Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
Salvador T. Cordova couldn’t handle the truth; it’s for him just a slippery, slithery slope. So he squeals playful nonsense, promoting creationism & IDism, all the while claiming Science saved his soul, tossing coins & using probabilities, gambling on the existence of a YECist ‘Designer-god’ … that he views as a Pascalian Intercessor because his personal calling has been to study, using a generalist apprach, a variety of natural and applied sciences. Does a ‘creationist’ an ‘intelligent’ man make? Statistically speaking, creationism reflects lower intelligence, not higher, at least, in the USA where Salvador worships “the land of the free” to spew confused ideology, rather than realistic solutions. It’s a shame to a significant number who are decent people; it is ‘evangelicals’ like Sal who give the ‘church’ they represent an awfully naive & dishonest scheming name.
I thought the highlight of TSZ are when people like Dr. Swamidass, Dennis Venema, Joe Felsenstein, Tom English, Arlin Stolzfus, John Harshman, Bill Basener etc. participate with here with some of the regulars here like Corneel, Allan Miller and Rumraket, bill cole, etc. For that reason I hope TSZ will continue as we add more people from opposing sides who are in leadership positions in their respective fields.
Regarding Gregory? Here is an example of where his “discipline” has gone. It ain’t pretty:
http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=170
Well said walto.
Besides, the current set of mods can’t even take down a three month old featured thread without waiting for Elizabeth.
Which is a service provided by Guano.
hear! hear!
ETA: And no rules!
Correct, but it is not a easy as hitting reply. One has to be actively seeking provocation. It is a deterrent to the lazy.
I am going to run for moderator on a single platform.
I’ll Guano almost every one of keiths’s posts. At least until he stops gratuitously insulting people. Or leaves.
And I won’t say I moved his post or provide a link to it when I do it.
So your argument is that guanoing doesn’t deter anyone except for those who are two lazy to click on a link; therefore guanoing is essential?
You might want to think that through a second time, newton.
The only voter who counts, is Elizabeth.
Meantime, you are trying to have her thread sent to the boondocks.
No, I never cared too much about any of that stuff. Dunno how I stumbled on this place, but i don’t know very much about evolutionary theory, having gotten what little I know about it from reading Butler’s Lamarckian complaints about Darwin until coming here and picking up a few tidbits from Allan, Joe, Jock, keiths, and a few others–even Patrick! But I’m an ignoramus in that area.
I think the idea of ID is intrinsically interesting, since it tries to tackle difficult concepts like design, intention, randomness, etc. But I’m entirely incompetent to assess the central issues. The religious angles I mostly find amusing. Unlike most of the atheists here, I’m not an apostate: I’ve pretty much always thought judeo-christian concepts of deity were silly. I’m not trying to be critical or contentious here: just explaining where I’m coming from. I was completely thunderstruck when I was almost immediately attacked–and quite viciously–when I posted something about Plantinga–by you, because I disagreed with him, and by keiths because I said I thought he was very smart. I came from a philosophy background where you never got viciously attacked for saying stuff like that.
So I learned quickly that tsz is a religious site composed almost entirely of religious Christians and religious atheists, all of whom like to fight–and not always using Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Neil, to Mung:
That thread has been featured for three fucking months, Neil. Longer than any thread in TSZ’s history. Lizzie isn’t an idiot. Do you seriously believe that she’d insist on keeping it featured at this point?
The problem here is quite simple: You have an irrational fear of being spanked by Lizzie, and so you refuse to take responsibility and do your job.
(Upon hearing the word “spank”, Neil whimpers and curls back into the fetal position.)
Because her thread is so interesting and there’s so much great discussion going on in it. The writer of the OP isn’t even here to defend her claims.
You’re on a roll. 🙂
I could not have said it better.
peace
walto,
No, that’s fine. A direct answer is much better than the smarm of the resident professor of philosophistry here.
I can’t imagine arguing with you or even less ‘attacking’ you simply for disagreeing with Plantinga. Perhaps for disagreeing with Plantinga’s argument, but not for disagreeing with the man. Can you link to if it still bothers you or might somehow be relevant?
