SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

IMO ...

I think he's shooting for that 'death by mod' thing that he keeps yammering about.

With 10,000 posts, and no "infractions" to date, it does look like I am not. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

 

[Loudmouth]

Get use to assertions. We can only translate for you, in your own limited language.

Translate what? Why can't you show us the evidence that is independent of your claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, you are quite smug...for someone living in the shadows who has peeked out to see what all the commotion is.

What shadows? How do you know that you aren't the one in the shadows? After all, you are the one who can only make assertions without producing a shred of evidence to back them. That sounds like someone who lives in the shadows to me.

That IS what you are doing, isn't it? I mean, if someone doesn't partake of something, they usually avoid it. I'm that way with sports. Never peeked into a stadium. They do sell beer...but they don't here, so maybe you could explain what it is you are doing here.

The difference being that I can show you that beer actually exists and is a very real thing.

 

[Davian]

I see. Thanks for sharing.

It's not actually personal, unless you want to consider your own fate,

I always consider my own fate.

it's just the snide remarks.

Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?

That's cool.

I consider all science and every forum here under Christianity.

Have you considered adhering to the statements of purpose posted in each of the forums?

No, no doubt.

Really? Do you not wonder why others do not find the idea of gods any more convincing than Bigfoot or alien abduction stories?

We

Whenever you say "we", you should say who you are actually speaking for.

are commanded to share.

Are you "commanded" to do so, particularly from my perspective, in such a condescending fashion?

Fair enough. Of course, I hope you know they will follow suit even if you are wrong,

Yet another of the reasons I like it here; this is not an echo chamber for my beliefs or worldview. I do consider myself fallible, and adjust my beliefs all the time, as I am exposed to new information. Yourself?

and since you are obviously searching it should be considered biased to argue against an unknown.

What unknown?

They my also rebel, and react to your position by taking the opposite position out of spite.

Sure, but the focus is on giving them the tools with which to explore reality, and evaluate claims.

But, it does seem strange to purposely find entertainment in other people's squirming.

Obviously you are unaware of the popularity of reality TV.

The problem, I see, is that squirming is hard to read, and if you have ever been in a position of defending your word...you should know that it doesn't matter what people think when you are telling the truth and they don't believe it

What if the "truth" being proffered is, by every objective measure, simply their religious opinion?

Don't get me wrong - I do fully empathize with the feeling of awkwardness of trying to defend a position, particularly when the evidence is not on your side. I feel awful sometimes, but I get over it.

That feeling is far outweighed by the epiphany one experiences (speaking from experience) when a concept is accepted, fully grasped, or abandoned. I would not deny others that experience, and our exchanges may facilitate that. (excepting of course, all of you out there are are infallible, and would never have such experiences )

...except when it comes to what the truth could mean to you, and to them.

<shrug>
If the end of the world is coming, I'll need more than just some forum posts or billboards to that effect.

The human experience has many examples. At the moment I can't think of any, which is exactly the point. You have to consider the source and how it affects even the best of truth.

I find that religionists have such an odd manner in which they use the word "truth". It almost always turns out to be their particular religious opinion.

Looking at people, at their facts, is no way to judge.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

But even if your observations are true, truth is unaltered by such faults.

I do not accept your religious opinion as 'truth'.

Likewise, shinning examples in the realm of human gathered facts (science)...are subject to the same. They just look better, and are more likely to catch a sucker.

Another of those veiled insults. Do feel that insults make others more open to your opinions?

Best of luck.

I will resume sharing.

If that is what you call it.

 

[Michael]

Indeed.

You literally avoided every direct and difficult question that I put to you by deflecting the conversation with strawmen galore, starting with an explanation of why you accept one cosmology theory (Lambda-CDM) and reject another (Panetheism).

When I asked you why DM and DE have failed every "test" to date, you grasped at straws and pulled Cosmoquest out of thin air.

You have no right to complain about anyone else's debate tactics while you do stuff like that.

 

[Davian]

You literally avoided every direct and difficult question that I put to you by deflecting the conversation with strawmen galore,

You are doing it again. Your "direct and difficult questions" were, as applicable, snipped as false dichotomies and red herrings, and I will continue to do so. The straw-man is on your part.

starting with an explanation of why you accept one cosmology theory (Lambda-CDM) and reject another (Panetheism).

That was your straw-man, of my position.

When I asked you why DM and DE have failed every "test" to date,

Irrelevant to the discussion.

you grasped at straws and pulled Cosmoquest out of thin air.

It was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself with regards to the scientific community.

link

You have no right to complain about anyone else's debate tactics while you do stuff like that.

Again you misrepresent my position. I am not complaining about your tactics, I merely call them out. I'm not the one trying to establish credibility here.

 

[Michael]

You are doing it again. Your "direct and difficult questions" were, as applicable, snipped as false dichotomies and red herrings, and I will continue to do so. The straw-man is on your part.

