William has taken exception to the current state of science and its ‘overreach’.
He claims, “IMO, all that is left of materialism/physicalism/naturalism is really nothing more than a hidden (even subconscious) anti-theistic agenda.”
This is a thread for William to guide us in a detailed exploration of the alternatives, their mechanisms, how we might test them and how we might benefit from them.
I honestly feel bad for you, if that’s the world you live in.
That’s a lie. Go on, prove it. Show where I’ve been “insisting” that you respond to my comments. You won’t do it because you can’t!
What I have implied is that the reason you don’t want to explain why you don’t want to collaborate on testing your claims about PSI is that you are not making them in good faith. I implied this because of the good faith rule.
However you are now outright lying about what I have been doing – I have not been insisting you respond to me. I don’t care if you respond or not, I’m still going to respond to your comments. Let the audience decide for themselves.
Poor baby delicate flower. What precisely have I said that you find so offensive? Asking you to support your claims with more then handwaving? I can see why someone like you (A Breitbart fan) would consider that offensive.
Oh, you’ve elevated me to “people” now have you? I suppose that’s a step up from a mere automaton without free will, as you’ve previously categorised me.
You don’t think that calling someone a “poor baby delicate flower” is offensive or cruel? Perhaps you live in a world where calling someone that wouldn’t be considered “offensive” or “cruel”. I honestly feel bad for you, if that’s the case.
BTW, I’m not offended by it, nor do I feel diminished by it – but I certainly recognize it when someone is trying to be offensive or cruel. I, too, am content to let readers judge for themselves.
Feel bad for us all, for that is the world.
Tell us how you like the idea of liberals aborting themselves to death again, delicate love child?
No, not really.
I do, it appears.
Yes, they will no doubt wonder why you can’t back up your claim that I am “insisting” you explain why you don’t respond to my posts and instead attempt to distract with how mean I’m being to you.
Given that you think “poor baby delicate flower” is offensive or cruel I have to wonder what you think your comments about me being a biological automaton without free will were intended as?
Compliments?
Why feel bad for a robot?
It’s just a fact that some ideas invite ridicule.
This includes the claim that truth doesn’t matter by someone who often accuses the other side of not telling the truth (often wrongly), and ID.
The “oughts” involved can be argued forever (see above). What isn’t properly in dispute is that both of those ideas are in fact ridiculous.
Glen Davidson
I wish I had words to express how much I love “poor baby delicate flower” as an epithet.
Nature is amazing. To think our species can give rise to the kind of someone who indulges in the filthy attacks that WJM does, then for him to fall apart and whimper about how cruelly he is treated when you *gasp* dare to call him “flower” … well, really I don’t have words to do justice to that picture. 🙂
Taking all into account, do you find the behaviour of the more ‘cruel’ people here towards you to be worse than that of your ideological confreres at UD towards opponents – BA, Joe, Mapou, KF spring immediately to mind? Not saying two wrongs make a right, just asking.
I found Joe at least as cruel as Richardthughes. As for the others you mentioned, I don’t remember them being cruel. There have been many cruel comments made by the regulars at UD, though.
Note the above responses. What does it say of them, if Richardthughes and hotshoe actually thought I was “falling apart and whimpering” at my treatment, to gleefully attempt to pile on more cruelty? From their words, it seems they would love it and be thrilled if they could hurt my feelings even more than I guess they are imagining they already have. They appear to be salivating over the opportunity to pile more cruelty upon someone they imagine is already “whimpering”.
Which, I’m not – none of it affects me outside of a sense of feeling bad for them (and for a society where, sadly, much “debate” is simply back and forth bullying like they exhibit here). I suspect they know that I’m not personally hurt by their words, but just enjoy engaging in the antagonistic narrative as if my feelings were being hurt. Perhaps to provoke? I’d hate to think it was just because they enjoy the idea of hurting someone else.
It’s like some ridiculous re-enactment of something from a elementary grade playground.
William J. Murray,
Oh the poutrage! Poor victim WJM. Why are you bothered, you care not for reality? (and also hope liberals kills lots of babies through abortion). Everything I say about you comes from you. That should give you a clue who to be upset with.
William J. Murray,
To an extent, though extending it out to the wider internet, I would agree.
I was once ridiculed about some ideas I had back on Usenet, and it was pretty brutal. I had merely questioned whether a particular paradigm was the correct way to look at the issue, and – well, you know exactly what happens. I quietly closed the door on that particular site, and never went back. But I did take the trouble to learn more about the topic, and it was a useful lesson in seeing things from the other side (though one might not guess from my attitude). I remain convinced I was right, but I took the trouble to find out why reaction was so intense, and read in depth about the field.
We’d have to determine if that someone else was merely a biological automaton first, as you can’t hurt a robot’s feelings!