I attack bad arguments, as much as possible, rather than the people who are promoting them. It might not feel that way sometimes to my conversation partners or discussion opponents. Social scientists carries knives of reason that mere philosophers are not armed with, not having seen nearly the breadth and depth of empirical experiments and other ‘scientific’ results that are simply absent within philosophy qua philosophy.
Can you make that distinction, walto? As the ‘evangelicals’ here would say: attack the sin, not the sinner?
Theory is only part of it. I guarantee you I know more about ‘evolutionary theory’ *outside* of the natural-physical sciences, than anyone on this site. 100%.
But there are many that don’t even consider that *real* ‘evolutionary theory’. That is why inquiring about the starting point even to engage a place like this filled with Lizzie’s woolly secularism is such a difficult task.
“I think the idea of ID is intrinsically interesting, since it tries to tackle difficult concepts like design, intention, randomness, etc. But I’m entirely incompetent to assess the central issues.”
The ‘central idea’ of ID is: Human beings are ‘designed’ by the ‘Designer’ and you can choose whichever ‘designer’ you want. But it is *YOU* who have to believe, not substituting any ‘strictly scientific’ explanation for the confidence on which your worldview.
And if you’ve got no worldview, let alone no understanding or presence of theology, then probably you a louse of a person. No effort, flat-character, lazy, apatheists are among the most loathsome in this conversation. Hmm, one of TSZ disgraced ex-moderators fits that bill. : (
No, TSZ is far from as good as it gets. Vincent likely knows that, but seems simply to be afraid, with the kitten holding his tongue.
That one made me giggle
peace
Gregory,
Nice straw-man. Do you have a real argument against ID?
I’m not even sure I can parse the encapsulation to understand what he is saying.
He did put the word “YOU” in all caps and emphasized ‘strictly scientific’ so those terms must be important to his summary.
If someone can’t state my position in their own words so that I can recognize it I have very little confidence that they understand it.
peace
walto:
You have a hyperactive imagination, walto, and dishonesty is typically your first resort. It’s sad to see this in a grown man.
I didn’t “viciously attack” you for saying that you thought Plantinga was smart. I simply argued that one of Plantinga’s arguments was lame.
It’s pleasant for you to imagine: “I was being so reasonable, and keiths viciously attacked me for claiming that Plantinga was smart!” Boo, keiths! Yay, walto! Our hero!
But it’s a ridiculous Walter Mitty fantasy. As always, reality reaches down and bitch slaps you out of your reverie.
I invite people to draw their own conclusions, keiths. No doubt your last post will have convinced everyone of the veracity of your take on these matters. Extremely persuasive!
No doubt your posts on Plantinga were along the same sober, impersonal, utterly rational lines. Who could doubt it?
walto,
Why would you even talk to him? Don’t you get his serious issues? If his cat got your logic, it would have moved out and joined in with the raccoons….
I don’t know. I’m easily baited, evidently.
I really do think he’s nuts though.
walto:
You keep forgetting about the evidence, walto. That’s where the bitch slaps are coming from, and that’s why I linked to the Plantinga thread.
Here’s the relevant exchange:
walto:
keiths:
Slap!
keiths,
Yep. Great summary of your 4000 posts on that subject. If everyone wasn’t already convinced, I’m sure that precis will l have finished the job. But I mean, no persuasion really ought to be necessary in the first place. Not for anybody who knows you. Pure class. And not the slightest bit nuts!
Oh, and Gregory only attacks arguments. I’m sure that remark will also be quite persuasive in these parts–especially among the ‘louses’ here.
walto,
You said I “viciously attacked” you for saying that Plantinga was smart.
I didn’t do that, as shown by the evidence from the relevant thread.
You look like an ass. Again.
I was watching TV yesterday: (Evidence that I didn’t kill Shirley last week.)
