Watched it.The spread of COVID-19 is a good example of the destructive effects of anti-intellectualism.
The video has become rapidly out of date but is still a poignant example.
By the way, something strange below that video:
Upvote
0
Watched it.The spread of COVID-19 is a good example of the destructive effects of anti-intellectualism.
The video has become rapidly out of date but is still a poignant example.
Marmite
noun
noun: marmite; plural noun: marmites
- an earthenware cooking container.
noun
TRADEMARK IN UK
noun: Marmite- a dark savoury spread made from yeast extract and vegetable extract.
Marmite is just gross. No need to classify Savory ( an American spelling mistake - it misses the uCalling Marmite "savory" is a gross misrepresentation.
I said what I said.Do you really desire to seek the truth? Or are you merely trying to defend what you already believe, but fear is wrong?
If one really wants to seek the truth one has to be willing to start from scratch. For example when it comes to beliefs the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. How would you rationally test the claims of the Bible?
Let me correct this for you. The fact that we believe different things does not mean that you are wrong. The evidence tells us that you are wrong. The evidence does not care either way which one of us is wrong, it simply is.I said what I said.
Just because what I have found disagrees with what you believe does not mean it is wrong.
10 years ago I started from scratch and have been studying things ever since. At this point, I'm not at scratch and have a hierarchy of information that I hold to, with various forms of evidence along the way that verifies what I believe.
If you can see a pattern the Bible puts forth that is mirrored in the world, that would be a potential way to prove an idea in scripture is true, and it happens that way time and time again, for believers. It's the worldly folk who struggle with that. The Bible tells us so many one liners that hold to be true, such as "there is nothing new under the sun".
Let me correct this for you. The fact that we believe different things does not mean that you are wrong. The evidence tells us that you are wrong. The evidence does not care either way which one of us is wrong, it simply is.
And no, as to "proving scripture is true" you are only talking about confirmation bias with your test. That does not prove anything. A better way is to develop a test that can refute one's idea. In fact to have reliable evidence that is the sort of test that one needs. What reasonable test could show your beliefs to be wrong based upon the merits of your idea? Trying to prove yourself wrong is usually the best way to find out if one is right.
There is no such thing as "atheism"Atheism “ there is no God” is indeed a faith, and atheist refusal to look at evidence is “ anti-intellectual”
NO, you really have no clue. You used bad evidence for your beliefs. What else did you expect?Thanks: you Demonstrated every single point I made.
Now go back and read them.
When asking why atheists never seem to study forensic evidence of such as “so called” Eucharistic miracles I stated this
“ Yet such questions are usually met with objections that show the objectors have not studied them, accusations of gullibility when I am reading credible forensics, finally sneering contempt. The contempt can only come from one place. A faith response not reasoned reaction to something the objector doesn’t believe.”
Your reply ticks all the boxes.
btw “ there is no god” is a belief, a faith. Agnosticism don’t know/ don’t care is more intellectually viable.
It seemingly allows you to gloss over the lack of any postulated viable precursor intermediate to the minimum cell, the scientific reality of abiogenesis is “ don’t know” how life started. Even Dawkins admits it, keep up!
You will never know how good the evidence is because you refuse to look at it before take a verdict. Why? How scientific is that? Not.
I posed a question about white cells. Your answer is????? It might just surprise you if you looked, Credible forensics from labs whose day job is criminology. There are dozens of science books on the shroud, sadly your faith in assumption of fraud stops you reading them? Why else if you are so certain?
Contempt not reason demonstrated. The atheist faith is certainly too strong to allow objective study of evidence.
LOL! Instant fail. You do not even know what atheism is.Let me correct this for you. You won’t look at evidence. I’ve invited you to do so, and you won’t look at it before give an opinion, your opinion is nothing to do with evidence or science. Your position is faith based.
Atheism “ there is no God” is indeed a faith, and atheist refusal to look at evidence is “ anti-intellectual”
I ask again: Why are there white cells in vitro, evidence of life from other than evolution, when ( credible forensics labs ) state That heart myocardium ( identified by a heart specialist) appeared so intimately infused to bread it can’t be faked? I like evidence. I’m happy for you to produce counter arguments , or even disprove it but solely based on forensic evidence not your atheist faith.
I like Marmite! Its yummy .. waay better than Vegemite (which is too salty)! Marmite is more caramelly.Calling Marmite "savory" is a gross misrepresentation.
I looked at what I could find re your Eucharistic Miracles. The two pieces of cloth that were RC dated were not even close in date their claimed date and arguing vagaries in dating does nothing to make better evidence out it.Let me correct this for you. You won’t look at evidence. I’ve invited you to do so, and you won’t look at it before give an opinion, your opinion is nothing to do with evidence or science. Your position is faith based.
