SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

Yes, you are quite smug

...for someone living in the shadows

You have found me out - I am Batman.

who has peeked out to see what all the commotion is.

That IS what you are doing, isn't it?

lol. No, not really.

I mean, if someone doesn't partake of something, they usually avoid it.

Not at all. I used to irregularly attend church with my wife, until she no longer went, my kids are baptized, but I have never thought of religion as anything other that an odd hobby. That might explain how I ended up married to a sweet little christian girl (25 years married so far), because it never occurred to me that religion was of any real significance.

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.

While I think you should focus more on the contents of the posts, you do seem to have this predilection for making this personal, so I will entertain this for a short bit.

I see only two possibilities:

I sentence to you scroll back through this thread and count how many times I used the phrase "false dichotomy" in my responses. Do it now - I'll wait. <queue timer music>

.
.
.

What number did you get?

1) You're a sniper,

Boom! Headshot!

• Davian
• Jul 29, 2015

a coward,

What have I to be afraid of?

Smite

• Davian
• Dec 18, 2014

There really is no one to discuss this with locally - I have only ever encountered one YEC religionist in person, and he was Muslim - and it is awkward trying this stuff out on family. I know you guys are here on a voluntary basis, and I appreciate that.

taking potshots,

If you are going to stick it out there and wave it around, who am I not to oblige?

2) Secretly...you'd really like to play ball.

lol. Seeing that we are in the sciences forum, and not Exploring Christianity, you must secretly doubt your faith, and are hoping that in this forum you will receive assurances that it is okay not to believe.

I'm there for you, buddy.

Which is it?

When my children reached the age where they would begin to ask those questions of life, the universe, and everything, I took it upon myself to get up to speed with a good laymen's level understanding of sciences, favouring cosmology and theory of mind. I followed an open invitation to this site, saw it an an opportunity to see if there was anything to this religion stuff, and stay now for the interaction and entertainment.

My teenage kids also watch over my shoulder to see the responses of the religionists, such as yourself, which seems to have had the effect of inoculating them against religion - we also work in pseudoscience, and other hoax/fraud/critical thinking topics.

Will you now resume making your assertions?

 

[Michael]

It can't be your fault, can it?

How could it possibly be my fault that they struck out at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness tests, not to mention newer tests:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07747

How could it be my fault that they underestimated stellar counts by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20?

The rate at which I point out fallacies is directly proportional to the rate at which they are presented.

Ya, I'd say you make up five to seven fallacies for every accurate one that you point out, but it is proportional alright.

What I notice is that your ideas don't seem to get any traction, even here.

Meh. I seem to have a few supporters, but science was never a popularity contest anyway.

 

[Davian]

How could it possibly be my fault

I know. Those guys at Cosmoquest were so unfair to you. Rules, and all that.

Ya, I'd say you make up five to seven fallacies for every accurate one that you point out,

You can say that, but not with any intellectual honesty.

Meh. I seem to have a few supporters, but science was never a popularity contest anyway.

And, you have to be doing science.

 

[Michael]

You run on straw-men and false dichotomies like my car runs on gasoline.

You're clearly projecting again.

Move.

Case in point. You're like the ninja master of straw-man arguments.

Scroll back.

Ditto. Who created the "move out of the country" strawman again?

Do you have any desire to establish credibility with those you discuss things with in these forums?

It's not a primary goal, particularly when you look at the lack of credibility in mainstream cosmology today. Why should I worry about what Lambda-CDM proponents think of my credibility when they've falsified their own claims repeatedly over the past decade? I think they should be worried about their own credibility, not mine. Whereas all my beliefs are based upon empirical physics, most of their claims are "supernatural" agents that are being falsified on a regular basis, even today in fact:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07747

Ooooops, no exotic matter snipe to be found in that gap, or that gap, or that gap either......

Special pleading.

Baloney. That's just not how science actually works. Dark energy doesn't have any tangible effect on a photon in a lab. It's not a "falsifiable' concept either, particularly if the revelation that standard candles aren't actually standard after all, and they simply ignore that little bombshell.

