January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    January 21, 2014

    Dear Jeff, why don’t you throw some facts in my direction right now? I have ask you numerous times to come up with some hard facts that will drag the Elders of fossil fuel (fighting climate science) out in the open.

    Your strong emotions and feelings are only good for identifying you as a conspiracy theorist.

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #99 Olaus Petri so how would you recognize a ‘hard fact’? What exactly do YOU mean by that?

  3. #3 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #96, hey Wow, remember you were working on the task of unifying the biblical deities?

    Nope.

    Know why?

    Because I decline your offer to participate in your alternate reality.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Bark Woof Bark Whine, Olap.

  5. #5 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #1 yes Wow, you also started out with crying ‘I’m not interested’, which I knew meant: you’ve an obsession.
    You are participating. I wonder why it hurts that much.

  6. #6 BBD
    January 21, 2014

    Olaus

    You have been left behind. You are now in the minority denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW so the burden of proof shifts to you.

    You can provide us with some FACTS supporting your rejection of the standard scientific position. Be sure to reference your argument to the published literature.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    January 21, 2014

    Olaus, why should I do your homework for you? The internet is full of sources; as are books by Sharon Beder, Andrew Rowell, and many others. Ever hear of the word ‘lobby’? Ever wonder why the fossil fuel ‘lobby’ spends so much money ‘lobbying’ members of Congress and the Senate? Ever wonder why they fund think tanks and astroturf groups? Or do you think they actually don’t do those things? Where are we supposed to begin?

  8. #9 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #1 yes Wow, you also started out with crying ‘I’m not interested’

    Nope, another fiction from Alice.

    I said I was uninterested in your anecdotes.

    It was not the thing I started with.

    Two fails because you live in a world of make-believe.

    What mental compunction exhorts you to such displays of idiocy?

  9. #10 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Is it the same compunction that drives duffer and olapdog?

  10. #11 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #6, “I said I was uninterested in your anecdotes.”

    What anecdotes?

    “What mental compunction exhorts you to such displays of idiocy?”

    Onceawhile I like to test some levels of thinking especially with science oriented people when they think they can use empiricist methods to tackle metaphysical or existential questions with.
    I always know I’m on the right track in my thinking when a certain level calls ‘idiocy’, ‘moron’, ‘insanity’ and whatnot (though not much of any other substance).
    You mentioned Alice – correct: you are observing your mirror image and projecting that.

    I sense that you are quite intrigued by the display of some hard philosophical thinking done especially for you, but you are also sore from having been kicked through the room like you’ve never been before. I expect it will pass though.

  11. #12 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #6, “I said I was uninterested in your anecdotes.”

    What anecdotes?

    Meds. You’re missing them, dear.
    Page 4, post #95: “About seven years ago, I lost the love of my life and my fiancee to leukemia…”

    Seriously, this is Betty-level idiot-and-proud-of-it moronic.

  12. #13 Wow
    January 21, 2014
    “What mental compunction exhorts you to such displays of idiocy?”

    Onceawhile I like to test some levels of thinking especially with science oriented people

    So, trolling, then.

  13. #14 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “I always know I’m on the right track in my thinking when a certain level calls ‘idiocy’, ”

    I bet the deniers think EXACTLY THAT.

  14. #15 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    PS what do you call your claims in #98 that were refuted without rebuttal, which morphed into claims at #3 that were refuted without rebuttal, then morphed into a “LOOK SQUIRREL!” in #8 if not idiocy?

  15. #16 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #12, nothing I claimed has been refuted because no-one here had the tools to do it. I supplied some for you, but it does take about six years to begin to learn to use them.

    Then, anecdotes, like Sandy, illustrate. In this case you are still fighting an intermezzo in which I speculated some about your god, Dawkins. Still not over it?

  16. #17 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #11, you do realize your logical fallacy there? The one like ‘all that’s white is cocaine because cocaine is white’?

    The post on deniers is on page 6, #80. Cover the Pi Sekt section if you must.

  17. #18 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #12, nothing I claimed has been refuted because no-one here had the tools to do it

    Ah, the “I see no Ships” defence!

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Horatio_Nelson

    So you claimed I “started out with crying ‘I’m not interested’”. I said something different, said what I DID say and also told you I didn’t start out with that statement either.

    Now, do you see it?

    Or will I have to write it again?

  18. #19 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #11, you do realize your logical fallacy there? The one like ‘all that’s white is cocaine because cocaine is white’?

    Isn’t that the same fallacy as “I know I’m right when someone says I’m an idiot when saying it”?

  19. #20 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Is it also the same fallacy as “Since you’ve said stuff, it must be hurting you, right?”

  20. #21 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #15 Wow,
    On page 5, #2 you said:
    “Sorry, completely uninterested in what you’re thinking on the subject since you lack any conviction over it.”

    Not interested, no: obsessed. Shows. That’s why you are STILL crying over Dawkins three pages on.

    Your next uttering was: “No, it isn’t anything like that you blithering moron.”

    This was observed from your mirror. Please acknowledge I haven’t treated you like a moron yet. Want scare quotes for that? ‘Yet’.

  21. #22 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #18, the idiocy of that remark… “… since you lack any conviction over it.” and all the time your big problem is my total conviction :D :D

  22. #23 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “#15 Wow,
    On page 5, #2 you said:”

    OK, starter for 10: Was that the post I started with?

    Go on, answer!

  23. #24 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “Not interested, no: obsessed.”

    Yeah, how DARE I correct you or defend myself from calumny! It MUST be because I’m obsessed.

    Of course, your repetitive bile against us “non true atheists” is completely NOT obsession, by Calvin Klein, is it…

    Yawn…

  24. #25 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    #18, the idiocy of that remark… “… since you lack any conviction over it.”

    It being a nonspecific label, it can only be discerned as to what it is by seeing the context.

    Which, of course, you dropped.

    PS check what “Quote mining” means and why it’s a fallacy, dear.

  25. #26 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #20, no, you started with http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-173730 that is #87.

    There you learnt that the word ‘atheist’ has no plain and simple meaning so I provided that, in order to discuss the position I or others could imply with it.

    When I opened below that with ‘For your amusement’ I was sincere. Never expected such a debate from it. Or so MUCH amusement.

    “Of course, your repetitive bile against us “non true atheists”…”
    Interesting. Like I remarked: agnosts react like religious zealots to atheists. Stands to reason, atheists have nil fear of hell, agnosts like you still retain such fear. Have to project it, apparently.

  26. #27 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #22, I see now you cannot flip back to previous pages like I can.
    Context:

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

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

    I wouldn’t play to much with the word ‘context’ because de course of this thread would have me put boots on before kicking you around the room again with some remarks on what you are doing with context. Convoluting.

  27. #28 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “#20, no, you started with … that is #87.”

    Good. You’re making progress.

    So your claim “I started out with…” is wrong.

    Now what do you claim I have no interest in?

  28. #29 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    “#22, I see now you cannot flip back to previous pages like I can.
    Context:”

    Ah, yes, selective context.

    Go read the epic again, dearie. There was more than the one statement before that we were talking about.

    Or is A Christmas Carol just saying that Marley is dead?

  29. #30 Wow
    January 21, 2014

    Ring a bell, dearie?

    cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    To answer Wow’s question on the Inquisitional try for Pi = 3 (wasn’t that the Indiana Pi Bill? There are more tries like this) – I would leave that school, possibly the state, possibly the country. For I would have no life. I would go and let the weeds grow, as Lao Tzu is said to have said.

  30. #31 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #25, I see now you cannot flip back to previous pages like I can.
    Context:

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

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

    “There was more than the one statement before that we were talking about.”

    Not at that point.

    #26, I wouldn’t play to much with the word ‘context’ if I were you, because de course of this thread would have me put boots on before kicking you around the room again with some remarks on what you are doing with context. Convoluting.

    #27, sort ascending and try again.

  31. #32 FrankD
    January 21, 2014

    Anecdotes in place of argument.
    Projection.
    Verballing.
    Smilies.
    Delusion.
    Doubling-down.
    Inflexibility.
    Zealotry (see projection)
    Quote-mining.
    Refusal to acknowledge correction.
    Self-confessed trolling.

    Yep, we’ve got a live one (and a tedious one at that). I don’t care on what subject, this has been pages of unadulaterated bullshit from cRR. For all the value add he brings, cRR on atheism might as well be Olap on weather.

    As a footnote, the so-called “Indiana Pi Bill” was neither “Inquisitional” nor did it “try for Pi = 3″. The Bill does not mention Pi at all. Just another example of a thing cRR claims as factual that is false – not that I expect him to acknowledge that any more than he has in the other examples. You’re welcome, cRR.