ETA: I should really remove this. Keiths’ last post is too ridiculous (even for him) to have been meant seriously, I’m so gullible!!!
walto,
I’ve pointed you to the relevant thread. It contains your exchanges with both Gregory and me regarding Plantinga.
But if you insist on prolonging your embarrassment, who am I to refuse?
Provide the evidence for your own claim.
keiths,
What evidence do you have that Walto is embarrassed?
No need. You’ve convinced me with your careful survey.
But I’m curious: did you also look through guano for that period when you decided on the one key post that we both believe utterly proves your point (and also bitch-slaps me right back to the day of my birth!)?
Oh, Bill. You should see how red I am since Keith proved his point with that post! Like a frigging beet!!
colewd,
His behavior, particularly the “you’re nuts!” tic. I’ve seen it many times before, and it presents when walto has been proven wrong and is desperate to save face.
But what can he do? The incident was imaginary, so he’ll never find real evidence of it.
keiths,
Right. Plus how could anybody NOT be embarrassed when presented with that sort of knock-down documentary evidence?
Anyhow, keiths is now suggesting precisely what I did earlier–leaving it to the court of opinion of those who’ve witnessed our behavior to make their own decisions on the matter. Me doing what I do and him doing what he does. As I said a half dozen posts ago, I’m content to leave it to others to decide. He says I’m lying (or embarrassed or both); I say he’s nuts. Y’all can make your own assessments.
walto,
No, not at all. I’m pointing to the actual evidence.
You made an accusation regarding our Plantinga exchange. I linked to the relevant thread and quoted the part that proved you wrong. You have no evidence to back up your counterclaim.
The evidence settles it.
You lied, and you got caught. You’ve suffered another public humiliation at your own hands.
Right. Proof positive that you never viciously attacked anyone! Anyhow, as i’ve already conceded, you never would!
I’m not sure what I feel most acutely: embarrassment, humiliation, the desire to lie again, or the conviction that keiths is absolutely nuts.
walto,
I think it’s the first three. The last is just a pose.
Boo, keiths! Yay, walto!
and
Hard not to believe both keiths and Gregory when they say they’re above that kind of crap. I’m sure everyone agrees–I mean everyone except the liars, loathsome louses and humiliated posers.
Can’t really expect anything from them…..er…..us.
fifth:
You’re misrepresenting him again, fifth. Walto said nothing — zero — about wishing that they had dispensed with the “jebuz talk”. Here’s what he actually said:
He was talking about what he’d like at his own funeral.
What happened here was simple: You were personally offended at walto’s dismissal of “Jesus talk”, so you lashed out at him, foolishly. But of course people are going to criticize Jesus talk and goofy Christian doctrines at a place called The Skeptical Zone.
Now, to cover up your mistake, you’re grasping at straws, looking for something — anything — to justify your silly outburst. You’ve tried to spin this as being about showing consideration for the grieving, as if what walto posts at TSZ had anything to do with funeral etiquette. It’s ridiculous.
As I said:
fifthmonarchyman,
Yeah, that vibe was felt when sending it. As much as possible. A sociologist can’t stay away from individuals. If I were instead a psychologist, look out!
Can you imagine how long Jordan Peterson would last here?! ; )
colewd,
I’d like you to challenge me by voice, not by text. IDists have proven too slippery and untrustworthy. That’s from a ‘graduate’ of the DI’s ‘summer program’ for ID, in case that earns any credibility with you (likely not).
The DI changing the program from “ID in the Social Sciences and Humanities” to the “C.S. Lewis Fellows Program on Science and Society” (my PhD, which I was doing when I met John West, had a sub-focus on the sociology of science) after I was there is a testament to the arguments I made with & to them in Seattle.
There is little need to ‘argue against IDT.’ They do just fine revealing the vacuity of IDism alone. But their right-wing PR-style quasi-scientistic ideology is a real ‘culture war-oriented’ social problem for USA people in their country to face. I see nothing wrong with reporting on that, do you?