It is. It was not a factor in my belief in Santa.

Nope. That's just another example of a "choice" that you consciously made.

 

[Michael]

I know. Those guys at Cosmoquest were so unfair to you. Rules, and all that.

What another prefect example of your deliberate use of strawmen, and what an obvious dodge of the fact that DM and DE claims and predictions have been repeatedly falsified over the past decade. Somehow it's all my fault that their models failed the empirical tests they put them to?

FYI, the "rules" on that draconian website are more oppressive and less conducive to honest dialog than most religious websites. For crying out loud, they hold witch hunts at Cosmoquest, and "non mainstream" threads are terminated after 30 days. Draconian nonsense on a stick.

You can say that, but not with any intellectual honesty.

After that Cosmoquest commentary, you're right, maybe it's more like 10 to 1.

And, you have to be doing science.

I've yet to see you (or anyone else for that matter) point out any errors in any of Alfven's hundred plus papers. In fact I haven't seen you point out in errors any any published paper I've written either.

 

[Davian]

You're clearly projecting again.

But you can't point out where.

Case in point. You're like the ninja master of straw-man arguments.

How so?

Ditto. Who created the "move out of the country" strawman again?

If you don't like how your country spends it's money, move. What is your problem with that?

It's not a primary goal,<snip straw-man>

If not primary, I wonder when you will get to it.

Baloney. That's just not how science actually works. <snip false dichotomy>

I am still waiting for those pictures of the Christian God in your lab.

Nope. That's just another example of a "choice" that you consciously made.

Your mind-reading hat is due for an overhaul. You fail at telling me how I think.

 

[Michael]

When my children reached the age where they would begin to ask those questions of life, the universe, and everything, I took it upon myself to get up to speed with a good laymen's level understanding of sciences, favouring cosmology and theory of mind.

Well, if you actually intend to understand "science" and cosmology theories (plural), you'll have to drop your personal requirement of A) empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims, and B) a personal need for falsification, since neither of those ideas even applies in cosmology.

 

[Davian]

What another prefect example of your deliberate use of strawmen,<snip false dichotomy>

After that Cosmoquest commentary, you're right, maybe it's more like 10 to 1.

You have yet to show how they were actually misrepresentative.

I've yet to see you (or anyone else for that matter) point out any errors in any of Alfven's hundred plus papers. In fact I haven't seen you point out in errors any any published paper I've written either.

Because even if they were error-free, it would not necessarily make them accurate descriptions of reality.

 

[Michael]

But you can't point out where.

I just did. I just pointed out your irrelevant Comsoquest commentary while you avoided dealing the the numerous falsification of DM and DE claims over the past decade.

How so?

What does Cosmoquest have to do with anything I've said today until you brought them up out of the blue?

If you don't like how your country spends it's money, move. What is your problem with that?

Another strawman. Maybe 11 to 1 now. My problem is that your strawman is just another example of your use of strawman army in debate. I'm allowed to stay and complain too, but apparently you've ignored that option entirely. Why?

If not primary, I wonder when you will get to it.

Like I said, considering the so called "scientific" alternative, it's not really a high priority. IMO they really should be worried about their own credibility, not mine.

I am still waiting for those pictures of the Christian God in your lab.

I'm still waiting for you read and grasp the basic concepts of monotheism and panentheism. You don't seem to have any understanding of either idea.

Your mind-reading hat is due for an overhaul. You fail at telling me how I think.

Funny how you just ignore your own choices, including which ideas you choose to ridicule, including pattern recognition. Every step of this conversation has required you to choose and to make choices, all of which were entirely subjective.

 

[Davian]

Well, if you actually intend to understand "science" and cosmology theories (plural), you'll have to drop your personal requirement of A) empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims, and B) a personal need for falsification, since neither of those ideas even applies in cosmology.

Sure. I have no problem with that, and hold no such requirements where they do not apply to those subjects.

 

[Michael]

You have yet to show how they were actually misrepresentative.

