January 2014 Open Thread

#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'.

#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.

Correction on #2 -

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

#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).

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.

"because this God is Nothing."

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

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

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...

"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?

... Escher, Bach...

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.

;-)

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.

#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.

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?

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

#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.

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.

#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.

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

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.

#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?

#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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

#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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

#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.

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.

#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 www.climategate.nl .

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/… .
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?"

#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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/19/…

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?

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?

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."

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.

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

"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…

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.

“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.

“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.

" 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.

*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?

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.

“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).

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.

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.

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!

"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

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.

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/oxfam-warns-davos-of-p…

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.

#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?

#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?

"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?

#47 - Joe in Cali: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/02/3110731/california-rooftop-…

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)

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.

#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=… ).

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.

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.

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.

#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?

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

#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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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.

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 :)

#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)

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.

One hundred cents./erratum

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/19/…

Deniers living in their little bubble of self-delusion.

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.1015014…

#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

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

"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...

#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.

Woof Woof Woof, Olap

#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 :)

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

Olaus

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

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

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.

Woof Bark, Olap.

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-wa…

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

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&…

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

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?

"#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.

Donors Trust.

#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 :)

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.

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

#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.

Bark Woof Bark Whine, Olap.

#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.

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.

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?

Ummm.. let's start here:

http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial…

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-chan…

Clip: "In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-chan…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/27/a-dark-mone…

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billi…

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html

But really now. Is any of this surprising? Propaganda has always been a major tool in the corporate arsenal, combined with a fear of democracy.

#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?

Is it the same compunction that drives duffer and olapdog?

#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.

#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.

“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.

"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.

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?

#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?

#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.

#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?

#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"?

Is it also the same fallacy as "Since you've said stuff, it must be hurting you, right?"

#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'.

#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

"#15 Wow,
On page 5, #2 you said:"

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

Go on, answer!

"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...

#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.

#20, no, you started with http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/com… 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.

#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.

"#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?

"#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?

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.

#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.

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.

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 :)

#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/indian…

#29, what anecdotes?

"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.

...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.

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

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.

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.

#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

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.

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.

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.

#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).

#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.

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

#29 FrankD, we loonitarians

FTFY, Kamper.

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.

#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.

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

But with a smaller cast list...

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

Ditto, bill.

#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.

"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".

"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.

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, you need the gang :D :D

Ah, more faithiest "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!".

xtians live for that sort of passive-aggressive bullshit.

Don't you, Kampie?

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.

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)?

#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.

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".

You don’t realize how utterly moronic was that remark

#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.

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

#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.

#65, yep: oops.

#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.

#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???

"You are not able to assess substantiation or proof."

Says moron-boy...

#70, fascinating!

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

Ah, sarcasm.

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

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.

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.

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.

#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

#78, you need the gang :D :D

"#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?

#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.

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

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

#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.

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

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

Obsessed, are we, dear?

#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.

Well you've said a lot.

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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....

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

#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 :)

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

#92, correct!!

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!

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.

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?

#99, then please supply some noun for my position. I will adopt it (no, you morons, I will not adopt anything like 'moron') so we can finish that part of the problem.

But I asked you this before. I have no confidence you will read it now...

#98, "That is foolish or disingenuous – your call." - how could an agnost evaluate an atheist's proof?

"One may be interested in aspect A but not in aspect B."
Depends on the relation between the aspects. If the relation is intricate the interest is bizarrely broken.
If you are interested in my approach to the subject you'll have to be interested in the core of the subject. These are inseparable.

Scattered around this thread, rather tattered by having to duck from or return Wow's barrages in particular, actually a lot can be found re my approach to the matter. E.g. my approach is a different one from Russel's rationalism, different van empiricist/evidence-based thinking, and I came up with a lot of motivation for this approach too.

#1 - scuse me, I will also not accept 'gnostic atheist' for reasons I gave above - it is a tautology for the case (me) at hand.

Depends on the relation between the aspects.

That does not justify your quote-mine here. Contrary to your (once more) over-confident assertion, the two are separable because you have misinterpreted what FrankD means by "your approach".

"#99, then please supply some noun for my position"

Moronic.

"#1 – scuse me, I will also not accept ‘gnostic atheist’ for reasons I gave above"

Humpty Dumpty thought that was a knock-down/drag-out argument too.

#3, the two are inseparable because I say so.
But perhaps there is a typo and FrankD meant 'subjects' instead of subject? In that case, the two ARE separable.

#4, #5, more spam.

"#3, the two are inseparable because I say so."

They aren't because that's the definition of the word given.

"Reality? How does that work?" huh?

#100, politeness, you moron.

#7, "I have not attempted to, because the core of your claim is of zero interest to me. [..] My interest – stated several times – is in your approach to the argument [..]"
Said FrankD.

This is a statement about my approach to the argument/subject/core/whatever.

The two are inseparable because I say so.

If you are interested in my approach to the subject you’ll have to be interested in the core of the subject. These are inseparable."

*sigh* - does this really need to be spelled out further?

By "approach to the argument" I mean the rhetorical techniques and logical structures you have used in prosecuting your case. I don't really care about your comparison of your position with Russell's, but I have been interested in your use of projection, quote-mining, evasion and so on.

If there was any ambiguity in my use of the word "approach", that was amply clarified by the explanatory content of my posts, eg; #32 on the last page.

If you believe that the approach to/method of/techniques used in arguing a case and the substantive case itself are the same, then you think that content and technique are the same, which is an embarrassingly lame position. Good luck showing that, if that is what you think.

"#100, politeness, you moron."

Calling you a moron IS being polite, you fuckwit!

Why?

Because that's what I mean by polite!

And more definitional problems from our denier's mirror image, Kampie.

noun: Spam

1.
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.

#10, I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case. The retorics, then, depend on the constant barrage of one fruitcake in particular. I do not take kindly to being called 'moron' etc somewhere in a second or third reply already. If none of you realized that it is just too bad. I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me. If you think Wow's approach is the correct one for arguing a case then I happily oblige.

#11, I'm aware, idiot.

#12, 'spreading malware, etc.' nails it.

"#10, I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case."

Just like Stevie Wonder had no chance winning his Bird Spotter's badge for scouts.

You didn't TRY to.

"They are inseperable because I say so!" is NOT prosecuting your case.

PS seems you need to know what malware means, dear.

Word things not working good for you, as Homer would say.

#15, tsss. TRY - wot, for you?
But I did, except I decided to drag you along the way as far as I could (1.5 nm I think) instead of presenting the case following my 'amusement post'.

You come up with Homer. Well, lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_simile

"#15, tsss. TRY – wot, for you?"

So when you complained that you haven't been able to, you mean you don't want to try.

Why not say that, then?

#17, But I did _try_, except I decided to drag you along the way as far as I could (1.5 nm I think) instead of presenting the case following my ‘amusement post’.

And well, why say such to a moron?

"#17, But I did _try_,"

No you didn't, as explained by the meaning of try given in #15.

And if you did try but also tried to say you wouldn't try to try, what the hell is the point of your posts?

#19, there is and was, after your 'moron'post, likely no point to my posts for you. Otoh there was for me. It is utter fascination with the incredible resistance apparently evoked by my approach to deity existential problems.
This happens mostly if not exclusively with anglo-speaking citizens, particularly US Americans but also some British (remember where empiricism came from). I meet nothing like that with my continental-euro discussion partners. They simply understand what I'm saying even if they don't agree with my position on the existential question.

In all truth, I'd rather analyse my methodology together. But this seems out of the question somehow.

"#19, there is and was, after your ‘moron’post, likely no point to my posts for you."

Nope, I asked a specific.

That you retreat to a generic victimhood mentality to construct an alternative scenario of what was asked indicates that you're still incapable of rationality.

#21, victims don't boot fruitcakes around the room.

Apart from the 'moron'thing, I took me a while to fully get the fact that my interpretation of 'atheist' was so strange to you - or rather my use of the word 'atheist'-sec for that position.

In the beginning Betty called herself "atheist". That's where I replied stating that atheists, to be called: 'atheists' hence, could be just another type of believers too (I was thinking of those 'atheists', yes quotes, whose god is an ideology or a nationalism). And act like fundibelievers like Betty seems to do (frankly I haven't delved too much in her/his stuff yet).

At that point you surprised me. I had expected a battle with Betula instead for whom I'd not have spared that beautiful 4-point method-suggestions post at all - that was for those I do respect including you.

#22, I need to mention the in between: my 'explanation' (now retracted!) for Dawkins' zeal. In hindsight that remark WAS quite gratuite. Otoh that was shown to me in unmistakable terms, and I thought of Mann's zeal, et cetera.
Having conceded that point I'd hoped the discussion on the subject would either fade away or become interesting, but well we had already advanced a page or so.

Need to go. Prof Methodology who's close family in da house for a visit. CU tomorrow maybe, godspeed :)

"#21, victims don’t boot fruitcakes around the room."

What you do in the privacy of your own home with comestibles is your own business.

re #24, Walter Mitty life, now, Kampie?

"Otoh that was shown to me in unmistakable terms, and I thought of Mann’s zeal, et cetera."

Oh, so now you're moving to denier troll?

Lubos-style luke warmism?

#25, correct again.

#26, if you don't read my posts then please do not reply. Bye.

Now can we talk about cats, FFS?