Neil Rickert,
A category of person is not the person themselves. Arguments are ‘held’ by people. Categorising ‘a group of people who hold such arguments’ e.g. apatheists, is simply shorthand to help readers understand who is meant. If you’re not ‘in’ then you wouldn’t be ‘there.’ There’s no need to be defensive with sociologists, as so many people are because they speak often about … people. You just need to learn to distinguish more carefully because in my language, that distinction is ‘bred in’ by force of habit as much as anything else.
keiths,
Ok, so I am exonerated from apparently having opposed walto’s defense of Plantinga. Let two atheists, one apostate, argue over his ideas instead.
Gregory,
You’re confused. Walto accused you of opposing his criticism of Plantinga:
I’ve disproven walto’s accusation against me. The two of you will have to hash out his accusation against you, which is a separate issue.
Should you choose to do that, here’s a link to your first comment in the thread. Have fun.
keiths,
Oh right, that thread. He’s confused in what he said above to me about it. I just read walto’s first post there again. No thanks.
That is the second time I’ve been accused of quote mining in this incident.
Both times only a portion of the original content that I abridged was provided along with the charge.
So here is the entire very long quote with the relevant areas in bold.
You are free to study each and every syllable ad nauseam if you like
quote:
Speaking of souls, Christianity, etc., etc., I went to the funeral of a neighbor at a Greek Orthodox church the other day. The music was Incredible, You really have to be able to sing/chant–and have mastery of a ton of ornaments–to be a cleric in one of those places. Three men–one young, one maybe 60, and one about 80–sang, together and separately, in unison and in harmony for a good hour. Lots of key changes too–although not much counterpoint. And wonderful acoustics: one of the three guys–the young one–was placed at a large chair at the side of the altar with maybe five mics pointed at him. The two older guys walked around the center, going in and out of this antechamber, sometimes bringing out highly ornamental books to sing from and gesticulating a lot. They sounded just as lovely, but must have been wearing their microphones since there were none visible in their area Those three men were even joined briefly by a fourth singer from the congregation, who walked up, said a few words, joined their chanting for a few minutes and then disappeared again.
The setting was also cool. Big, beautiful space. Weird paintings everywhere, lots of glittering doo-dads. Reminded me of some of the Cathedrals we’d visited in Spain. A bit of incense in the air. Bell ringing and gesturing, in addition to signs of the cross at least every 40 seconds. The whole thing was beautiful and eerie. I loved it–I was hoping I’d pass out.
One of the emcees took a break from singing to talk a bit about the orthodox xtian position on death being akin to sleeping. I didn’t pay much attention: I was thinking about how nice it would be to have my own funeral at that place –if they’d just take out all the Jesus talk. Maybe do the whole thing in Ubbi-Dubbi Greek or something. It was so other-worldly! Who wouldn’t want that?!?
end quote:
I felt that the meaning was clear though the comment was very long and verbose.
He liked the trappings of the Orthodox funeral he attended but did not like the actual content that gave the trappings meaning. He felt the need to share that experience here because it had some relevance to a conversation about “souls, Christianity, etc., etc”
I in turn felt this was highly insensitive to the mourners to publicly critique their personal and painful experience just to show us how “liberal” and “accepting” he was.
Why even bring a funeral up here??? I think that it is bull-crap and sleazy. I expect more from him.
He should know you can’t remove Christ from a Christian funereal. Christ is the whole point of a Christian funeral. The trappings he claimed he was so fond of are only there to point you to Christ for comfort and hope.
Never the less I did not complain about his actions and I did not demand that he stop them.
I merely asked him if praising the external trappings of such a highly personal event in a family’s life while ignoring and even pondering how to disguise or remove the main content was akin to praising the efficiency of the transit system in Nazi Germany.
Apparently this question was taken to be somehow over some imaginary line.
I’ll let you decide. I think it’s best if we move on.
peace
This conversation has served to teach me something.
My job takes me to Utah at times and I have been asked by Mormons what I thought of their temples.
I usually say something like I think the architecture is nice but I don’t like what goes on there.
From now on I will dispense with the niceties about the beautiful buildings.
peace