Atheism “ there is no God” is indeed a faith, and atheist refusal to look at evidence is “ anti-intellectual”
I ask again: Why are there white cells in vitro, evidence of life from other than evolution, when ( credible forensics labs ) state That heart myocardium ( identified by a heart specialist) appeared so intimately infused to bread it can’t be faked? I like evidence. I’m happy for you to produce counter arguments , or even disprove it but solely based on forensic evidence not your atheist faith.
A good slathering of Marmite on that bread will sort those nasties out .. quick smart!.. ( credible forensics labs ) state That heart myocardium ( identified by a heart specialist) appeared so intimately infused to bread it can’t be faked?
The "scientific" opposition to the Shroud of Turin originally began with a dishonest member of the team that analyzed it. I don't feel like digging up all of the information right now, but since they were allowed to sample only a few small areas of the shroud they had agreed to do all of their work as a team. No private sampling, no private analysis. They knew that this was a bit of a hot subject for some. A few years after the work was done and agreed to one of the members announced that he had tested his own samples afterwards and found flaws in the study. That brings up the question, was he lying when he was a member of the team and promised not to take samples for himself, or was he lying when he claimed to have samples that he date? Either way he demonstrated that his work could not be trusted by going back on the agreement.I looked at what I could find re your Eucharistic Miracles. The two pieces of cloth that were RC dated were not even close in date their claimed date and arguing vagaries in dating does nothing to make better evidence out it.
As for the host found in a candle stick being heart muscle or whatever version you are claiming, besides this being an extraordinary which would require a lot more reinforcement than just a simple claim. I can find nothing from anyone who actually analyzed it and only references to others. I there really is evidence, I have done due diligence, the next step is up to you and don't go telling me there are lots of books, yes my library is full of them, that doesn't prove much.
Refuse to listen or we are wasting our time listening?
I could have chosen others.
It was once said of economists, that if there are 10 economists they have 11 opinions.
They have nothing on epidemiologists!
Take the “ expert” who said that if Sweden continued the “ madness” of not locking down they would have 50000 deaths minimum and probably more. How did that work out??
Same “expert” formed U.K. lockdown policy! His predictions have been woeful on all past epidemics. The question is why we listened!
If we have discovered three things about epidemiologists
(1) they don’t agree with each other by a wide margin
(2) they demand we listen to their ever changing narrative
The kicker - always look for the hidden motive:
(3) they all get full pay to stay at home however badly they do, so why wouldn’t they vote to lockdown?
The editor of the main U.K. doctors journal even disagrees with himself. Does he bother read what he wrote the previous month? Doesn’t he love talking down to people!
I’m a postgrad physicist. I am always conscious of what I don’t know.
as someone who did a lot of math modelling in a defence context I was only to happy to air reservations on the model. That is the responsible thing, because lives could be lost if it was wrong.
These “ experts” should take the same view.
In this forum context evolutionary scientists should admit they don’t have a clue about how the minimum cell developed: if they did they would sketch an intermediate simpler cell. They can’t. It’s all speculation. Stop telling us it is a fact.
If an environmental scientist is guessing on thin data, he should say so.
I looked at what I could find re your Eucharistic Miracles. The two pieces of cloth that were RC dated were not even close in date their claimed date and arguing vagaries in dating does nothing to make better evidence out it.
As for the host found in a candle stick being heart muscle or whatever version you are claiming, besides this being an extraordinary which would require a lot more reinforcement than just a simple claim. I can find nothing from anyone who actually analyzed it and only references to others. I there really is evidence, I have done due diligence, the next step is up to you and don't go telling me there are lots of books, yes my library is full of them, that doesn't prove much.
Willesee was a cigar smoking, often drunk (on camera), frequently gambling, ardent born again Catholic!:One of the worlds leading investigative journalists mike Willesee debunked hundreds of frauds including religious . He made a career of it.. Even He was convinced of the reality of some of these including ( so called) Eucharistic miracles, a prophesied stigmata , Cochabamba and others.. He was there, you were not.
In 1999, Willesee won the Bent Spoon Award from the Australian Skeptics for Signs From God. The rationale for Willesee receiving the award was that the show was "seeking to capitalise on the irrational millennial fears of many people".
What does that even mean??.. or proof of an intermediate cell before the minimum cell known.
The "scientific" opposition to the Shroud of Turin originally began with a dishonest member of the team that analyzed it. I don't feel like digging up all of the information right now, but since they were allowed to sample only a few small areas of the shroud they had agreed to do all of their work as a team. No private sampling, no private analysis. They knew that this was a bit of a hot subject for some. A few years after the work was done and agreed to one of the members announced that he had tested his own samples afterwards and found flaws in the study. That brings up the question, was he lying when he was a member of the team and promised not to take samples for himself, or was he lying when he claimed to have samples that he date? Either way he demonstrated that his work could not be trusted by going back on the agreement.
Using Wikipedia as an authority source, as edited By skeptics. I thought you were better than that. Sceptic world turned on him the day he found something he couldn’t debunk.Willesee was a cigar smoking, often drunk (on camera), frequently gambling, ardent born again Catholic!: