Anti intellectualism directed against science.

sjastro said:

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The video has become rapidly out of date but is still a poignant example.

​

Click to expand...

Watched it.
By the way, something strange below that video:

SelfSim said:

Marmite
noun
noun: marmite; plural noun: marmites

1. an earthenware cooking container.
   noun
   TRADEMARK IN UK
   noun: Marmite
2. a dark savoury spread made from yeast extract and vegetable extract.

Click to expand...

Calling Marmite "savory" is a gross misrepresentation.

Speedwell said:

Calling Marmite "savory" is a gross misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

Marmite is just gross. No need to classify Savory ( an American spelling mistake - it misses the u

Subduction Zone 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?

Click to expand...

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".

Astroqualia said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Subduction Zone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Atheism “ there is no God” is indeed a faith, and atheist refusal to look at evidence is “ anti-intellectual”

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "atheism"
"Atheist" is merely a label that can be ascribed to individuals that lack a belief in any of the god(s) that humans have dreamed up. Other than not having a belief in god(s), atheists have very little in common. They have no atheist scriptures or teachings, they have no required sacraments, no organisation or religious leader to tell them how to behave or what to think.

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

NO, you really have no clue. You used bad evidence for your beliefs. What else did you expect?

Try agin.

OldWiseGuy said:

A lot of things don't require critical thought. Science often tries to solve a spiritual problem with a scientific solution.

Click to expand...

Science never seeks to solve "spiritual problems"

Science is about the material world, that which is measurable and observable.

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL! Instant fail. You do not even know what atheism is.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Atheism is not a faith.

You can do better than this. I am sure that you have been corrected in the past.

As to your question about cells being evidence for something other than evolution you need to learn what evidence is. You need a testable hypothesis to even begin to have evidence. No testable hypothesis means no evidence.

Speedwell said:

Calling Marmite "savory" is a gross misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

I like Marmite! Its yummy .. waay better than Vegemite (which is too salty)! Marmite is more caramelly.

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mountainmike said:

.. ( credible forensics labs ) state That heart myocardium ( identified by a heart specialist) appeared so intimately infused to bread it can’t be faked?

Click to expand...

A good slathering of Marmite on that bread will sort those nasties out .. quick smart!

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

You asked me a question and then answered it yourself. Psychologists have been studying anti-intellectualism for decades and understand it a lot better than you think they do.

When you accept cloth date is unreliable you can no longer accept cloth dates doh! Provenance of the sudarium is what proves the shroud date iswrong. The provenance is a “no later than” date.
The shroud date is Exactly what the only archaeologist dater involved with the shroud said it would be WRONG unless precautions were taken, daters didn’t take.

Why not look at the THOUSANDS of pages describing forensics and pathology of the cloths that not only show pre and post mortem pathology entirely consistent with the documented torture but also to each other. Dating is an outlier. Since 99 pieces of evidence point one way, one date points another. Guess which is wrong. Do you even know what the sudarium is? I urge you again to look at the actual forensic reports of the so called EM. The tissue sections and tests are conclusive.

BUT

This thread isn’t about the evidence per se, it’s the anti intellectual views atheists take of it. There is no shred of doubt that atheists refuse to look at evidence that might contradict their world view. They lose objectivity around anything with thesistic overtones Why? It beats me. Enquiring minds should love to find the flaw that defeats it, you can only do that by looking at evidence. Since it is forensic reports you have to get into the detail.

Have you got castarnons book yet? I suggested it because half of it is copies of forensic reports on letterhead so you know who you are trusting.

The shroud doesn’t even threaten your world view necessarily. Roman and Egyptian emperors claimed to be Gods. It didn’t stop you looking at evidence of their lives, or immediately declaring it flawed. Or considering a sarcophagus real!
Why won’t you look at shroud forensics?

You are on trial here, not the evidence!

You clearly want to condemn the shroud without looking - why? You are being psycho analysed!

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.

So let’s ignore the evidence itself. Atheists are on trial here. Why do they refuse to look at it? They give conclusions on it before look, which is clearly anti intellectual.

iIt annoys me, because I WANT to hear the negative arguments , to see if they stack up. I’ve yet to see a credible argument that any EM is fraud.

I would happily accept proof that EM were faked, or proof of an intermediate cell before the minimum cell known. I go where the evidence leads. It says it all that atheists accept the speculation that life was a progression from chemicals, yet there is no evidence before the minimum cell we know. Yet they condemn out of hand EM for which there are tissue sections!

So Why don’t you?

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

Willesee was a cigar smoking, often drunk (on camera), frequently gambling, ardent born again Catholic!:

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".

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

.. or proof of an intermediate cell before the minimum cell known.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean??

Subduction is an interesting anti- intellectual.

There are hundreds of man years of thorough scientific research that concludes real forensic pathology of the same victim of the much older provenance sudarium of Oviedo. Research that puts it in the right part of Israel. The mark is certainly not an artwork. Other date methods suggest first century. The unique torture is enough.

He refuses to look at it, preferring his “ dishonest” conspiracy why?
There have been hundreds of independent researchers.

it doesn’t even threaten his worldview. Roman and Egyptian emperors claimed to be a Gods. Subduction doesn’t refuse to look at their archeology or forensics. Mind you the non contact radiation makes it hard to explain.

So why? If it’s that easy to prove a fake, why doesn’t he dare look at the real evidence?

There are too many atheists that go anti intellectual when they sense their world view is threatened.

Ive no doubt if I pointed at evidence of space time warp by magnetism allowing translocation, not propulsion, he’d accept the possibility. Why? Because it doesn’t threaten his worldview. On the other hand evidence of consciousness outside the brain. Ie that life is more than chemical No doubt is a worrying no no. Atheists are so selective.

Subduction Zone said:

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.

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

Willesee was a cigar smoking, often drunk (on camera), frequently gambling, ardent born again Catholic!:

Click to expand...

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.

don’t believe willesee, believe the camera footage he took, the tests they did.
A camera doesn’t get drunk, nor does a CT scanner. Have you looked up the evidence?