  32. #33 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    Having done with those gods pushed out of existence by fantasy universes, I wonder when someone will finally pick up my scattered hints re NP-Completeness, Gödel et cetera to posit a God in the realm of Unentscheidbare Sätze :)

  33. #34 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #29 FrankD, we logicians know ‘if’, or ‘when’ in this case, is the hardest word to understand. The original question was

    … but when the Alabama (was it?) state education board wanted to DEFINE for schools pi as being 3, as per the bible, would you have
    a) complained to the school board if your schools had been affected
    b) not complained, everyone knows it’s not 3, so why bother dissing the board of education
    ?

    IF my school were ‘affected’, that is: IF my school were such that it adopted that measure, I would go.
    Tell Wow about where that Pi = 3 comes from (see his question, above).

    The ‘Indiana Pi Bill’ does not mention Pi, but redefines it. I never heard of the Alabama thing with Pi = 3, but the IPB sets Pi = 3.2.
    Here is the text: http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm

  34. #35 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    #29, what anecdotes?

  35. #36 cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    “Refusal to acknowledge correction.”

    FrankD, you (and Wow) simply have no clue to my thinking on the subject. You do not have the tools. You have done NOTHING to my claim /deities do not exist and this is provable/. You have simply no idea how such a statement could be attacked. You can remain angry and confused for this lack or knowledge, or you could start learning some reasoning methods you apparently never even heard of.

    Meantime, you and Wow would be rather more polite to someone who obviously knows a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. Meantime to me you sound like climate revisionists – and of course! you project that on me.

    I have taught you that the word ‘atheism’ does not have a ‘plain and simple’ meaning like Wow (and me too, actually) thought.
    I have taught you that that deity existential questions cannot be resolved from empiristic modes of thinking.
    I have taught you there are other ways of valid and powerful thinking with which you CAN adress such questions.
    I have taught you that because empiristic ways of thinking fail with this subject, you HAVE TO resort to other thinking methodology.
    You have a lot to learn.
    For now I expect a ‘thank you very much’.
    If you have questions, you’re welcome.
    If not, I will slam the door on this and reserve my coming to the Deltoid quagmire to the incidental snipe at climate revisionists. Very incidentally because I think this place is already in the utter margins of the ‘debate’ and read by no-one but a few.

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    …trust me, I know these and a nice collection of other thinkings.

    In which case it appears that you haven’t understood them very well. Although you are quite convinced you have. DKE at work perhaps?

    Pushing a deity beyond the universe is effectively taking that deity out of existence.

    No, it’s not according to the people making the definition (and not even according to physicists speculating on other “universes” or on metaverses or whatever label they want to use this week).

    And it’s the definition given by the people making it that you have to falsify, not a convenient strawman of your own.

    Now if you were to say “All deities whose existence is falsifiable do not exist” or “No deities exist within or interact with the universe” you’d be on a bit less shaky ground. (You’d still have your work cut out to verify absence and do it for the entire list, but that’s another whole can of worms you show no sign of having tackled.)

    But you haven’t said that.

    The existential question of this deity is equivalent to the existential question of universes…outside ‘our own’.

    No, it’s not. Once again you are projecting your own thinking onto someone else’s definition and slaying the strawman. (And yes, they will waffle with the best of them and try to push the boundaries of definitions of words to slip the possibility of their deity in, but that becomes your problem when you say “they’re all provably wrong”.)

    And disregarding that fundamental error, it’s not even clear to me how you have falsified “the existence of [all] universes outside ‘our own’”, especially in practice given that physicists are talking about the possibility and have been for quite some time.

    It’s not sufficient to show that each definition lies within the realm of “potentially falsifiable”. Your position relies on “actually falsified or logically precluded”.

    …deities outside of this realm have nothing to offer to believers.

    And this is quite evidently false, if you ask believers themselves instead of speaking for them. There is a growing list of things that you confidently assert that do not appear to be accurate.

    There you learnt that the word ‘atheist’ has no plain and simple meaning…

    Far out! The plain and simple meaning that I and many others use simply does not exist then. I and the dictionaries have been wrong all along! Who knew?!

    I find FrankD’s assessment quite apt.

  37. #38 Betula
    January 22, 2014

    Personally, I reject any belief in the existence of atheist deniers…

  38. #39 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    I want to return briefly to this because it is instructive:

    The only solution to the medieval riddle ‘Can He make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?’

    This has always been a facile ploy and your refutation of an omnipotent deity via this example fails to address the deity many believers believe in.

    Your alleged refutation is only relevant if “omnipotent” were to mean “able to do anything anyone can put in words, even if that generates a logical impossibility or a paradox”. Under that definition one can reduce this “riddle” down to little more than:

    “Can an omnipotent deity make something that cannot exist?”

    or even

    “Can an omnipotent deity do something that an omnipotent deity cannot do?”