Did Kampen really just say godspeed?

"Middle English god speid, from the phrase God spede you God prosper you"

Oh boy.

Now can we talk about cats, FFS?

In tests, eight out of ten god owners (who expressed a preference) said their gods attracted chum.
And right on schedule ...

Dogs have owners, cats have staff.

This is a statement about my approach to the argument/subject/core/whatever.

The two are inseparable because I say so.

This is a perfect example of two of your repeated failures of argument.

1. You assert what someone else meant (despite it apparently being clear to most readers that was not what the author meant).

2. You assert a property of your argument "because you say-so" rather than establishing any good reason based on evidence and/or logic for anyone else to believe your assertion.

"Because I say so" is a valid backing for an assertion of one's opinion or of intention, but it does not validly rebut critiques of the structure/logic of, or data used in one's argument.

I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case.

What a load of tosh.

No-one is stopping you, other than you. Several people gave you a lot of time and provided a lot of interaction with your case as you chose to present it.

What has been presented has often been badly argued as several people have pointed out, and their critiques have virtually all been brushed aside rather than robustly addressed.

Shorter cRR (#13): "My logic is faulty because Wow was mean to me".

I do not take kindly to being called ‘moron’ ...I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me.

I'm not Wow. I've not called you anything, just your supporting arguments/logic fails etc. So including me as "doing [something] with you, when I'm simply pointing out illogic is, itself, illogical. That's down to you.

If you think Wow’s approach is the correct one for arguing a case then I happily oblige.

Wow does what Wow does. That's not my problem. What I think of his approach is not really the issue, but since you ask, I find Wow usually has his target ranged, bracketted and looking for cover while I'm still trying to work out if its worth returning fire. Whether you try to tough it out or beat a retreat is up to you, but having been in the sights occasionally, I can tell you if his style distresses you, its really up to you to lift your game.

When the cat is gone the rats dance on the table singing "when the cat is gone the rats dance on the table".

#33 "No-one is stopping you" but ignorance. Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like 'God exists' is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem (if not, deities are physical objects or relations and can be tackled by scientific, not metaphysical, means).
It does NOT mean it is not decidable.

#34, no, you have not called names at all, and your contributions were among the more constructive.
Personally I find Wow a muddlehead and perhaps somewhat damaged goods. Steering clear of that one on this subject. Let him do his job on CAGW he's good there.

"#26, if you don’t read my posts"

How do you think I quote things if I don't read any of your posts?

Just because you're too idiotic to do something as "complex" as decide two different things on two different objects doesn't mean we're all equally handicapped.

"#34, no, you have not called names at all"

But it doesn't stop you from accusing him of doing so if it'll provide cover for your insanity, will it, Kampie?

#36, your #26 is clear.

#37, luv, that is none of your business.

#34, to continue - all your contributions have been businesslike, no name-calling involved and I didn't mean to accuse you of that at all. But there was a little more said. I said this: "I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me."
In your case I do not take kindly to your wholesale dismissal of the core subject instead focusing on 'my approach' et cetera. This results in broken communication on your part and my reflecting that, because the two - subject matter and approach to the subject matter - are inseparable.
While my approach to the subject matter is debatable it was only marginally debated.
But my approach to your responses and those of some others - let's say: my approach to the 'subjects' - is explainable, has been explained and is not debatable.

If you wish to connect, and I couldn't call this 'reconnect', then get to the core and analyse what I just reiterated:
--
Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem (if not, deities are physical objects or relations and can be tackled by scientific, not metaphysical, means).
It does NOT mean it is not decidable.

#39 - and so, in the variant by Lotharsson:
"- “No, this [positive proof of non-existence of deities, cRR] is a logic error when applied to atheism. The analogy with a mathematical statement does not hold.”

To which I replied: "You will need to back up this hypothesis."
Because, well, you have to. I recall some handwaving about that being 'an axiom', not good enough.

Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem

OK, so English isn't your first language, but care to use something that doesn't sound like Swahili converted through babelfish?

To which I replied: “You will need to back up this hypothesis.”

Really.

Why?

You make the claim that mathematical analogy holds. By fiat statement.

(PS Lotharsson did back his statement up. But you don't care to remember that)

#42, do I make that claim? O yes, I did. True. Backed it up, too, and not with some fantasy axiomatics.

Why was Bertrand Russel unsure about Pi being a transcendent number?

#41, no.

"do I make that claim? O yes, I did."

Do you often ask yourself questions then answer them?

No wonder most people find your diatribes boring and content free.

PS no, you merely claim it is true, this is not backing it up, that's doubling down on the stupid.

#45, yes resp. so what.

#46, how could an agnost like you assess the proof of an atheist like me?

What this blog needs is a deputy.

:-)

Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Did you mean "empirical" rather than "empiristic"? Were you

A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course.

Firstly, I never said that such a statement, unqualified and unclarified, was. (I note, wandering into FrankD's interest in your interaction style, that you appear to have misrepresented what I said in order to slay yet another strawman.)

Secondly, how amusing that you now admit that the existence of some deities is not falsifiable, given that when I first pointed out that fact you swore black and blue earlier that no such deity definition existed. (I suspect now that you were really saying that all deity's existence claims can be logically excluded from possibility using your "proof" rather than falsified, but failed to make the distinction clear.)

Thirdly, a statement that "God - by which I mean X, Y and Z - exists" may quite obviously be falsifiable, for the reasons I previously explained and which you - in yet another move that broke my latest irony meter - either ignored or failed to comprehend. When X, Y and Z directly or indirectly have implications that conflict with the evidence, then that definition of "God" is falsified by empirical means.

Hence your blanket statement:

But these terms are void for this problem...

...if false. The terms may be void for some definitions of "God", ironically including the definitions you previously said did not exist, but they are not automatically void when discussing deity existence claims.

You are very poor at this, and yet eminently convinced of your excellent skillz. Dunning and Kruger are double facepalming somewhere right now.

To which I replied: “You will need to back up this hypothesis.”

To resort to terminology that you use (although other explanations can't be ruled out) you obviously didn't comprehend my response. It wasn't a hypothesis, it was a logical argument demonstrating that your logic as presented back then was broken in the presence of unfalsifiable deities.

"What this blog needs is a deputy."

And a big iron!

Thirdly, a statement that “God – by which I mean X, Y and Z – exists” may quite obviously be falsifiable

E.g. Helios: a god that drives the sun across the sky.

If the earth is spinning, not the sun moving across the sky, then that god doesn't exist.

#49 Lotharsson -
--
'empiristic' or 'empirical' e.g. "Em`pi`ris´tic
a.1.(Physics) Relating to, or resulting from, experience, or experiment; following from empirical methods or data" from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Empiristic.
--

Remember from the suggestions ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/com… ):
-
God is either part of reality, or God is reality, or God is outside the realm of reality.
-

Before going on, you said: "Firstly, I never said that such a statement, unqualified and unclarified, was."
But my statement was generic, not personally directed and not any rebuttal of anything at all.
Most general: any statement of the kind 'A exists' cannot be falsified.
But the analysis does not finish there. Not being falsifiable does not mean: not being undecidable.

Okay, continue: If a deity is reality, or part of reality, it is open to empirical/empiricist methods of research.

But if a deity is outside 'the realm of reality', empirical methods for analysing the existence of this God are void.
No statement about such a deity can be falsifiable. Moreover, no statement about such a deity can be verified.
This does not mean such a statement is undecidable (and in the 4-suggestions piece I jumped to my verdict in the very next line).

I tend to concentrate on deities who are thought as somehow residing 'outside the realm of reality', somehow impervious to verification, somehow impervious to logic (careful: trap here).
First, because deity concepts always contain such constructs (disagree this, you are obliged to define the deity in physical terms and I will show this deity to be just another name for some part of reality: redundant).
Second because such a deity is hardest to analyse by any means precisely for vagueness of definition reasons.

Whatever. Define God, define deity. If this is not done none of us know what we're talking about. I am surprised at the resistance put up against this dead simple requirement.

But if a deity is outside ‘the realm of reality’

So your claim has morphed from "Gods cannot be disproved empirically" to "Certain types of gods cannot be disproved empirically, if you set the god up so it has no effect".

Which was Lotharsson's point, really.

#53, except I made NONE of those claims.

The single claim I make is: deities can be proven to not exist.

Ways to build this proof depend on definitions of deities, for which we have identified three different general kinds that cover all deity definitions (better, they cover all definitions of anything). Of these, one case is trivial, one case is almost trivial, and the last is not so trivial - apparently.

As a reminder of the main case to attack:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
e.g.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
(there are three more definitions given in this lemma, but those are merely name-calling real objects like money, despots and cRR).

"#53, except I made NONE of those claims. "

Ah, yes, the past. A mystical realm where nothing happened.

Most general: any statement of the kind ‘A exists’ cannot be falsified.

Yes, it can, as I already demonstrated. Did you not comprehend a fairly simple explanation, or did you simply deny it because it was inconvenient?

Not being falsifiable does not mean: not being undecidable.

I think you meant "unfalsifiable does not mean undecidable". That observation is precisely why I mentioned the concept of "logically excluded from possibility", as opposed to "empirically falsified".

No statement about such a deity can be falsifiable.

Bravo! That's what I indicated several days ago, and you flat out denied that such a deity definition existed.

