John Dub

This is an example of not engaging, just arguing sherlock.

If I’ve been silent on that question then its because you can easily find these yourself. I have no interest in digging these out and posting them only to whatch you then dig out purported refutations by “scientists” and thus begin another merry go round with you.

Recall I’m not try…

[Read more]

This is for everyone. What I want is a decent forum. If that requires shutting someone down, it’s regrettable, but will have to be done.

Moderators have the sole authority to make such decisions.

Those looking for unmoderated discussions should look to unmoderated forums on Usenet and the Web.

Duplicate or multiple posts on the same topic are…[Read more]

Stop shouting man, compose yourself this is just a chat forum, calm down,

More troll behavior. Using language that encourages a response in all caps, then complaining about it.

To discuss things that interest me. — Sherlock

Then DISCUSS! stop telling us to go somewhere else and read something that you haven’t even named. That’s not discussion.

That’s it? that’s the “controversy” you examined? Man, you do need to look a bit further.

I have not heard anything from you that was not covered by the many witnesses that presented at those trials. And as I said, “a few others”.

Fine, so your satisfied evolution is 100% certain, 100% true – cool good for you. == Sherlock

How many times are we going to go over this? Science never proves anything to 100% certainty. If I did that, I would not be speaking scientifically.

Sherlock, if you’re going to say things like this

This is what science delivers predicatbility, yet none of the regular goons here seem have any grasp of this.

It’s hard for me to consider this

I see so no apology for the disparaging remarks and you’re a moderator too…

an actual statement of how your feelings are hurt, or a legitimate interpre…[Read more]

Reminds me of the number one requirement for a scientific mind – Good Faith approach to learning from all the available evidence.  The learning is more important the the Ego. –CC

I almost started a new thread, “Is Science Scientific?” A bit snarky, but I have introduced my questions about the unfinished work of the Enlightenment, so ph…[Read more]

If you need to rely on me here then that’s a mistake, until you yourself are ready and willing to look for these controversial areas with a truly open mind we’ll just go around in circles.

If you care then look, if you don’t then don’t like – ball’s in your court.

Rely on you? I did the work of reviewing evolution science years ago, making sure…[Read more]

Rarely in my experience does someone ever say “well how can we find out?” as advice.

The evolutionist is obsessed with conversion and saving just as is the evangelical Christian, they each want to control what others believe.

I think you need to get out more Sherlock.

Page 22 of this thread is having some trouble loading.

The key to unlock this subject is to seek out and focus on the areas of natural selection that do not fit well with observation.

And then you name none of them, here or elsewhere. When you have named them, we have provided evidence of they do fit. Then you spend the rest of your post doing a Donald Trump impersonation.

People who advocate a message of atheism are on confirmation bias auto-pilot in that they can’t even admit the self-evident possibility that they may be wrong, which is clearly the case.

That came out of the blue. Not sure what you’re reacting to Genus Homo. The “you can’t disprove it” question is discussed here often, as well as definitions of a…[Read more]

Not many people are able to communicate at the level of Sam, so if he’s unable to do it, I honestly don’t know how I can.

I got kicked off an author/podcaster’s facebook page because I took the position that Sam Harris is not racist. They were making a case based on a half dozen quotes from him, which is actually a pretty good case, but it’s too…[Read more]

But I love to point out that metaphor is nothing new … in fact, it’s Jewish.

Good point. I’ve never quite figured out where literalism began, since Origen was very specific about metaphor, but not long after that you could get killed for thinking wrong about the cracker! These terms change over time and location. I should have clarified som…[Read more]

Trust is trust, if you’ve delegated to others to decide for you what is true then how can you defend any position other than saying “But the source I trust says so” – why do you think I should place the same degree of trust as in the same people as you?

Delegating trust is how we cure diseases and get to the moon. The difference between science…[Read more]

But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed?  a wrong to be righted?  a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?

Yes, certainly, I merely let Tee know of the term, to add to her thesis.

The more modernized version of it (from the Dennett youtube I posted ear…[Read more]

I disagree, @lausten. Because the “conflict” REALLY is A) Mostly in the US, and B) mostly about Fundamentalist Christianity.

Having read Ayan Hirsi Ali’s book and hearing about atheists going to jail in other countries, I’m going to have to challenge this idea of it being mostly in the US. The conflict has a certain flavor here, but there are actu…[Read more]

This is a talk by Dan Dennett that got me thinking about the idea of being nice to believers. The talk hasn’t changed, but I keep hearing different things in it when I re-listen. Obvious Spoiler Alert: He doesn’t really provide good reasons for believing, but he talks about why people do. In a simple list, fear, love, guilt, witnessing and met…[Read more]

Argh!! In moderation

Seemed like fewer false moderations today, but I think people are wary of posting links. There were 4 or 5 real spams that got caught too, if that makes you feel any better.