    This makes clear the incoherence of the riddle under that definition. It’s no more coherent than those trick mathematical “proofs” that rely on slipping a divide by zero unnoticed past the reader.

    Now it IS true that you’ll find some believers who have a working definition of omnipotence as “able to do anything anyone can put into words, even if incoherent” (although most of them refuse to examine the implications or wave the problems away even if you try to discuss it with them)! And for that deity your disproof works.

    But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”. Your “disproof” of an omnipotent god completely and utterly fails when applied to their position. And their position has been around for a looooooooooooong time, although you don’t seem to have factored it in to your thinking based on what has been written so far.

    When one asserts (as you do) that every member of a set has a certain attribute (such as a valid disproof of existence), the onus is on the asserter to demonstrate that this is correct. There are ways to do this (in some cases) without exhaustively enumerating the set. You seem to think you’ve validly done such a thing but your argument as presented here has been flawed, as more than one person has pointed out.

  39. #40 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    No questions? Okay. I will make a last observation wrt Bertrand Russel.
    Text: “Am I an Atheist or an Agnost?” here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm .

    Note 1: observe that Russel uses the word ‘atheist’ in the exact same way I do. This is a reason I expected y’all to know the meaning of ‘atheism’. As you see it is OPPOSED to ‘agnosticism’.

    Note 2: What is missing, again, is a definition of what is talked about, or even a statement as to the need of one, hence Russel, too, is at a total loss. It renders the title of that paragraph, ‘Proof of God’, meaningless at the outset.

    Note 3: says Russel: “To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one’s arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree.”

    For a mathematician of greatest stature this is a strange opinion. Does Russel really think that Pi is ‘to a lesser or greater degree of probability a transcendent number’?
    Of course not.
    Does Russel then exclude logical and mathematical methods from scientific thinking?
    It is as if!

    It is NOT possible to resolve deity existential questions using this kind of empirism-based thinking methodology.
    Now cry. A typical gratuite decree like “No, it’s not.” in #34 ought to raise tears.
    “I and the dictionaries have been wrong all along! ” – fool :D
    I’m done. I am no longer open to questions about this subject on Deltoid either.

    The US needs to set aside about $100 billion for the Californian drought.

  40. #41 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #39, allright, one more remark, because you did well there… “But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”.”

    This situation is what I call ‘doubling reality’. Here the deity IS reality and is thus a purely redundant form of name calling.
    /cRR

  41. #42 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    Too rich a post to dismiss like I’m trying to for the sake of topic of Deltoid…
    “… the onus is on the asserter to demonstrate that this is correct. ”

    Absolutely true. But if it requires knowledge on the part of the questioner this has to be acquired first.
    Like one has to study concepts of proof and certain mathematical constructs in order to understand the proof of Pi being a transcendent number.

  42. #43 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    This is a reason I expected y’all to know the meaning of ‘atheism’.

    Despite the fact that it is widely used now (67 years later) in a different sense than you allege that Russell used it there? You are quite impressively determined to impede communication.

    BTW, here’s Russell, from your very own link, rejecting the rigid application of the definition that you apparently cited him in support of:

    …if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

    Russell adopts the label atheist WHILST ALLOWING THAT he cannot disprove all gods.

    Worse still, Russell strongly rejects your claim that it is feasible to prove that all gods do not exist:

    None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

    As you see it is OPPOSED to ‘agnosticism’.

    Even Russell at that link didn’t go in to bat for that after using both terms in the title. Here he is again talking about labelling himself atheist or agnostic. Bear in mind that he rejects your position that one can disprove all gods:

    Therefore, I suppose that…I ought to say “Atheist”, although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.

    You’re doing a good job of coming across like one of the theists who hasn’t read and comprehended their own sacred text.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    because you did well there

    How odd. I merely reiterated and elaborated upon what I said before.

    This situation is what I call ‘doubling reality’. Here the deity IS reality and is thus a purely redundant form of name calling.

    Wrong again.

    Believers typically insist that reality could have been and indeed can and will be different if the deity so wills. They make a distinction that you elide. You are in error because you fail to address their actual beliefs, substituting a strawman of your own creation instead.

    But if it requires knowledge on the part of the questioner this has to be acquired first.

    I and others have pointed out that on this question your knowledge is incomplete or errant. You continue to deny this. No skin off my nose…

    Does Russel then exclude logical and mathematical methods from scientific thinking?