Shame you built up such a reputation for being a bullshitter by arguing the opposite for several days.

I am surprised at the resistance put up against this dead simple requirement.

You again assert this fallacy. It's not a requirement to demonstrate that your argument is logically broken. You have misplaced the onus here!

And your insistence on this misplaced onus ("requirement") shows that you have either failed to comprehend the objections to your argument that people have raised (or being very generous, perhaps you have simply omitted key parts of your argument without which it does not hold).

Your argument has to cover any deity definition anyone suggests, in the past, right now or in the future. You cannot demonstrate that your argument covers the entire set simply by saying "give me a definition" and dealing with that. You have to show that your argument covers all possible definitions, and so far you have spectacularly failed to do that.

More specifically, your observation that without a definition "none of us know what we're talking about" is not a deficiency in your critics' critiques, it is a deficiency in your own argument because it asserts that all definitions are either falsified or logically excluded from possibility. How can you assert that if you don't know what the definitions are in the first place (and you've given no indication of having a robust meta-definition of deity on which you can logically or empirically operate)?

I tend to concentrate on deities who are thought as somehow residing ‘outside the realm of reality’,...

Concentrate all you like, but your argument still has to cover all possible definitions. And it's not sufficient for your argument to note that some deity operates "within reality" therefore it's theoretically falsifiable. Your position asserts that all deities are falsified, not that they are falsifiable

Now maybe you're the first person in history to have rigorously achieved what your argument asserts. But if I were a betting person, even if I hadn't seen your performance over the last few days, I wouldn't be putting my money on it...

The single claim I make is: deities can be proven to not exist.

Goalpost shift, or very poor explanation of your single claim in the past.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, because all one has to show is that there are at least two deities whose existence can be ruled out, either on empirical or logical grounds. This is dead easy.

But that's not what you previously claimed, is it?

#56, gibberish.

I repeat: no statement of the form 'A exists' is falsifiable.

" .. an isolated existential statement is never falsifiable; but if taken in context with other statements, an existential statement may in some cases add to the empirical content of the whole context: it may enrich the theory to which it belongs, and may add to its degree of falsifiability or testability. In this case, the theoretical system including the existential statement in question is to be described as scientific rather than metaphysical."
(Popper, LSD)

So, before we go on, please check carefully that no statement of the form 'A exists' is falsifiable, that is, the part of Popper's quote saying " .. an isolated existential statement is never falsifiable;".
THEN, we might proceed e.g. with the rest of that quote.
FINALLY we may look at those theories called 'non-scientific but meaningful nevertheless' by Popper, and we might make a start on analysing the meaning of 'meaningful' in such cases. For now, forget it. You need the tools first as I told you over and over.

#57, "I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that, because all one has to show is that there are at least two deities whose existence can be ruled out..."

What is a deity? What are you talking about?
Remember I mentioned, as kind of Homer simile (thanks Wow) the NP-Complete problem group?
Try for yourself whether ruling out one deity would rule out all.
Be careful: define 'deity' first. I don't give damn how you do.

Btw, Wow, Helios-example is just name calling. No deity there.

"I repeat: no statement of the form ‘A exists’ is falsifiable."

Yes it is.

A=An elephant under my bed.

#60, you are now under your bed?

???

So you're claiming you don't exist, Kampie?

I'm not discussing what Popper called "isolated existential statements", cRR. I explicitly pointed out that certain deity existence claims don't fit that definition.

And if you were, then you should have said so - which would means that you were not addressing a whole class of deity definitions. And you must address them all.

What is a deity? What are you talking about?

As I already explained you need to define the terms you're using in your argument, not me. And you need to do it to cover all definitions of deity if that's what you claim to have disproved.

So please proceed...

(...or short cut to the chase and point us to your Nobel Prize nomination, or at least your peer-reviewed paper which has survived professional scrutiny ;-)

#62, so: the statement 'An elephant exists under my bed' is not falsifiable.
It is argued that a statement like that could be falsifiable if and only if by direct observation (actually intersubjective direct observation is necessary), but it is not that easy either: the elephant may be hiding in the hollows of your knees all the time as you are physically checking the space under your bed.

Definition of elephant could help you tie him down some. But you may need to resort to the following: 'An elephant is something all of us observe all the time because it has to be observable all the time (by definition) AND all observers are actually observing it all the time'... rendering the existential dangerously circular (= meaningless).

"#62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable."

Is that your claim?

#64, "And you must address them all." - of course.
One by one annex showing the list is exhaustive, that is the assignment.

"And you need to do it to cover all definitions of deity... "
We need to be clearer on this. E.g.
/ A deity is a kiwi on my desk / is a definition of (a) deity.
/ A deity is a transcendent number / is another definition of a deity.
How acceptable are such definitions? Many of them are of the same nonvalue as the following definition of a kiwi:
/ A kiwi is a hair from Nietszches whiskers /.

So: / A deity/kiwi could be anything /-kind of definitions are undefinitions.

#65, there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics, logic, philosophy or metaphysics. Though there is the Fields Medal for the first of these. But that is for mathematical work, not for work done with the help of mathematical methods.

#67, I have more claims, but that is my claim #155.2a, yes.

#68, finally, after 22 years, I've managed to fu 'Nietzsche'. But it makes that definition slightly less interesting, even.

“#62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.”

Is that your claim?

#65, o, what are your credentials re the subject at hand?
This: " I have ministers in the last three generations of my family."?

Then: how do such credentials change the substance, value, truth, falsifiability or verifiability of what you say?
Or: how would your knowing I am the famous machine called MultiVac change the above re statements I utter?

If doctor A is a smoker and tells you smoking is hazardous, and doctor B is a non-smoker and tells you smoking is hazardous, would you tend to believe one of either more than the other? Two cases: you know smoking is hazardous; you do not know that smoking is hazardous.

#62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable

Is that your claim?

Or is this your latest wheeze to never be wrong: Never make a statement?

...what are your credentials re the subject at hand?

I don't assert any because it is unnecessary to my critique, just like I don't need climate science credentials to point out glaring holes in many climate science denialists' arguments. I'm not the one asserting that my argument is valid, and I'm especially not the one asserting that my argument is valid but is apparently quite uncelebrated in the professions which construct and critique such arguments for a living. The latter strongly suggests, just like climate science denialists arguments failure to set climate science alight suggests, that the argument is either (a) exceedingly novel, and will electrify the field if it stands up to scrutiny or (more likely) will fail under scrutiny, or (b) not novel and failed to impress the professionals for good reason.

Like I said, if I were prone to betting I wouldn't be betting on your argument.

We need to be clearer on this.

No, we don't. You do. You asserted you can disprove them all.

Given the previous absence of a definition accompanying your argument, I would expect your definition, should it actually be proffered, to encompass both standard and specialist usage of the term and thus at least include all deities defined by all theists and all theologians & philosophers.

"What this blog needs is a deputy"

Good one.

and I’m especially not the one asserting that my argument is valid

Note that Kampie is now retreating to a stance of never making any assertions, merely pretending others have made one.

"So you’re claiming you don’t exist, Kampie?"

Proving Kampie doesn't exist is not falsifiable.

"Proving Kampie doesn’t exist is not falsifiable."

Double negative and irrelevant to Kampies' "claims" that "Claims of the form A exists are not falsifiable" dear.

DO try to keep up, petal.

It was a joke.

No, it wasn't, betty.

Not to you of course. Understandable.

No, it wasn't a joke, betty.

Proving it wasn't a joke is not falsifiable.

#75, "I don’t assert any because it is unnecessary to my critique..."
Exactly, so that's done with.

"Given the previous absence of a definition accompanying your argument..."
See #54.

"I would expect your definition, should it actually be proffered, to encompass both standard and specialist usage of the term and thus at least include all deities defined by all theists and all theologians & philosophers."

Sure. Like I defined 'atheist' and you guys can decree 'wrong wrong wrong!' or something again. Over to you mate. Define 'deity' and I will show you how to kill it. You have because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions (they will, e.g., all possess the attribute 'omnipotence').

#84, to return to the wisely procrastrinated moment you stepped in for a moment for a moment: 'godspeed' when I used that was a cynical joke (it was neither irony nor sarcasm).

(
- there was a moment you stepped in;
- you stepped in for a moment;
- I'm returning to that for a moment.
Have I all? Yup. It's good.
)

#85, for clarity adding 'to,': You have TO, because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions... /erratum

#77, note how the terrain I retreated from for the time being remains void for all that time. Wise. Mines everywhere.

[Picks up six-shooter (Colt .45 'Peacemaker'). Considers it thoughtfully and looks around the room. Presses to *own* head and pulls trigger. Hollow click: weapon misfires.]

"Proving it wasn’t a joke is not falsifiable."

Let go of the pretension, betty.

BBD, that bullet KNOWS it belongs in Kampie's cranium. That's why it refused to go anywhere else.

Sure. Like I defined ‘atheist’

You REDEFINED atheist to suit your own agenda, dear. Then we pointed out that the word doesn't MEAN what you claim.

Now you're all butthurt and even less coherent in an attempt to "squidink" an escape.

and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

So when the Alabama board defined Pi as 3, you weren't all "WRONG WRONG WRGONG!", right?

Oh, no, you weren't.

Why?

#90 LOL

#91, It won't happen again. Define deity.