Er, no. You deflected every single point I've made by resorting to some sort of ridiculous strawman. I pointed out that DE and DM theory have failed every 'test' they've been put to, and you went all Cosmoquest on me. You pulled some nonsense about "leave the country" simply because I was complaining about waste in government. You have no right to complain about anyone else when you act like that.

That was your straw-man, of my position.

How? You don't whine about Lambda-CDM and the fact it's unfalsifiable, and all it's cause/effect "claims" are based upon affirming the consequent fallacies. You do however reject/handwave away Panentheism based on those arguments.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

No it's not. You claimed you wanted to understand cosmology theories.

It was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself with regards to the scientific community.

How I conduct myself is irrelevant in terms of the actual physics. You keep going *personal* when no such strategy is necessary or required, simply to avoid dealing with any of the points I have made.

link

Talk about irrelevant! The irony of course is that the 'grand inquisition' rules used at Cosmoquest allows for the mainstream to ask *any* (even non related) questions of the heretic, and if they don't answer the question to their personal satisfaction it's grounds for virtual execution. They must have asked and I must have answered 100 different questions over the six months or so that I discussed EU/PC theories there, and the questions were simply never ending.

Meanwhile they don't even have the first *clue* where their 'dark energy' deity comes from, nor can they name a single source of the supernatural stuff. They've botched every single 'prediction' that they've made since they banned me on 'dark matter' and they can't even select a specific energy range that it might exist in. The whole thing is one gigantic dark matter of the gaps claims. Most telling however is that all their mass estimation techniques used in 2006 were shown to be worthless in later studies and they simply ignore their problem. Talk about hypocrisy on a stick!

Again you misrepresent my position. I am not complaining about your tactics, I merely call them out. I'm not the one trying to establish credibility here.

I'm not interested in whether or no you find me 'credible', so who really cares what you think of me? Certainly not me. The mainstream handed Alfven a Nobel Prize, but he'd be banned at Cosmoquest too by now.

You can't handle the discussion from the perspective of physics so you simply cheat and you go for the personal attack. How predictable.

 

[Michael]

Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?

Right back at you. What does some random message board citation, and your "love it or leave" nonsense have to do with physics?

 

[Davian]

...
I'm not interested in whether or no you find me 'credible', so who really cares what you think of me? Certainly not me.

What then is the point of this exchange, from your perspective?

The mainstream handed Alfven a Nobel Prize, but he'd be banned at Cosmoquest too by now.

Are you also a Nobel Prize winner? When did that happen?

You can't handle the discussion

Would you stop trying to scan my brain with that thing?

from the perspective of physics

You are arguing theology, not physics.

so you simply cheat

i demand fairness

• Davian
• Apr 3, 2015

and you go for the personal attack.

Or, I focus on the content of your posts.

How predictable.

As the Sun rises and se... I mean, as the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun.

 

[Davian]

Right back at you. What does some random message board citation, and your "love it or leave" nonsense have to do with physics?

I have not seen this "love it or leave" message here. Have you confused me with someone else?

 

[ScottA]

Translate what? Why can't you show us the evidence that is independent of your claims?

Oh, that, that's easy!

...Want to see it again?

Seriously...we CAN show each other, just not those of you who do not have the [spiritual] eyes to see. So...your worldly dialect, is it I am afraid.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, that, that's easy!

...Want to see it again?

Seriously...we CAN show each other, just not those of you who do not have the [spiritual] eyes to see. So...your worldly dialect, is it I am afraid.

Invisible evidence doesn't count. I think you should already know that.

 

[ScottA]

Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?

I was speaking about your snide remarks. How did this become about me? Anyway...because I make it a rule only to respond in-kind, I am hopeful that snide remarks from me, are received as a sign that the other party has changed the terms to something less productive.

Really? Do you not wonder why others do not find the idea of gods any more convincing than Bigfoot or alien abduction stories?

I agree with you on this point, and find it frustratingly like, crying wolf.

Are you "commanded" to do so, particularly from my perspective, in such a condescending fashion?

Please do not misunderstand my position of authority as fashion (as condescending). Sorry to have appeared so.

I do consider myself fallible, and adjust my beliefs all the time, as I am exposed to new information. Yourself?

I use to until I got hit between the eyes with something that trumped everything else. Now it just grows.

I find that religionists have such an odd manner in which they use the word "truth". It almost always turns out to be their particular religious opinion.

Again, a frustrating distraction which causes confusion...a disservice indeed.

But that brings up another challenge: we are all using the same language. Which, ultimately, makes for THREE different definitions of "truth", if not thousands...and that is just one word. Imaging what that does to a complete statement: 1) What truth means to the listener, 2) what truth means to the misguided, misinformed, and mistaken, and 3) what it means to the one in possession of the actual truth. YIKES!

It is interesting to note that, that is the [true] story of the Tower of Babel. With enough of those confirmations [of truth], one might just begin to see the writings, in a different light.