    Er, I’d say so as pretty much all mathematicians and scientists do. “Proof is for mathematics and whiskey” is a common refrain. Scientific matters by contrast are empirical. Mathematics is a tool that is used in scientific thinking, but that does not make it an empirical discipline.

    For a mathematician of greatest stature this is a strange opinion.

    Only if you misunderstood it.

  44. #45 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #43, “Bear in mind that he rejects your position that one can disprove all gods:”

    Um, yes, that’s what I said, didn’t I?
    “You’re doing a good job of coming across like one of the theists who hasn’t read and comprehended their own sacred text.”
    As you see, this is projection. You will not deride me for not being able to read what I’m saying. You will ask politely for a rephrase if you don’t understand what is said, thank you.

    I even told you why he rejects my position and I’ve shown you he does so on wrong grounds.

    Meantime I killed another of your gods.
    You can keep enumerating deities, but let me hint you to some more efficient system: NP-C (as a metaphor).

  45. #46 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #46, “Believers typically insist that reality could have been and indeed can and will be different if the deity so wills.”

    Nice try.
    It means those believers are of NOT of the variety “But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”. But this was the position my ‘doubling of reality’ alluded to. You have presented a straw man.

    Statements like ‘reality could’ve been different, inverse square laws could’ve been not exactly inverse square’ et cetera have nothing to do with deity existential problems.

  46. #47 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #44, “Mathematics is a tool that is used in scientific thinking, but that does not make it an empirical discipline.”

    Sigh sigh sigh.
    Deity existential problems are NOT resolvable within the empirical discipline. That is where you and Russel go wrong constantly. When will this enter your head??

  47. #48 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #47, more importantly, when will it enter your head that one THEREFORE can and should resort to other methods?

  48. #49 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    #29 FrankD, we loonitarians

    FTFY, Kamper.

  49. #50 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    And it’s the definition given by the people making it that you have to falsify, not a convenient strawman of your own.

    But that’s so much easier! I mean Kampen has a chance of knowcking down strawmen he gets to build. As long as people let him get away with it, anyway.

  50. #51 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    #35
    January 21, 2014

    #29, what anecdotes?

    You tried that before, Kampie.

    Failed then.

    Look, you are completely allowed to think that there is no possible proof of god that would stand up to the requirements of proving such deity. Look at David Copperfield.

    Not a problem.

    But doing so does not make you a “true atheist”.

    Not doing so doesn’t make someone “not an atheist”.

    And doing something you disaprove of does not make them something you disaprove of that is not indicated by it (e.g. zeal in deflating faithiest terms does not make them faithiests themselves).

    Feel free to know that there is no possible proof for god.

    But this gives you no leeway to make shit up, just because you’re not making shit up about what some deity wants.

  51. #52 bill
    January 22, 2014

    Gee, totter off for a couple of days and when I come back the place is Pharyngula!

    But with a smaller cast list…

  52. #53 bill
    January 22, 2014

    PS, for myself, I usually go by the label ‘Agnostic’, because I can’t be bothered arguing with the faithful, whether Godly or otherwise… ;-)

  53. #54 BBD
    January 22, 2014

    Ditto, bill.

  54. #55 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #51, “And doing something you disaprove of does not make them something you disaprove of that is not indicated by it (e.g. zeal in deflating faithiest terms does not make them faithiests themselves).”

    Keep on trolling with all your zeal. This has been adressed repeatedly by me. I have repeately assessed that I am inclined to agree with you on this. Now git tf offn my back willya.

    #53, #54, which I consider a most respectful position, of course.

  55. #56 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “PS, for myself, I usually go by the label ‘Agnostic’, ”

    It’s common, but just as wrong as the common saying “I could care less”.

  56. #57 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “Keep on trolling with all your zeal.”

    Yes, Kampie, doing it again. Buy a dictionary, get a grown up to explain the words to you.

    Zeal != trolling, retard-brush.

  57. #58 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    But I guess it’s the best you can do, isn’t it, Kampie, to “I’m rubber/you’re glue” on from post #13.

    Frank, et al, note how the M.O. apes Betty to a T.

  58. #59 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #58, you need the gang :D :D

  59. #60 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Ah, more faithiest “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”.

    xtians live for that sort of passive-aggressive bullshit.

    Don’t you, Kampie?

  60. #61 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    As you see, this is projection.

    Sigh.

    As everyone can see, it is not. I have not advanced a reference to support a claim that I made that in fact rejects or refutes it. As far as I can see you have, and you still don’t realise it.

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    It means those believers are of NOT of the variety “But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”.