#92, IOLO.

"Define deity."

I just did: Helios is a god.

And I disproved experimentally its existence.

#94, "And I disproved experimentally its existence." nice oxymoron (no pun intended).

Ah, is this another "Kampie definition" where you don't actually know how "oxymoron" applies, but will throw it out there in the fervent belief that this will suffice?

An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") is a figure of speech that juxtaposes apparently contradictory elements

Helios is a god. It cannot exist because the definition of helios as a god is: rides the sun across the sky. Since the sun does not ride across the sky, but in fact the earth spins on its axis, there is no job for Helios, therefore Helios as defined cannot exist.

I've disproved experimentally its existence.

Or are you trying for "If it doesn't exist, you can't prove it doesn't exist, since it doesn't exist to see it doesn't exist" form of insanity plea?

#92, IOLO.

Why is it that "IOLO" is an "answer" (really isn't, merely a reply, empty of all content, much like Kampies brain-pan), but only when you do it?

and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

Well IOLO.

#96, prove and disprove are mathematical concepts. Incompatible with verification by experiment.

Your disproof is by reasoning, not experimentation. The argument is more like metaphysical than it it scientific.
But - it the kind of argumentation I consider the more appropriate for deity existential problems. In this case I'm quite inclined to agree with you that you killed Helios (as defined).

I have one question on your example though."in fact the earth spins on its axis" - how are we sure it is not the universe revolving around the earth, or whether not both of earth-spinning and universe-revolving are true?
Related discussion/material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument .

#97, I find the better known acronym 'YOLO' too unfalsifiable.

Anyway, I've answered this several times, pardon me if I was not clear or if you didn't read those lines.

There are many 'moral' battles to fight and many could be lost devastatingly to the hordes of believers. Hordes! I pick my battles and the places to wage them.
If I knew I stood a chance of winning protesting such an Alabama Board, I would join the fray big-time. Generally though, as history has shown, within such local situations to fight the hordes is just about suicidal. There is no fighting from out of body bags or dungeons. So I go somewhere else, can maybe try from there, maybe not (how many Soviet dissidents punched any hole in the USSR?).

Apart from this, and moreover, I consider myself entitled to a life free from brutal authoritarianism and liars. 'I only live once' means I wish to be tender and loving with this 'asset', my life. At this point you may think of me as a 'gutless coward' again. If the choice be between a protracted battle of years and years inside and against a school that is teaching me nonsens half the time, and attending a school that develops my knowledge and other skills, chances are high that I will consider the latter way to spend my precious years preferable.

"#96, prove and disprove are mathematical concepts"

Really? Prove it.

"Incompatible with verification by experiment."

Does not follow on from being mathematical concepts.

"Your disproof is by reasoning, not experimentation."

Nope, you can totally do it by experimenting. You don't seem to comprehend either reason nor experimentation.

A Woo-mancer through and through, like the worst of the Plato cabal, that caused science and technology to stagnate for nearly 2000 years.

But I'd expect no better than that from a frothing lunatic with no higher brain function evident.

I have one question on your example though.”in fact the earth spins on its axis” – how are we sure it is not the universe revolving around the earth,

The distance to the nearest stars would mean a faster than light transit for those stars and a centripetal acceleration that would rip them apart like soggy tissue paper.

Oh, and the Foucault Pendulum for the experimentalists.

I can certainly see how Greece lost their ability to do anything useful with their platonic ideals that you espouse so vehemently (and to such retarded effect).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Empirical_tests

"If I knew I stood a chance of winning protesting such an Alabama Board, I would join the fray big-time."

http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

#2, yes. The Foucault you mentioned amid the woo on last page is one of my favourites. Another is Coriolis.

Alright, presumably at the time the Helios deity was in use (or whatever to call that), all these experimental verifications did not exist and/or unknown or not understood (I may be wrong on this, but then let us presume, like the priests and their following did).
In other words, those people did not possess the tooling to prove that deity non-existent with. Suppose two of them, Remko-Ra and Wow-Ra, did this debate then. How would it run?
Could we disprove (I'll resort to your wording) the deity then?
Or will Helios remain a deity _until_ proven not to exist (or not being a deity)?
The simile is relevant, as it has its pendant in the evolution of logical/mathematical tools, and even the timing of this is roughly, give or take a century or two, the same.

#3, so that caused the El Niño of 1998 to run mayhem then?

Aw, kidding. Thanks for that info.
Actually I did no research into that 'Alabama Bored Pi Thing' because I worked with the principle that such things can happen and do happen, cf creationism and certain aspects of Soviet 'education'.

I should mention there is one situation in which I would vow 'over my dead body' and fight. When there is nowhere to run, because the World Bored adopted Pi = 3, or when I were trapped with no way out in that Alabama place or such a country. I might pretend to comply and fight from underground, I might take it in the open, whichever I think would be te most effective way.

#5, ps, that is to a high degree the case with AGW. Therefore I stand up to you Betty.

"that is to a high degree the case with AGW"

What is to a high degree the case with AGW?

You're imagining yourself fighting a ghost...

"so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.
It is argued that a statement like that could be falsifiable if and only if by direct observation (actually intersubjective direct observation is necessary), "
I said somewhere. It has to be realized I meant: '... iaoi by _and during_ direct observation'. /erratum; 2/3 done;

#7, AGW hits everyone, striking some e.g. you with insanity even, it is global, there is nowhere to run, so I pick some against it.

Define ghost.

8-#44, can I have try with it? Nice in the hand. Recoil translates into rotation, gravitational powered auto cocking mechanism. Should fire. Safe direction of course.

Recoil translates into rotation, gravitational powered auto cocking mechanism

It's a single-action revolver, cRR. Thumb-cocked. Not the M1911A1. That's a different Colt .45 ;-)

You were imagining yourself fighting an Alabama that has adopted PI=3, which has happened, except in the confines of your mind...

It is an immaterial illusion that has startled you. A ghost.

"hasn't happened"

Yes Betty, it was Indiana and it ALMOST, but not quite passed. Good thing you're here to set the record straight.

Define ‘deity’ and I will show you how to kill it.

No argument of the form "You define 'X' and I will show you f(X) = 'a'" constitutes a valid proof that "f(X) = 'a' for all 'X'", unless and until one can demonstrate a set of techniques that cover the set of "all possible definitions of 'X'".

You do not appear to have done that for 'X' = "deity".

Over to you mate.

Nope.

You really are impressively crap at the fundamentals, apparently STILL without realising it.

YOU made the claim, so you have to define what you're claiming. If you refuse to do so, then I can only assume - as I have been - that the definition of "deity" you're using covers the common usages of the term. And since you're claiming something about "all deities", then it has to cover all definitions of deities that match any of the common usages.

You have TO, because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions…

No, that is a terrible fallacy about a very simple issue. By this stage I hold little hope for more complex ones.

I really absolutely and completely don't have to.

It's not my claim.

Of course it would be quite valid for you to define your terms in a way that does not cover common usage - such as "only obviously killable definitions" and restrict your argument to that. But you haven't done so.

And if you do decide to exclude deities whose definitions come under the common usage of the word "deity", then your argument would no longer mean "I disprove all deities" to the average person in the street because it simply excluded some of them by fiat. In which case my work here would be done - Q.E.D.!

Do you see your problem with asserting that "you have to" yet?

Sure. Like I defined ‘atheist’ and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

I seem to recall that you initially didn't define "atheist", and you further insisted that all definitions except yours were wrong which is not only stupid, but suggests that you might very well be doing the same with "deity".

#11 BBD, I know, the gravitational pull as the barrel goes down with the thumb on the cock (I know, it doesn't work that well).

#12, you have no imagination.

#15, "I seem to recall that you initially didn’t define “atheist”" - of course. I laboured under the impression people like you knew what an atheist is. Bad mistake.

"one can demonstrate a set of techniques" - sure, you can make a wrap-up now. Begin with: deity is either part of reality, or IS reality, or is outside of the realm of reality. You need two sets of techniques. I concentrated on the tools needed for the 'supernatural' deities as you guys never even heard of them (apparently).
Anyway, for supernatural you should be finished quickly: that's just another word for 'doesn't exist'. Perhaps it takes a little time to realize you ARE finished with that.

" all definitions except yours were wrong which is not only stupid" - really. Actually is was just handy. If there are so many definitions of 'atheism' then yes, I choose one: the simplest and most modern variant. Live with it or supply something better.

"... you might very well be doing the same with “deity”."

Therefore: define 'deity'.

I laboured under the impression people like you knew what an atheist is.

False.

You laboured under the false impression that you knew what other people meant by "atheist" when the term is used without further qualification. Despite extensive correction, you still haven't changed your mind.

I concentrated on the tools needed for the ‘supernatural’ deities as you guys never even heard of them (apparently).

Are you stupid, suffering from comprehension problems or merely being mendacious? I provided definitions of supernatural deities waaaaaaaay back as counter-examples to your proof.

Anyway, for supernatural you should be finished quickly: that’s just another word for ‘doesn’t exist’.

As I've indicated several different ways and you have been too pigheaded to take on board, you can't redefine someone else's definition if you want your "proof" to address their definition.

I think there's enough evidence now that your proof relies on redefining other people's definitions, so it doesn't disprove all deities, just the ones you've defined to be in scope.