Cosmoquest wasn't part of our conversation until you interjected that strawman into the conversation, much like your personal desire to make me move, simply because I'm complaining about waste in government. You burn strawmen by the dozens in debate.

Because even if they were error-free, it would not necessarily make them accurate descriptions of reality.

In other words you made another *choice* to *not* educate yourself to the published physics I've presented on some sort of philosophical grounds apparently. More personal choices on your part, and another demonstration that you have no real interest in the physics that is being presented.

 

[Michael]

Sure. I have no problem with that, and hold no such requirements where they do not apply to those subjects.

Care then to explain why you accept one theory of the universe without complaint (Lambda-CDM) and you choose to reject another (Panetheism)?

 

[Davian]

I just did. I just pointed out your irrelevant Comsoquest commentary

Because it was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself. You even inspired an Urban Dictionary entry:

Death by Mod

while you avoided dealing the the numerous falsification of DM and DE claims over the past decade.

It had nothing to do with how you conduct yourself; it was a red herring.

What does Cosmoquest have to do with anything I've said today until you brought them up out of the blue?

It was applicable to how you conduct yourself. The mods here just give you greater leeway.

Another strawman. Maybe 11 to 1 now.

Bad math won't get you anywhere.

My problem is that your strawman is just another example of your use of strawman army in debate. I'm allowed to stay and complain too, but apparently you've ignored that option entirely. Why?

What option? To complain continuously about it? To construct endless false dichotomies posted into virtually every thread in this forum? That is no straw-man.

Like I said, <snip read herring>

It's always someone's fault, isn't it?

I'm still waiting for you read and grasp the basic concepts of monotheism and panentheism. You don't seem to have any understanding of either idea.

How you conflate them into one concept is anyone's guess. It is not my job to sort them out for you.

Funny how you just ignore your own choices, including which ideas you choose to ridicule, including pattern recognition. Every step of this conversation has required you to choose and to make choices, all of which were entirely subjective.

Sure, but they were not all necessarily conscious decisions. You are - deliberately, or you are simply not listening - misrepresenting what I am saying to you. Are we done here?

 

[Davian]

Cosmoquest wasn't part of our conversation until you interjected that strawman into the conversation,

I explained how it was applicable. No straw-man.

much like your personal desire to make me move,

You misrepresent my suggestion - a straw-man on your part.

simply because I'm complaining about waste in government.

endlessly, in the form of flase dicotomies, in vertually every thred in this forum. No straw-man.

You burn strawmen by the dozens in debate.

And you can't count.

In other words you made another *choice* to *not* educate yourself to the published physics I've presented on some sort of philosophical grounds apparently.

I have educated myself on those subjects. I have also educated myself on why your ideas are rejected by the mainstream, hence my ultimate rejection of them. And, it's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market.

More personal choices on your part,

but not necessarily conscious ones.

and another demonstration that you have no real interest in the physics that is being presented.

lol. Not how you are presenting it, no. What was I, your last hope?

 

[Davian]

Care then to explain why you accept one theory of the universe without complaint (Lambda-CDM) and you choose to reject another (Panetheism)?

You misrepresent my position. I think you have burned enough straw for now.

 

[ScottA]

Not at all. I used to irregularly attend church with my wife, until she no longer went, my kids are baptized, but I have never thought of religion as anything other that an odd hobby. That might explain how I ended up married to a sweet little christian girl (25 years married so far), because it never occurred to me that religion was of any real significance.

I see. Thanks for sharing.

While I think you should focus more on the contents of the posts, you do seem to have this predilection for making this personal, so I will entertain this for a short bit.

It's not actually personal, unless you want to consider your own fate, it's just the snide remarks.

There really is no one to discuss this with locally - I have only ever encountered one YEC religionist in person, and he was Muslim - and it is awkward trying this stuff out on family. I know you guys are here on a voluntary basis, and I appreciate that.

That's cool.

lol. Seeing that we are in the sciences forum, and not Exploring Christianity, you must secretly doubt your faith, and are hoping that in this forum you will receive assurances that it is okay not to believe.