    Saying it does not make it so. Perhaps you can mount a convincing case that it is actually so, but I’m beginning to lose all hope.

    But this was the position my ‘doubling of reality’ alluded to. You have presented a straw man.

    No, it was not the position that you alluded to. If the deity can change what “reality” is within the realms of logical possibility, then the deity cannot merely be “reality”. Again, you handwave away distinctions that the believer makes. How convenient.

    Deity existential problems are NOT resolvable within the empirical discipline.

    More woolly thinking.

    I do recall pointing that out, for at least some deities where non falsifiability is a desirable feature for the believer. Perhaps you have forgotten already?

    And for other deities, they are resolvable within the empirical discipline. All one has to show is that the deity claims are incompatible with the evidence to falsify its existence.

    when will it enter your head that one THEREFORE can and should resort to other methods?

    When will it enter your head that I assert that one can and should use other methods where they are valid (but that your other methods are not)?

  62. #63 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #60, no, ik ben de heropvoedingskampen :)

    #61, you still don’t realize you totally misread that post (too).

    You don’t realize how utterly moronic was that remark ““Bear in mind that he rejects your position that one can disprove all gods:…”…

    This is just too bad. You cannot be that dumb. You are trolling.
    Now, you orgasmed, you sighed now roll over git of my back and sleep will ya.

  63. #64 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Remember, Lotharson, all that some people know about “It’s projection” is that people use it against them as a refutation to a claim.

    Therefore all they know is that if you claim “It’s projection”, then you’ve “solved” it.

    They don’t see proofs or substantiation of claims when others do it, so they don’t think the claim of “it’s projection” needs substantiation or proof.

    Like “Oh, all you’ve got is ad hominem!”.

    See it works when people smarter than they use it, can only see “there was something nasty said” and thinks that if they’re insulted or called “Moron”, then they can “come back” with “Ad hom!” to salve their “argument”.

  64. #65 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    You don’t realize how utterly moronic was that remark

  65. #66 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #62, “Saying it does not make it so.”

    Tsss. You said “But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”. Your “disproof” of an omnipotent god completely and utterly fails when applied to their position. And their position has been around for a looooooooooooong time, although you don’t seem to have factored it in to your thinking based on what has been written so far.”

    then suddenly flipped over to the god-interpretation above that. A typical straw man action.

    You have no right to talk about my ‘disproof’ of an omnipotent God because you cannot fathom it.

    The god in your quote, “simply means “able to do anything logically possible”, which I adressed (and killed), is not susceptible to disproof of omnipotentcy because that god is not omnipotent (no, not even if believers say so matey). He is just another name for reality.

  66. #67 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #64, sure, after three pages of politely refraining from such, while you started out with it, you trolling moron.

  67. #68 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #64 – “so they don’t think the claim of “it’s projection” needs substantiation or proof.”

    You are not able to assess substantiation or proof.

  68. #69 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #65, yep: oops.

  69. #70 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    #62, “Saying it does not make it so.”

    Tsss. You said “But it is equally true that you’ll find believers for whom “omnipotent” simply means “able to do anything logically possible”.

    You have to say what your position is, dear.

    “Saying it does not make it so.” doesn’t mean “saying so makes it not so”. It means you need more than your say-so to make it so. I.e. provide substantiation of your claim.

    Which he provided.

    And you don’t.

  70. #71 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    #64, sure, after three pages of politely refraining from such

    So you only started testing some levels of thinking, especially with science oriented people within the last two days???

  71. #72 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “You are not able to assess substantiation or proof.”

    Says moron-boy…

  72. #73 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #70, fascinating!

    #71, thank you so much for being one of my willing, not interested but obsessed, subjects.

  73. #74 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Ah, sarcasm.

  74. #75 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #71, you counted only two days between the 17th and 22nd of January? Fascinating! What unfalsifiable planet you live on? Just curious.

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    You have no right to talk about my ‘disproof’ of an omnipotent God because you cannot fathom it.

    No, I really do fathom it. You are merely handwaving now, and you also appear to be quite confused:

    …is not susceptible to disproof of omnipotentcy…

    No-one has thus far discussed any proof, attempted or otherwise, of omnipotency.

  76. #77 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    You don’t realize how utterly moronic was that remark ““Bear in mind that he rejects your position that one can disprove all gods:…”…

    Of course I don’t realise that it was utterly moronic, because it wasn’t. You gave a link to a piece by Russell, and said in relation to it, and I quote:

    Note 1: observe that Russel uses the word ‘atheist’ in the exact same way I do.