Therefore: define ‘deity’.

More evidence suggesting "stupid" or "comprehension problem".

#17,
" Despite extensive correction, you still haven’t changed your mind." - Of course I have changed my mind. When I discovered the meaning of 'atheist' was not clear I dictated that meaning to you. Now I have changed my mind again because this time I will no longer invite you to supply something better. You have nothing. So we agree on the definition of atheist as being someone who knows deities do not and can not exist. Live with it.

"supernatural deities" don't exist by definition (that's what 'supernatural' means, but you may supply a different idea on that), but I recall having killed your deities in a somewhat more protracted way.
Got some more?

"you can’t redefine someone else’s definition" - which definition ''atheist' do you mean? I just picked one. Live with it.

"... it doesn’t disprove all deities, just the ones you’ve defined to be in scope."

Therefore: define 'deity'. Can't you do it, or do you believe in the undefinable deity that will send you to hell if you try to define it?
(cRR: yes, of course. It's a kind of chronic paranioa).

#17, o, btw, I will decree what I labour under, mate. Is undebatable.

" Good thing you’re here to set the record straight."

Though it was set straight about five pages ago, with links.

Meanwhile, isn't it odd that Betty should be so worried about getting facts straight and not repeating a false report merely because it's been said a lot?

"I will decree what I labour under, mate. Is undebatable."

Word. Things. Meaning. What. Stuff. Incomprehensible. Shatner. Reeling. Forever. Mistaken.

"#2, yes. The Foucault you mentioned amid the woo on last page is one of my favourites. "

So when you claimed to request experimental evidence that it's the earth turning, you were wasting time?

Or is it that you're now backpedalling to hide your shame?

The latter, isn't it, dear. It's the latter.

or do you believe in the undefinable deity that will send you to hell if you try to define it?

Do you seriously think that someone who has declared themselves to be an atheist lives in paranoia of an undefinable deity and some conception of hell? Or just short of a decent red herring?

So we agree on the definition of atheist as being someone who knows deities do not and can not exist.

What kind of person tries to tell someone they didn't mean what they said, right after they were called out for trying to dictate what someone else means?

"Mendacious", I'd say. And not that bright either.

Cince it's now clear that your "proof" relies on this tactic it's obvious that it doesn't disprove all deities - just as I initially pointed out.

I reckon I'm done!

Cince -> Since.

"You laboured under the false impression that you knew what other people meant by “atheist” when the term is used without further qualification."

It's simpler than that. Kampie laboured under the false impression that he knew what atheist means and that everyone else was using the same mistaken definition.

Indeed Kampie's diatribes have been littered with Humpty Dumpty meanings of words.

But apparently this is a problem for us, since we have to define for him the meanings of words he's using otherwise he feels free to use whatever H-D meaning he wishes.

#21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. Well you are busted. I dictate to you what I think, period.

#22, why are you wasting so much time? Do you really think there is an afterlife?

#23, "Do you seriously think that someone who has declared themselves to be an atheist lives in paranoia of an undefinable deity and some conception of hell?"
- If the self-so-called 'atheist' is actually an agnost with a mission to plant his ignorance on others, then that symptom is indeed quite clear. Fear. I do not have this problem because I AM an atheist.

"I reckon I’m done!" - but we know you are not (see how it feels if I fill in for you what to think, what you are labouring under, when you are done, et cetera. Ain't it nice?).
What deities? Define them!

#25, "But apparently this is a problem for us, since we have to define for him the meanings of words he’s using otherwise he feels free to use whatever H-D meaning he wishes."

Correct!

#4 was way over Wow's head, of course :)

"#21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. "

You think you know the meaning of "believers" now?

re #27: then define the meaning of define for us.

However, I think it is now 10,000% clear that Kampie is just plain old trolling. See "I dictate to you what I think, period."

What a fucking moron...

#31, sigh. Very well. You dictate what I think, then :)

"“#21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. "

Climates cientology modus Deltoid in a nutshell. :-) Jeff's right wing demon's makes him very skilled in that department. He always know what evil thoughts others have and to prove it he invents reality over and over again. :-)

" Very well. You dictate what I think, then"

Ah, so now you swing manically over to the other extreme as if everyone else were as psychotic as you, Kampie?

I've even explicitly said you're allowed to think what you think.

Or are you so brain dead that you think that the only two options are

a) You tell everyone else what to think
b) Everyone else tells you what to think

?

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Which middle is a fucking panolpy of unlimited vistas. But you don't like to see beyond your own psychosis, do you dear?

PS note the passive-agressive smilies, a favourite of Olap. Who apparently has a new email address...

#33, distinguishing between knowing and believing... You really want to go into that? You're welcome!

#35, never look at substance, the foil is everything :)

#34, " But you don’t like to see beyond your own psychosis, do you dear?"

It took some time, but you are getting on the right track. If you have questions about my thinking, you ask. You don't fill in and go on like a steamroller, no: you ask. Well done!

Answer: the question is void, no psychosis involved. You shouldn't be so paranoid about a little extension of insight.

"#33, distinguishing between knowing and believing"

ROFLMAO!

YOU were the one mixing up agnostic and atheist, dear!

You.

But, as with the slug horde, every failure you've evidenced is transferred onto everyone else. Because otherwise you may be wrong, and that's unpossible!

#39, you are now telling us that I coined the insane expression 'gnostic atheist', which is the mix-up of mix-ups (elsewhere we and some other mates who simply know what I'm talking about found the thing even worse than 'postmodernism').

Do you know who you are?

#39, I like your leveling with Petri though. Maybe peace is possible after all.

Checked something and found. A sign of total ignorance again. None of you ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism .
Proof: "In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are used derogatorily. A sophism is a false argument intended to mislead. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments."

If one of you knew this would've popped up. Btw I'm not asking fees for my teachings.

"#39, you are now telling us that I coined the insane expression ‘gnostic atheist’,"

No.

However, as you've done over the past ~6 pages, you're now pretending a different reality from the one that is here in order to "win" an argument. One that exists solely in your diseased imagination.

English comprehension: you fail it.

#43, aha, another missive from the city on the hill (tx bro), where everything is defined, including Britain and the British language.

If you find a contradiction, check your hypotheses. You will invariably find some of them to be wrong (tx, Rand).

Or you could just ask.

As to winning, there is no contest*. Void again.

(* - read the doublespeak)

", where everything is defined, "

dictionary
ˈdɪkʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/
noun
noun: dictionary; plural noun: dictionaries

1.
a book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning, or that gives the equivalent words in a different language.
synonyms:lexicon, wordbook, glossary, vocabulary list, vocabulary, word list, wordfinder

I realise that education isn't your thing, but it seems astounding that you don't think words have to be defined.

But I guess all you're left with is histrionics, dear.

Sad.

#45, define deity.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand: "An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science" by Jim Sallinger
-> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-…

Progress.

"#45, define deity."

deity
ˈdeɪɪti,ˈdiːɪ-/
noun
noun: deity; plural noun: deities

1.
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/com…

"“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."

But now you've segued into "define deity".

"By ‘atheist’ I mean someone who knows there are no gods"

Defintion:

atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

"For this reason ‘gnostic atheism’ is a tautology. "

Definition:
agnostic
agˈnɒstɪk/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Definition:

tautology
tɔːˈtɒlədʒi/
noun
noun: tautology

1.
the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession ).

If the words are different in meaning, then they cannot be tautological.

#49, define god, goddess and gods; and God.
Nah, not necessary, take 'm synonyms for starters.

Be inspired by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity .
Stumble for a moment over your and other agnosts' affliction:
[wiki:] "Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form." and remove that sore remnant of religious upbringing.

Aside: socio-psychologically a very interesting phenomenon, this 'Thou shall not define'. Brutal authoritanianism that. 'Thou shalt remain ignorant!' et c.

#51, then a new noun will have to be coined to denote the position 'I know there is/are no God/deities/gods'. Remark the absence of the word 'believe' in this definition.

I have no trouble with being called a logician, implying among others the above position, instead of atheist. Deal?

Looking up 'gnostic atheist', 'gnostic atheism'.
Nothing gave.
What a sick world this is.
"Thou shalt remain ignorant!"
Damn do I have some guts.

Stu @14....

"Yes Betty, it was Indiana and it ALMOST, but not quite passed. Good thing you’re here to set the record straight"

No Stu, I was referring.to Kampens comments about fighting the Alabama board....read the comments. Good thing you're here to make a jackass out of yourself.

As far as Indiana...another ghost. Spending time Imagining fighting something that "ALMOST" happened over 100 years ago, but of course didn't happen.

"Meanwhile, isn’t it odd that Betty should be so worried about getting facts straight and not repeating a false report merely because it’s been said a lot?"

The only thing odd about it is that you think it's odd.

#55, LOL you have some imagination...

To cut another quarter century of work, remember Wittgenstein's attempts at defining the word 'game'. It could not be done, at least not exhaustively. Fortunately we do NOT need an exhaustive definition of 'deity'. We only need some some attributes. 'Sacred' is not one of them, but apparently something like 'supernatural' is.

"We only need some some attributes" -> some necessary (or perceived to be necessary) attributes /erratum

"#49, define god, goddess and gods; and God."

Why?

Already defined deity for you.

All that got was another whine and demand.

"Looking up ‘gnostic atheist’, ‘gnostic atheism’."

Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic - The Freethinker
freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
25 Sep 2009 - An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, ...
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic ...

Really.

"The only thing odd about it is that you think it’s odd."

Nope, that's not it, dear.

#61, I wasn't looking for 'Agnostic atheism' though was confronted with that like an epidemy when I googled 'gnostic atheism' (fucking GNOSTIC. Not agnostic!!). We are acquainted with that taste.
For the find at Freethinker you have my thanks.

#60, to rid yourself of your astonishment expressed in your #45.
Aw, just kidding.
No - because we have to, against all the indoctrination that dictates we're not allowed it (authoritanianism: believing = knowing, not allowed = not possible, ...).

"#61, I wasn’t looking for ‘Agnostic atheism’ "

You weren't looking for anything, dear. You were burying your head in the sand and claiming "I see no ships!".

Sorry, not buying it, dear.

"#60, to rid yourself of your astonishment expressed in your #45."

Nope, you divested yourself temporarily of your insane demands that words do not have to be defined.

Wtf?? "I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number" ??
NOOOOOOO!!!
I KNOW Pi is a transcendent number.
And YES this position is tenable, what say I? Unavoidable even re gods! The word 'supernatural' even signifies believers themselves bloody know better!

Tssss.... the fear is big in this world :D

Wtf?? “I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number” ??

I search on this page for the words

"I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number"

And the only match is your post.

Which reality are you reading your web page on?

The first time "Pi is a transcendent" appears is in page 5.

But not with the other words you "quoted".

#64, aha, so you think I just guessed I would be overloaded with shit about 'agnostic atheism' while looking for 'gnostic atheism'. What a convoluted mind you have. But... I COULD'VE guessed. True.

#65, a, a, a. I decided to put the burden of definition on you. The necessity of definition is, as you also see so clearly now, a Theme with capital T in dealing with deities. That, of course, I was absolutely aware of all the time.

#67, you are a very sorry reader indeed. Comparisons, metaphors and similes are way out aren't they. Let me spell it out for you once more:

I know there are no deities in the same way I know Pi is a transcendent number. This, of course, implies I think I know, but it is NOT the same.

#54 cRR Kampen
January 24, 2014

Looking up ‘gnostic atheist’, ‘gnostic atheism’.
Nothing gave

.

After I found something:

#61, I wasn’t looking for ‘Agnostic atheism’ though was confronted with that like an epidemy when I googled ‘gnostic atheism’ (fucking GNOSTIC. Not agnostic!!).

NOTE Freethinking text here: 25 Sep 2009 – An atheist gnostic is ...

Atheist gnostic....

But, hey, maybe retardo here missed it!

Oh, nope, not that:

For the find at Freethinker you have my thanks.

Oh dear.

#70 (before answering, please look up the difference between 'implies', 'is implied by' and ' is equivalent to', thank you)

#64, aha, so you think I just guessed I would be overloaded with shit about ‘agnostic atheism’

Again:

25 Sep 2009 – An atheist gnostic is …

"#65, a, a, a. I decided to put the burden of definition on you."

And I've defined deity as demanded.

"#67, you are a very sorry reader indeed. Comparisons, metaphors and similes are way out aren’t they."

Quotation. How does that work?

#71, the phrase coined here was 'gnostic atheism'. Of course you had to muddle that up too, but serendipity!! My search finds it as hit nr 7, yours has it nr 3 immediately below the wiki article.
Both searches are riddeled with the pest of ignorance. E.g. the wiki-article has nothing to do in either searches.

#73... a tautology. As you see, I am also above the freethinker scheme.

#74, and killed it for me, evidencing to my point. Why don't you consider the work done, then?

"#71, the phrase coined here was ‘gnostic atheism’."

And so I placed in the google search bar.

It turned up atheist gnostic because a simple computer program shows more sense than you do, dear.

"#73… a tautology. "

Nope.

#77, false

false
fɔːls,fɒls/
adjective
adjective: false; comparative adjective: falser; superlative adjective: falsest

1.
not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
"he was feeding false information to his customers"
synonyms:incorrect, untrue, wrong, erroneous, fallacious, faulty, flawed, distorted, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, invalid, unfounded; More
untruthful, fictitious, concocted, fabricated, invented, made up, trumped up, unreal, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, spurious, misleading, deceptive
"he gave a false account of his movements"
antonyms:correct, truthful
not according with rules or law.
"false imprisonment"
2.
made to imitate something in order to deceive.

#78, maybe you get the same results for both searches, I don't. Search engines might be slightly more complex than you thought.

#79, then an atheist is an agnost and I am a logician.

"#78, maybe you get the same results for both searches, I don’t."

Given your propensity to lie, how can anyone know you're telling the truth this once?

Given I found it without even attempting, you seemed to be unwilling to even attempt to see whether you had a match.

Given you refuse an answer because the words are in the opposite order, you seem unwilling to even comprehend what is in front of you.

Given all the above, you're going to have to prove your protestations of innocence.

"#79, then an atheist is an agnost and I am a logician."

No and therefore no.

"Finally, here’s the graph in its final form. Where do you fit?"

Nowhere, because you decided to take away my position, Peter Brietbart.

#82, you can verify.

#82, "Given all the above, you’re going to have to prove your protestations of innocence."

The Passion of the Christ.

re #85, I did. You're a lying sack of crap.

#86 is the final proof of Kampie's xtian fundamentalist background.

#84.

hallucination
həˌluːsɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
plural noun: hallucinations

1.
an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.
"he continued to suffer from horrific hallucinations"
synonyms:delusion, illusion, figment of the imagination, vision, apparition, mirage, chimera, fantasy, dream, daydream;

#87, I'm not going to make screenprints to prove you wrong. Not worth it. Keep up the faith.

" I’m not going to make screenprints"

Why not?

8-#75, Lotharsson:
".. that the [cRR's, crr] argument is either (a) exceedingly novel, and will electrify the field if it stands up to scrutiny or (more likely) will fail under scrutiny, or (b) not novel and failed to impress the professionals for good reason."

I never gave a damn, IOLO so give it a swing. But it is beginning to look like (a). Never mind who are and who are not te be considered 'the professionals'. For all we believe I am not a professional philosopher. Therefore, we know, do we not.

#91, you didn't say 'please'.

Meantime, it was still the only hit on 'gnostic atheist' or 'atheist gnostic' amid the epidemy of ignorance oops agnosticm.
And it did away with it along the way. So effectively there are nil hits to be found as yet. Damn, my guts.

#91, nailed the problem. 'gnostic atheism' yields the Freethinker result in 3rd hit, but 'gnostic atheist' has this link below on the page. In so far I am not innocent I concede I didn't scroll enough. Put off by all those non-hits.

"I never gave a damn"

five pages later, pretends not to care...

"#91, nailed the problem"

PEBKAC for you, dear?

#97, sure. Experimentally verified the deity cRR does not exist.

#96, "Hmm... This is getting interesting." thought I.

#98: hallucination
həˌluːsɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
plural noun: hallucinations

1.
an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.
“he continued to suffer from horrific hallucinations”
synonyms: delusion, illusion, figment of the imagination, vision, apparition, mirage, chimera, fantasy, dream, daydream;

#100, empty the clipbored onceawhile.

Kampie, you are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
and I claim my $5.

Seriously, trying to get out of an insanity charge by being insane isn't sane.

#2, there is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.

I am MultiVac. ELIZA became a part of me like Eva became apart from Adam.

#3, than /erratum

#3 no, there isn't.

#5, if you don't understand such a statement, you should say 'what do you mean by that, dearie'?

"#5, if you don’t understand such a statement,"

It's because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Kampie, if you don't understand the statement "No, there isn't" then how would you expect to understand "What do you mean by that, dearie?"?

#7, no, it is because you cannot make sense of it. There is a slight difference.

“Insanity is often the logic of an accurate mind overtasked”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., Autocrat of the Breakfast Table

Knowing you don't know the difference between imply, is implied by and equivalence, this is informative for you as well:

Criss Jami
“When you're the only sane person, you look like the only insane person.”
― Criss Jami, Diotima, Battery, Electric Personality

"#7, no, it is because you cannot make sense of it."

Nope, that isn't it.

I can demonstrate the issue.

Do you understand the statement "Pi equals 3 exactly"?

"“Insanity is often the logic of an accurate mind overtasked”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., Autocrat of the Breakfast Table "

Insanity is often the illogic of a mind that has gone insane. It's in the definition of the word "insane", dear.

"“When you’re the only sane person, you look like the only insane person.”
― Criss Jami,"

And when you're the insane person, everyone else looks sane, dear.

Let me ask you, Kampie, if someone is actually insane, how would EITHER of those quotes be different from the mind of the one wearing underpants on their head going "Wibble"?

#10, yes, I understand the statement “Pi equals 3 exactly”.

#11 - "And when you’re the insane person, everyone else looks sane, dear."

I'm mesmerized by this one...

"#10, yes, I understand the statement “Pi equals 3 exactly”."

OK, then Pi equals 3 exactly. Agreed?

#12, please rephrase, I don't understand the comparison here between quotes on the one hand, mind on the other. I mean, it could all be carnaval.

#14, disagreed. Given that we mean by Pi the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle in a Euclidian geometry.