I'm there for you, buddy.

I consider all science and every forum here under Christianity. No, no doubt. We are commanded to share.

When my children reached the age where they would begin to ask those questions of life, the universe, and everything, I took it upon myself to get up to speed with a good laymen's level understanding of sciences, favouring cosmology and theory of mind. I followed an open invitation to this site, saw it an an opportunity to see if there was anything to this religion stuff, and stay now for the interaction and entertainment.

My teenage kids also watch over my shoulder to see the responses of the religionists, such as yourself, which seems to have had the effect of inoculating them against religion - we also work in pseudoscience, and other hoax/fraud/critical thinking topics.

Fair enough. Of course, I hope you know they will follow suit even if you are wrong, and since you are obviously searching it should be considered biased to argue against an unknown. They my also rebel, and react to your position by taking the opposite position out of spite.

But, it does seem strange to purposely find entertainment in other people's squirming. 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...except when it comes to what the truth could mean to you, and to them. 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. Looking at people, at their facts, is no way to judge. But even if your observations are true, truth is unaltered by such faults. 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. Best of luck.

Will you now resume making your assertions?

I will resume sharing.

 

[Michael]

Because it was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself. You even inspired an Urban Dictionary entry:

Death by Mod

It had nothing to do with how you conduct yourself; it was a red herring.

It was applicable to how you conduct yourself. The mods here just give you greater leeway.

The only red herring is your use of personal attack anytime and every time that you get yourself backed into a corner. I was discussing all the failures of DM and DE theory, and you couldn't handle my questions, so you simply cheated and went "personal". How typical.

You use some of the cheesiest debate tactics while complaining about everyone else.

FYI, Cosmoquest has an entire forum devoted to burning heretics at the virtual stake. They burn *every* EU/PC proponent at the stake, not just me. The really amusing part of that whole experience, is that I was curious if the mainstream model could handled the "heat" they put on "against the mainstream" ideas so I went back under the handle "ManInTheMirror" and used their own "against the mainstream" forum against them by starting a Lambda-CDM debate thread in the 'Against the mainstream" forum. They did so pitifully that they actually changed the rule system so they could close every thread after 30 days. Talk about draconian nonsense. The mainstream cannot handle an honest and open scientific debate. The only way they can keep their supernatural dogma from imploding is to get rid of everyone who picks on it.

Bad math won't get you anywhere.

12 to 1 it is then!

What option? To complain continuously about it? To construct endless false dichotomies posted into virtually every thread in this forum? That is no straw-man.

Boloney. You use strawmen to avoid dealing with the difficult questions. You simply cheat by tossing a burning strawman into the conversation. You're "love it or leave it" BS about me leaving the country is just another example of that behavior.

It's always someone's fault, isn't it?

Nope. I take responsibility for my own errors, but I don't accept responsibility for other people's errors.

How you conflate them into one concept is anyone's guess. It is not my job to sort them out for you.

It is your job to grasp the basic concepts. I can't make your do any reading, just like I can't make you read nor comment on Alfven's work. As long as you simply bury your head in the sand and make no attempt to understand various ideas, there's really no point in having a discussion to with you.

Sure, but they were not all necessarily conscious decisions. You are - deliberately, or you are simply not listening - misrepresenting what I am saying to you. Are we done here?

You're simply ignoring your own responsibility in the process of personal choice. Nobody forces you to reject concepts that you believe are "unfalsifiable". You do that by choice. As long as you refuse to take responsibility for your own choices, I suppose we are done here. What is there to discuss if you sit there in pure denial of your own personal choices?

 

[Michael]

You misrepresent my position. I think you have burned enough straw for now.

In other words, you can't justify your behaviors or your choices so you run from the question. Typical.

 

[Michael]

It's not actually personal, unless you want to consider your own fate, it's just the snide remarks.

IMO you're wasting your breath. He's quick to condemn others for snide commentary, but he refuses to acknowledge that behavior in himself.

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

 

[Davian]

In other words, <snip yet another straw-manning of another's position>

Typical.

Indeed.