    I pointed out that Russell rejects your particular definition of that word. If you truly think that pointing out a contradiction between your claim and the evidence you provide is “utterly moronic”, then my work here is done.

  77. #78 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Lotharsson, Kampie has a duffer-level noggin on the subject.

    The best we can do is deflate the ignoramus for the edification of anyone else confused as to reality from this moron’s insane dribblings, just like has to be done with Woofie, Betty, Duffski, et al.

  78. #79 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #76, “No-one has thus far discussed any proof, attempted or otherwise, of omnipotency.”

    But…. Indeed!!
    Well go for it, then!

    #77, you can point out all you want but you thusly cannot fathom why Russel hesitates to call himself an atheist. It is because he remains in the empericism trap as I showed you. Just like you. You and Russel are agnosts, not atheists. Seems I’m the only one to respect Russel’s and your position. Know why? Because you damned well know better and I’m … aha! Verbalizing that for you.

    “If it comes to burning somebody at the stake for not believing it, then it is worth while to remember that after all he may be right, and it is not worth while to persecute him.” Said Russel, who still believes in Hell :D

  79. #80 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #78, you need the gang :D :D

  80. #81 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#71, you counted only two days between the 17th and 22nd of January? ”

    cRR Kampen
    January 21, 2014

    Onceawhile I like to test some levels of thinking especially with science oriented people

    21st Jan to 22nd constitutes only two days, dear.

    Do you not have any fingers to count with? Or do you not know that you don’t actually have to count to 21 then count how many more fingers you need to get to 22?

  81. #82 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #76, ” You are merely handwaving now” ah yes, it took me three pages and five days to learn something from you…

    Or maybe, just maybe, to grow a little bit tired of my willing, uninterested but obsessed, subjects.

  82. #83 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    You know, you’re as boring and asinine as Olap.

    Hell, you’re getting to Joan-level moronic here, Kampie.

  83. #84 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #81, oh, so I started that when I answered your question, but of course not before. Thank you so much: no ‘trolling’ (as it was called here) was done in the 4 days before the 21st. Please correct your accusation that stated the contrary and say sorry to cRR.

  84. #85 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #83, who is Kampie? Would that be you?

  85. #86 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #83, it really takes an obsession to keep on dragging around with such boring things… Go see a shrink about it.

  86. #87 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Obsessed, are we, dear?

  87. #88 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #87, thats what I said. Go see a shrink for the multiple personality syndrome.

    Strange planet you are on. I find this ‘debate’ fascinating (we in Europe are so much further on the subject, so I’ve began to find). This motivates my continuing it. You, on the other hand, are bored and uninterested but STILL keep on sliming over my back. That, now, dearie(s), is obsessive.

  88. #89 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Well you’ve said a lot.

    It’s been unmitigated bollocks, but that’s not stopped you yet.

  89. #90 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2014

    Today has seen quite a few media appearances by Chris Turney and other Australian climate/Antartic researchers. The Australian ABC’s 7:30 Report had a couple of stories:

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3930420.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3930425.htm

    the latter of which will probably reinforce Australian readers’ views that Leigh Sales really seems to be turning more into an ambulance chaser than a serious interviewer – her questions are ever more transparent and loaded.

    The most interesting interview today was with Turney in the local ABC radio, which touched quite well on the background and the acheivements of the trip. Unfortunately the interview doesn’t seem to be uploaded to the interweb, but if that changes I’ll be sure to post a link. Suffice to say that going by what Turney said, certain economists who have presumed to pontificate on the hard sciences should pull their heads in and STFU.

  90. #91 FrankD
    January 22, 2014

    cRR, let me give you a hand.

    You have done NOTHING to my claim… You can remain angry and confused for this lack or knowledge,

    I have not attempted to, because the core of your claim is of zero interest to me. So accusing me of being angry and confused by my purported “inability” is simply laughable. My interest – stated several times – is in your approach to the argument, which is become more irrational with each passing post. Seriously, cRR, reread your posts as though they were written by someone else and see if you can find the flaws – if you can’t, it is you who needs some remedial work on basic logic, not me. In the last 24 hours you’ve added several more denier techniques to your repertoire – Lotharsson and Wow deal with several of them, so I’ll not repeat.

    However, two go unremarked:
    “I’m done. I am no longer open to questions about this subject on Deltoid either.” Followed by 13 further posts. Classic flouncing seen by our best clown trolls.

