the one standed corrected here, not you. ;-)

  90. #92 BBD
    January 21, 2014

    Olaus

    Weather is not climate. You are not a sceptic. Radiative physics works. This is boring.

  91. #93 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #90, actually in this case it was climate, not weather ;)

  92. #94 Jeff Harvey
    January 21, 2014

    Olaus, since when did I ever say there was a conspiracy? That implies a hidden agenda. As far as funding the denial movement, its out in the open. Same thing with respect to so-called democracy where corporations are in charge. Common knowledge. Or should be. Its just that idiots like you think that sticking their heads up their a**** is a way to learn about the world, or, more importantly, shut out the information that does not fit in with their pre-determined world views.

    You know, Olly, I’d love to debate you face-to-face. It would be fun throwing bags of facts at you that you do not know. All you’d be able to do would be to cry out, “Its a conspiracy!’ That’s what hes saying!”

    Truth is, Olaus, you are as thick as a brick wall. Alternatively, you may be intelligent, but you are ignorant. You clearly source a limited amount of information. Pretty well everything you read about science comes from a few denier blogs. And from this you think you are ‘informed’. Ditto politics. This is why I’d love to debate you. It would be a cake-walk.

  93. #95 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Woof Bark, Olap.

  94. #96 Jeff Harvey
    January 21, 2014

    Speaking of which, great critique on the corporate media by Jonathan Cook…. highlighting strengths and weaknesses in an article by George Monbiot. TThis is the kind of analysis lacking in the mainstream. Just like the video clip of the Real News Network interview with Chris Hedges I posted up here a week ago. For clarity, here are both plus a great critique of how capitalism has failed in terms of safeguarding the environment.

    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-01-21/our-political-passivity-was-engineered/

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10456

    These articles and itnerview aren’t aimed at Olaus. The content goes way over his head.

  95. #97 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Not entirely true, Jeff.

    The astroturf industry (e.g. Heartland Institute) refuse to disclose their funding.

    Indeed when the funders’ names were found by investigation, the HI lost a LOT of funding because those donating DO NOT WANT to be known to be donating.

    So there’s a hell of a lot of stuff NOT out in the open on the deniers side.

    Greenpeace show who donates.

    Why not those “think” tanks?

  96. #98 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “#85, re Pi, yes of course, and you seem to be the only one who continues unable to understand why.”

    No, I understand why: you’re a funking lunatic, dear.

    What you don’t seem to realise is that it does nothing to illustrate anything other than your insanity.

    “I wonder if you got the remark about NP-Completeness”

    Ah, so the reason why you continue to prattle the pi-bull is because don’t get the fact that mathematicians DO do as you lampoon.

  97. #99 BBD
    January 21, 2014

    Donors Trust.

  98. #100 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #96, hey Wow, remember you were working on the task of unifying the biblical deities?
    I only wanted to give you a hint, agreed, a somewhat oblique one, with that ‘NP-Completeness’.
    A phrase you never heard of either, so you looked it up, and I’m so happy to have taught you yet another piece of thinking tooling which you will use later when you think you don’t have to thank cRR for it :)

1 4 5 6 7 8 13

Current ye@r *