"#14, disagreed"

But I thought you understood the phrase "Pi equals 3 exactly? Now you don't?!?

So nobody is insane because any symptom will be claimed by you to be proof of higher cognition and moreover that it's EVERYONE ELSE that is insane?

That's fucking nuts.

#17, statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless. Problem with definition, in casu 'to understand', again?

#18.
Like I said at the start of this, I only very rarely come up with my position re deities and debate it.
While I think I have something to say, it has become very clear indeed that my position is very rare indeed, especially withing the group that uses the head for anything ranging from serious fun to scientific career.
In particular, the incredibly sparse results of googling 'gnostic atheist'/'- atheism' and the virtually out of hand dismissal of the position on the single hit on the first page, are telling.

This implies I have a huge responsibility to get my definitions and argumentation right, either to find my position untenable like almost all sane people, or to be able to present an interesting idea that indeed can withstand scrutiny by professionals.
I acknowledge herewith that I have a lot of work to do on this.
-
Meantime, this is Deltoid, or DQ - the Deltoid Quagmire as I think of it. The theme here is AGW and climate revisionism. While I came to Deltoid for this very theme only, I now have a growing sense of having hijacked part of it/in a way/et c.
To those who feel this IS so, I say sorry.

For me there are more outlets for this discussion, e.g. among profs and students of the relevant fields in particular philosophy. I feel it is the wiser and of much more value to help keep Deltoid on it's theme whatever the quagmire that theme runs into here and take my off topic case somewhere else.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if you disagree, elsewise let's truce on this.

To those who feel this IS so, I say sorry.

Those poor climate contrarians haven't been able to get a word in edgeways since last week. One has to feel their pain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

cRR, the reason I was interested in the peripheral aspects of technique was because I watched it distract from and undercut whatever substance there might have been in your initial point. More rigour early, and you probably would have got at least to agree-to-disagree (or better) fairly quickly, instead of having something like 600 posts of unproductive disagreement and point-scoring.

When I said I was uninterested in your core argument, it would be more accurate to say I was uninterested in debating it, because of such problems. For example, I would suggest revisiting your four methods and consider a couple of aspects: 1 whether these are sufficiently complete and 2. your definitions - I was not initially "wowed"by your argument anyway, but switched off completely when you used "intensionality" and "intentionality" interchangably. These are two different concepts and the confusion lost me.

And you are right, there are plenty of places where such an argument would be of interest, but Deltoid is probably not it. Why anyone would waste time coming to what they see as a "quagmire" is also mystifying. But as you say a truce is the only sensible way forward.

For Betty: http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/ecological_and_evolutionary_res…

#20, that was what I _actually_ meant..

#21, Much more rigour, FrankD. Much more. The way I'm treating the subject demands it. But I was totally unprepared and meant no more than a sidestep there, smaller than the music talk above really. Some rigour in quitting answering the barrage posts might come in handy too. Strangely I can handle that kind of chaos with climate revisionists a lot better. Probably because the theory is trivial in comparison.
For me part of it was productive, aside from amusing and aside from realizing the above very clearly indeed.

" “intensionality” and “intentionality” " - I know. In that text it is there deliberately. You are the first to comment! But forget it for now.

Re quagmire, endless, often convoluted debates with a small number of climate revisionists accompanied by Deltoid's special brand of namecalling - it would never be done like that over at Sou's for instance. So the terrain here is complex. Apparently the revisionists sunk under during past week and I too feel their pain : )

Vegetables not being in my field much I unfortunately have nothing for Betty today. Even the temps in Holland are at normal values for the time of year.

Insanity, though, Wow, would be a relevant topic inside Deltoid.

Will somebody give Duffer a wakening kick for here is a debunker for his next in winter snark about it being cold:

Climate Data Meets the Funny Pages at xkcd.

Anybody else enjoying the spectacle of Mark Steyn imploding under the pressure of being gradually forced to admit his opinions are non-factual?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate…

Looks like he's completely #%$@ed. And the National Review that gave him a platform from which to emit his illegal garbage appears to be suffering from that awful buttock-clenching squitty feeling....

If only more scientists would sue the liars that defame them in the press, the world would be a better place.

More Mann-gloating here:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/25/we-were-dead-before-the-ship-ever…

"Another example, perhaps the greatest of all, of conservotards who simply don't know when to stop digging. They've been into their own Koolaid for far too long. It'll be a pleasure to watch NRO get dismembered to settle Mann's claim. "

#26, scientists, for one. This is looking like a big win. People affected by CAGW in countries or regions where the phenomenon is still denied are many more. The future is becoming no longer what it used to be.

"#17, statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless. "

#6 statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless

"Like I said at the start of this, I only very rarely come up with my position re deities and debate it."

Non sequitur again, dear. Has nothing to do with your claims that #18 were an astonished bark of laughter at.

"Insanity, though, Wow, would be a relevant topic inside Deltoid."

Did you read the tagline for the side, darling? It isn't "investigations into insanity", though you've supplied ample display that it's not just the deniers of climate that are fruitloops.

#31, the truce is now unilaterally implemented and imposed on you, Wow, which means any allusion by you to the deity debate will be considered stalking. In return any allusion to that debate by me may be termed trolling. Thank you. You may go now.

/cRR

So what about "statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless" applies when YOU claim "Nope" to a statement I make that is wrong, but not when I make that claim to a statement you make that is wrong?

#33, that's okay.

This one: "There is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness." ?

Like I said above: if you don't understand what I mean by that, just ask.
It is obviously a much more complicated statement than 'Pi is exactly equal to 3'.
For instance: because insanity is often a comparative adjective which means we, that is you, ought to have defined what YOU mean by 'insane' first; and then because there are well known sayings alluding to the system and rigour in insane thinking. The word I actually fucked up in that statement was 'rationality' (please laugh), otoh many a 'rational' system like communism has shown itself to be totally insane.
If premises are rotten rationality will lead to hell.

"#33, that’s okay. "

Why is it OK?

"Like I said above: if you don’t understand what I mean by that, just ask."

statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless.

Why Duffer is AWOL:

calling for 'MORE SANDBAGS' at SkS?

“There is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.”

It's wrong.

I understand it.

And that is why I can say it is wrong.

#35, no break of implemented truce.

#36, that statement in fact was undecidable (it was not at all 'known to be' true or false) and it was meant to be that. Whether it was 'understandable' is yet another question.

Let's try this one: 'There is rationality in climate revisionism'.
Agenda here is to separate insane systematics from rational. Or, and, but: to separate (unspoken) material interests from rational thinking.

#38, do we understand, then, that we have equal motivation for calling that statement wrong - as the crux is the misuse of the word 'rationality'?

"#35, no break of implemented truce."

Thursday's halibut was nice, though.

"#36, that statement in fact was undecidable"

Verbing words weirds language.

#40 do we? I know that it's wrong. Do you?

#41, that was educational... Option 5 in http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=halibut ?

#42, it could be called 'style', but how is 'undecidable' weird language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

#43, never finish anything, never agree on anything. Excellent, my dear, scrap #40. Return to #34 where it is said:
-
... insanity is often a comparative adjective which means we, that is you, ought to have defined what YOU mean by ‘insane’ first; and then because there are well known sayings alluding to the system and rigour in insane thinking. The word I actually fucked up in that statement was ‘rationality’ (please laugh), otoh many a ‘rational’ system like communism has shown itself to be totally insane.
If premises are rotten rationality will lead to hell.
-

So if you don't understand the sentence, you cannot tell whether it was true, false or undecidable. The way to go is to ask for clarification.
#38 is a sophistry. Leave that technique to me.

"#41, that was educational…"

For certain feet, shoes don't fit, I say.

"#42, it could be called ‘style’, but how is ‘undecidable’ weird language?"

It could be called incomprehensible. An option you ignored.

"… insanity is often a comparative adjective "

1) Not always, though.
2) Does not mean "there is more sanity in insanity" in any way, shape or form.

" ought to have defined what YOU mean by ‘insane’ first"

1) I did. I disclosed those efforts of yours that displayed the characteristics of insane.
2) Does not mean "there is more sanity in insanity" in any way, shape or form.

Maybe you ought to consider whether your incapability in deciding what you mean or what you're trying to say are the results of cognitive failure endemic in your psyche and projected onto others since the only brain whose operational capability you have direct knowledge of is your own, therefore in the interests of self-realisation and feelings of worth, you then project onto others.

#46, or perhaps I weirded language by nouning a verb?
The statement itself was meant to be incomprehensible.

#47, 2) does mean exactly that.
"... the only brain whose operational capability you have direct knowledge of is your own."
Correct. We are thus reminded of the concept of sophistry. Therefore you have no way to tell whether the statement 'there is more rationality in insanity than there is in insanity' is true, false or undecidable.
Even if you do adhere to the consensus taste of truth, you have nothing on my brain, my sanity or my insanity for the votes are split.
Rest assured: I know exactly what I mean and I am also very precise in formulating it.

My person, it's 'self-realisation', it's 'feelings of worth' have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable. I told you this using one word. MultiVac.
If you feel projected upon, you may wish to apply for a workshop to increase your self-confidence.

#47, btw, probably: always.

#48 Then why complain that I pronounce it incomprehensible? Because you have nothing else to say?

"#47, 2) does mean exactly that."