    ” I think this place is already in the utter margins of the ‘debate’ and read by no-one but a few”. Yet the people who keep saying that keep coming back again like addicts. In short: “You people are irrelevent, but still I crave your attention!”

    Finally – “I’ve taught you…”- you’ve taught me nothing other than that you are a fool, which was not something I cared about before or now. When you are in a hole, cRR, the first thing is to stop digging.

    I know some here have found this discussion uninspiring because of the core material, but I for one have found it interesting to see the full arsenal of climate denier techniques brought to bear on a subject other than climate change, where they are tediously familiar.

    As Wow put it: “Frank, et al, note how the M.O. apes Betty to a T.”
    Damn straight. With a little dose of cut-price Brangelina mixed in.

  91. #92 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “I have not attempted to, because the core of your claim is of zero interest to me.”

    remember, Kampie thinks that if you’re not interested in everything he says, then you must be obsessed if you’re talking about anything he says.

  92. #93 FrankD
    January 22, 2014

    “Followed by 13 further posts.”

    Correction: In the time I took to write that with a couple of busted fingers, cRR has added more. Now 22 and climbing….

  93. #94 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    I have noticed one thing that is amazingly three-faced from Kampie in your summation, Frank:

    1) You argue against him, he insists he’s teaching you something
    2) You don’t argue against him, he insists this is because his claims are unassailable
    3) You post responses at all to him, you’re obsessed

  94. #95 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #91, “I have not attempted to, because the core of your claim is of zero interest to me.”

    Then why would I read on? What is all this, totally uninterested guys obsessively keeping up on the thing?? Does ‘being interested’ mean the opposite thing to you than it means for me?
    Change that language!

    “My interest [..] is in your approach to the argument” – then show it! O and it means assessing its core, doesn’t it now.

    “… which is become more irrational with each passing post.” – Are you not aware that I gave up on you people re this subject and have begun reflecting your elephant talk? You moron? Wanna change that back? Then show interest.

    “You people are irrelevant, but still I crave your attention!” – of course I crave for research material but wow do I have it. Fascinating!
    You people WERE relevant. Now you have become dispensable subjects, morons, say. Still time to change back mate.

    “Followed by 13 further posts.” I see. You’d rather have I not answer all your spam postings. Because if I do, I am the Bradthing :D

    “As Wow put it: “Frank, et al, note how the M.O. apes Betty to a T.””
    And you never got the Pi Sekt concept, either. And you still confuse knowing with believing.

    “Seriously, cRR, reread your posts as though they were written by someone else and see if you can find the flaws…”

    Working on it. Calling you morons, morons, for instance – I’m catching up :)

  95. #96 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #93, fortunately you and Wow are posting only one per day or so…

  96. #97 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #92, correct!!

  97. #98 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    Well go for it, then!

    WTF? That’s needlessly tangential (let me check that square off on my card). I was pointing out that you raised an irrelevancy and apparently thought you had a valid point. That does not make it incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your irrelevant claim.

    You and Russel are agnosts, not atheists.

    Wrong again. Bit of a pattern developing there…

    I’m atheist because I’m not a theist, or as we often express that in English “a-theist“, which gets shortened to “atheist”. Certainty that there are no gods is not a requirement to be an atheist, no matter how hard you try to push that water up the hill. Mere non-acceptance of any such claim is sufficient.

    …but you thusly cannot fathom why Russel hesitates to call himself an atheist.

    Good fucking grief! You keep conflating rejection of your arguments with inability to fathom them (check). That is foolish or disingenuous – your call.

    To be specific, I can entirely fathom why, and I find his point valid. Furthermore, he goes past that hesitation to reject your definition of the term. You are doggedly refusing to admit that you shot down your own assertion about the meaning of the term (check).

    Does ‘being interested’ mean the opposite thing to you than it means for me?

    One may be interested in aspect A but not in aspect B. FrankD explained the distinction between A and B; you quote-mined him to pretend that he did not. You really are giving a master class in denialist techniques – my bingo card is one short of a win!

  98. #99 Wow
    January 22, 2014
    You and Russel are agnosts, not atheists.

    Wrong again. Bit of a pattern developing there…

    Remember: to Kampie, words like “atheist” means what he means them to mean. And that Russell himself calls himself an atheist cannot change that.

  99. #100 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    Then why would I read on?

    Why should you?

    Don’t if you do not wish to.

    I certainly skip huge swathes of your blitherings.

    Why should you post at all?

    Especially since you’ve flounced off with, as Frank says,“I’m done. “.

    Why bother?

    Is it a compulsion?

1 5 6 7 8 9 13