Another of those veiled insults. Do feel that insults make others more open to your opinions?

The truth hurts (at first)...but remember, I only respond in-kind

 

[ScottA]

Invisible evidence doesn't count. I think you should already know that.

I didn't say it was "invisible"...and it's not. I said, you couldn't see it. That's different. But since we are talking about other-worlds, why would you expect the "other" to be the same. It's not. But that does not mean you can see it, it just means you have to learn to see it...like any new language. This is why Jesus was quoted as saying: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say it was "invisible"...and it's not.

Then take a picture of it and show us.

I said, you couldn't see it.

Then it is invisible. That's what the word means.

If it can't be verified, then it isn't evidence. It is indistinguishable from a hallucination.

But since we are talking about other-worlds, why would you expect the "other" to be the same. It's not. But that does not mean you can see it, it just means you have to learn to see it...like any new language.

I don't need to understand Chinese in order to see it. You still aren't making sense.

 

[ScottA]

Then take a picture of it and show us.

Then it is invisible. That's what the word means.

If it can't be verified, then it isn't evidence. It is indistinguishable from a hallucination.



I don't need to understand Chinese in order to see it. You still aren't making sense.

Pictures, seen with the naked eye or the most advanced microscopic camera? Not on the same wave-length.

But that doesn't make it invisible...that just means you are not looking at it correctly. Why is that so hard to understand?

Not knowing where to look, does not constitute a lack of evidence.

Stop hallucinating. It's not in that universe either.

 

[Michael]

What then is the point of this exchange, from your perspective?

Well, I'm not emotionally attached to converting you if that's what you're insinuating.

Are you also a Nobel Prize winner? When did that happen?

And to think you accuse me of using strawmen. You've got a whole army burning away over there.

Would you stop trying to scan my brain with that thing?

I don't have to scan your brain to see how you keep avoiding the key questions and dodging the key points.

You are arguing theology, not physics.

False. I'm arguing physics.

Or, I focus on the content of your posts.

No, you ignore the key points of my posts and fixate on burning your own strawman army (like your Nobel commentary). You wouldn't and couldn't pick out an actual mathematical flaw in Alfven's work.

As the Sun rises and se... I mean, as the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun.

Ok, I admit that was amusing.

 

[Michael]

I have not seen this "love it or leave" message here. Have you confused me with someone else?

You were suggesting I should leave the country because I complained about the mainstream using my tax dollars to build monuments to their invisible sky thingies.

 

[Michael]

Invisible evidence doesn't count. I think you should already know that.

Irony overload. Apparently invisible evidence only counts with your own invisible friends.

 

[Davian]

I was speaking about your snide remarks.

I am not sure what you are talking about. As I said previously in this thread, I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.

How did this become about me?

"...you are quite smug..."
"...someone living in the shadows..."
"...has peeked out to see..."
"...You're a sniper..."
"...a coward..."
"...taking potshots..."
"...Secretly...you'd really like to play ball."

Anyway...because I make it a rule only to respond in-kind, I am hopeful that snide remarks from me, are received as a sign that the other party has changed the terms to something less productive.

No, they are perceived as arrogance and condescension. Keep in mind that I am less interested in your beliefs than I am of why you believe.

I agree with you on this point, and find it frustratingly like, crying wolf.

Or trying to sell ancient life jackets.

Please do not misunderstand my position of authority

What position of authority? You are only a member of this forum, like me, or anyone else here.

as fashion (as condescending). Sorry to have appeared so.

Work on it. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

I use to until I got hit between the eyes with something that trumped everything else. Now it just grows.

Now you are infallible. Yet, inconsistent with other "infallible" believers. How does that work?

I think that I will side with history, and work with the tentative conclusion that any individual, such as yourself, that declares themselves infallible is wrong until proven otherwise.

Again, a frustrating distraction which causes confusion...a disservice indeed.

That is why to do not seek "religion" or "truth" here, but look for more accurate descriptions of reality.

But that brings up another challenge: we are all using the same language. Which, ultimately, makes for THREE different definitions of "truth", if not thousands...and that is just one word. Imaging what that does to a complete statement: 1) What truth means to the listener, 2) what truth means to the misguided, misinformed, and mistaken, and 3) what it means to the one in possession of the actual truth. YIKES!

In that context, it all looks like you (and most of the religionists that I interact with here) use "truth" as a place-marker for their own particular religious opinions.

It is interesting to note that, that is the [true] story of the Tower of Babel.

True, as in your opinion of it.

With enough of those confirmations [of truth], one might just begin to see the writings, in a different light.

Or a fallacious argument from popularity. Fallacies are popular in these forums.

The truth hurts (at first)

Your religious opinions cause me no discomfort.

...but remember, I only respond in-kind

I am only here to observe your actions. If you are only going to be argumentative, are we done here?