More incomprehensible? Or is this one time when you're not trying to be incomprehensible?

"My person, it’s ‘self-realisation’, it’s ‘feelings of worth’ have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable."

Yes, narcissistic psychopaths all have that assertion in common.

Brad Keys being an exemplar of the type.

#48, correction: the statement was "there is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness."

#50, do you feel to be taken seriously by me at all?

That statement being wrong, yet completely understood, a prerequisite for assessing whether the statement is wrong or right.

#53 odd complaint from one that demands their vapid blatherings and humpty-dumpty complex be considered serious erudition, and insisting that their person is unassailable...

#54, yes, I'm telling you all the time. I acknowledge hereby that you have understood that.

#55, it was a question. Do you feel to be taken seriously by me?

"#54, yes, I’m telling you all the time. I acknowledge hereby that you have understood that."

Then why your post #6 then repeated at #9?

You see, this is evidence of your broken brain.

"#55, it was a question"

No, it was an observation. I observe that your complaint #53 was extremely odd coming from someone who demands their vapid blatherings and humpty-dumpty complex should be considered serious erudition. Especially from one insisting that their person is unassailable.

#57, because there you did not understand.

#58, it is a question to you. Do you feel I take you seriously at all? Yes/No/Don't know, strike out the inappropriate please.

"#57, because there you did not understand."

Yet your only observation to support that assertion of my incomprehension is that I said it was wrong.

Yet you insist that something can be wrong and still be understood.

Therefore not even you believe your own premise, or alternatively, have no basis on which to make your assertion.

"#58, it is a question to you"

No, I made an observation at #55.

I know because I said it.

#61, it is a question to you.
I will fill in for you now: "don't know".
Very well. The answer is:
I do not take you seriously at all.
This was made clear by me pages ago.
Of course, you didn't read that (either).

Now you can ask for a reset. A clean slate, say. Be sure to say 'please'.
Or you can continue nitpicking at the sophistries and nonsensicals I have provided for you.

"#61, it is a question to you."

Sorry, are you talking about a different "it" here? Because posts 58 and 55 were by me and I'm not asking *me* questions.

"I will fill in for you now: “don’t know”."

You don't know what?

"I do not take you seriously at all."

For someone who thinks "My person, it’s ‘self-realisation’, it’s ‘feelings of worth’ have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable.”, you certainly seem to be desperate to make your person, your self-realisation and your feelings of self worth a central tenet of anyone else.

Which is why I claimed that your cries for relevance to be so very odd.

#63, why are we sorry?

#65, probable you feel a bit lost. Sorry.

#66 are you suffering from MPD too?

#67: probably don't know how to spell "you".

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/133087/why-is-sorry-used-for…

#68, suffering? How convoluted again. Do you suffer from your dreams, or are you always alone in dreams? That would be really sufferable.
So: of course not. Enjoying your MPS, dear Sybil. Do you enjoy mine?

"#68, suffering?"

Yes. You are aware of the homology of that term, right?

Are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?

#72, no. I am enjoying multiple personality order.

And more oddity from the moron troll who thinks that merely because they don't subscribe to the lunacy of AGW denial, that they get a pass on any other lunacy.

No, dear, if you're an imbecilic moron, you're an imbecilic moron. Expect it to be called out.

"#72, no. I am enjoying multiple personality order."

Hence proving my diagnosis: insanity.

Thank you, dear.

#75, and mine. Deity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvtDHH_IfP8

#76, yup, insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

You live it, probably have no clue as to what it is.

#79, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark .

As to seeming non sequiturs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan

Finally, you need to hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsKwqr2SKwo

The Wow & Kampen thread just grows and grows,

let's hope that we should soon hear on this going nowhere exchange, can't you take it to email or something?

#81, ask Wow. I will happily take your cue and quit this, Wow got the cue today via Lou Reed and should've picked up the message a week ago. In clear language I'm sick of Wow and hope to have returned the feeling.

"The Wow & Kampen thread just grows and grows,"

Well, he's weird.

But he's nailed the final one into his coffin by proudly proclaiming his insanity and then doubling down on the moron later.

He's painted himself into a corner and then laughed at everyone going "HA! You can't get me, I'm protected by the wet paint!".

Of course, he's previously complained when FrankD wouldn't play with him and proffered it as "proof" that Frank was wrong. On something or other, who knows.

But now he's nailed his colours to the mast, put the pencils up his nose and said "Wibble", he's not really got any place for that cod-martyrdom.

So according to Wow I've achieve the ranks of Edgar Allan Poe (alluding to the coffin - otherwise I'd have mentioned Wow's comparison of me with Nicolas Tesla).
Anyway, there was an email suggestion. Doable. Omit the c, insert a dot between the two parts of my name and use gmail. Though methinks Wow needs the public.

#83, summary on multiple personality order, it is the normal condition. Proofs: dreams in which other people appear or in which you yourself 'act funny'; temporary dissociation phenomena during great stress or absolute concentration.
I said I enjoy multiple personality order. In other words, in this respect I am sane and that is exactly what I said.
You may refer to wiki or DSM V for multiple personality DISorder. Otoh, if you have it, I am sorry for your suffering, but then, you are the expert in that case.

@cRR, 85: you know you're barely coherent at this point, right?

Please use Deltoid what its for.

Of course he doesn't.

Just like betty, duffer, olap or bray.

From his FaceBook page you would think he was a decent chap: https://www.facebook.com/rr.kampen

Admitedly I haven't read the entire exchange between Wow and cRR Kampen but from what I've read it's a bit unfair to treat him like one of the imbecilic denier regulars. I don't condone but I understand cRR trolling responses to Wow's attack-dog aggressiveness. As cRR stated a number of times, if Wow didn't understand cRR position he could have simply asked him to clarify instead of jumping in boots and all. While an attack response is I think the way to deal with dishonest, contemptible denier shit like the Brad Keyes of this world, I think Wow's response is an overeaction to what cRR has said which he disagrees with. Btw, I also disagree with some of what he says. He seems to equate atheistic zeal to religious zeal and criticizes Richard Dawkins for his activism, but then ironically also criticizes him for not being committed enough in his atheistic stance because Dawkins doesn't rate his disbelief in God as 10 on a scale of 1 - 10. From a scientifc perspective, Dawkins is correct _ there are no certainties, and the only reasonable stance is to aknowledge that we don't, and can't know everything, and therefore allow for that uncertainty. Being 100% certain that there is no God, in whatever form it/he/she takes, would indeed equate to the religious zeal of the 100% certainty of its existence. But belief in something must involve some form of evidence, and on this issue the onus must surely be on those who think there is a God to provide that evidence. After 2000 years, where is it? I'm sorry, religious books written by humans doesn't cut it. Having said that, there is always the possibility that in the future there could be a test, or some scientific evidence or greater philosophical understanding which could lead to the greater acceptance of the possibility of such a God. I don't think he'll be a bearded man, but possibly come in the form of an all-pervasive medium/force with intelligent attributes in the sense of being self-organizing. Maybe it's the "dark matter" we're looking for.

#90 jp,
Not wishing to re-ignite all that, two short notes:

- Re "... criticizes Richard Dawkins for his activism", I revised that criticism and the speculation on Dawkins, likening his activism to Michael Mann's who I support totally. E.g. page 5#84 and three other spots until I got tired repeating it.
There is a fundamental difference between the subjects of Dawkins and Mann but I will leave that (to avoid re-ignition, anyway I explained early in the debate).

- Re " From a scientifc perspective, Dawkins is correct." - within empiricist frames of thinking, including Popper's concept of falsifiability, this is true. It remains true when logic is excluded from science as a whole. But my argument is this need not be the end of the analysis at all. This was responded to as if I smattered the Last Taboo or something.

"I’ve read it’s a bit unfair to treat him like one of the imbecilic denier regulars."

Based on what? That he's "on our side"? That's a reverse ad hominem. It's what deniers rely on and why they NEVER disagree with each other even when their claims are in disagreement. Because they both agree that AGW is wrong.

Should we engage in the same sloppy thinking?

I say no.

Since I am the only authority for how I will behave, this is rather a clincher.

YOU can decide yourself.

YOU can offer your opinion.

However, I feel in this case your opinion is of no value.

Meanwhile...
http://www.snotr.com/video/12814/Ludwig_Van_Beethoven

Thank you, Betty, for that meaningless, if heartfelt, contribution.

Wow, Jeff, Stu, Ianam, Bernie, Lionel, Chek thinking hard:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203153999440840

I'm going to throw out the seine net to see if there's anything left in these waters..

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-cl…

Betty, there hasn't been any 'hiatus' - as has been demonstrated for you ad nauseam - no matter what some rhetorical opinion piece tells you.

Trust Betty to link an article in a far right Australian rag. Also trust that rag to publish an article by another old climate change skeptic. Here's more on Garth Partridge:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Garth_Paltridge

In response to Olaus, its certainly not difficult to 'think harder than you'. The fact is that Olaus doesn't think much. He leaves that up to the shitty blogs he reads.

Garth Paltridge '... is a retired atmospheric physicist' and we feel sorry for him as he suffers his dementia. He can't even tell weather and climate apart anymore. Poor sod.
Of course a lot of projection of utter ignorance and some complottery. Whyah thanx Bets.

Batt, you only have the inseine net.