Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

Posted on by

This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.

What do you think?

check it out.

https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg

 

peace

791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”

  1. Fair Witness: So Frankie’s criteria for whether something could be an “accident” is whether Frankie thinks it is cool or not.
    Got it.
    Now I know why no one else is engaging Frankie.

    That is just the tip of the iceberg.

  2. walto: Well, I do think that the opening 9 minutes of that video is very good.

    Indeed. But it got tiresome after that.

    He want’s his God. And you can’t get THAT from the Scooby, only open-mindedness. He thinks that gets you to God, but even open-minded skeptics are going to deny that.

    Yes, exactly.

    For example, I do not deny that there is a god. But I also do not affirm that there is a god.

  3. Kantian Naturalist:

    Only if you also think that the a-unicornists and a-faeryists also have a burden of proof.

    A simple lack of belief is not equivalent to an existence claim.

    That’s not quite right. The concepts of “unicorn” and “fairy” are a posteriori, which is why it is reasonable to conclude, from the absence of empirical evidence, that they don’t exist. But the concept of God is not a posteriori. It is a priori. Empirical evidence is irrelevant.

    That doesn’t change the fact that a simple lack of belief is not the same as an existence claim. Your version of agnosticism gives unwarranted benefit of the doubt to theism.

  4. Patrick: Gods are just further on the continuum of poor and contradictory definitions. If you could get to the point of having a rigorous definition with testable, unique entailments then the evidence would be that those entailments actually occur.

    Apologetics is the systematic attempt to obfuscate the examination of those entailments.

    Take God’s alleged ‘infinite love’. To anyone without a vested interest it’s blindingly obvious that the world we inhabit is not entailed by anything that could be described as infinitely loving. And so we’re treated to the centuries of hand-waving otherwise known as theodicy.

  5. Neil Rickert: For example, I do not deny that there is a god. But I also do not affirm that there is a god.

    Same here.

    I think the particular Gods promoted by the major religions are transparently and laughably man-made. But is there in fact a supreme being out there who created the universe and all that jazz?

    Fucked if I know.

  6. Neil Rickert: Indeed.But it got tiresome after that.

    Yes, exactly.

    For example, I do not deny that there is a god.But I also do not affirm that there is a god.

    There’s so much burden tennis here to deal with.

    For example, Wood complains that his adversary at the debate has indicated that any evidence for God could be taken as evidence for an advanced extra-terrestrial. Wood then claims that that’s unfair to theists. But, of course, the response could be that it’s not up to non-theists to produce criteria for sensible theism. If theists think one CAN distinguish evidence for God from evidence for ETs, then let THEM tell us what it is.

    Again, Woodbine makes the quite reasonable point that we aren’t entirely in control of what we believe, so we can only make reasonable estimates of what sorts of evidence would change us from a non-theist to a theist. And FMM (who has often claimed he’s not looking for CERTAINTY) replies, “Hah, see? There’s nothing that would convince you!” Well woodbine hasn’t said that nothing would convince him, only that, human psychology being what it is, it’s hard to be SURE would would work.

    Because the “ethics of belief” involves a kind of continuum, it’s possible to think that Fred in the cartoon is being silly, but still deny that there’s anything like analogous proofs of supernatural activities in the real world. Ghosts were re-attaching their heads right in front of us in the cartoon. Here we get outlines on toast and dubious claims about a dead guy coming back to life a couple thousand years ago.

    So, yes. Fred could still argue that there is a technology he doesn’t know about that is making it seem like the zombies are real. And that’s true. It’s just a matter of where along the continuum it starts to be unreasonable to make such claims. There’s no right answer to this question, since, in the empirical world, there are no “proofs”–only mounting piles of evidence, no piece of which is ever entirely dispositive. (And, of course, Fred has good reason to be skeptical: he’s seen very realistic simulacra exposed as fakes hundreds and hundreds of times before.)

    The final strangeness here is Colewd’s atomistic materialism “proof”. It’s a god of the gaps claim, of course, but weird here since the cartoon makes a move from evidence of the supernatural to existence of the supernatural, while Colewd says “Look, there are atoms, and atoms make people, so God simply MUST exist!”

    This place is passing strange.

  7. walto,

    Not according to most theists you can’t. You should talk to some of them sometime. They call the sort of materialism you’re pushing here absolute nonsense!

    🙂

  8. walto: And FMM (who has often claimed he’s not looking for CERTAINTY) replies, “Hah, see? There’s nothing that would convince you!”

    Yes, I noticed that.

    The theists regularly jump to the conclusion that an argument for the existence of god is an argument for the existence of their particular god.

    What if there’s a god that doesn’t give a damn about us, and doesn’t care whether we give a damn about that god? As far as I can tell, all of the alleged evidence for god is evidence for just that kind of god (if it is evidence at all).

    Before the theists try to persuade me that there is a god, they need to persuade me that it matters. These arguments are usually just a big yawn.

    The final strangeness here is Colewd’s atomistic materialism “proof”.

    Strange, indeed. I’ve been taking it as a tacit admission that he’s got nothing.

  9. colewd,

    The final strangeness here is Colewd’s atomistic materialism “proof”. It’s a god of the gaps claim, of course, but weird here since the cartoon makes a move from evidence of the supernatural to existence of the supernatural, while Colewd says “Look, there are atoms, and atoms make people, so God simply MUST exist!”

    We are all saying the same thing. Evidence of creation is all around us if you open your eyes. The basic make up of atoms, the sequences in DNA, the protein micro machines of the cell, consciousness. The details of how that creation occurred remains a mystery.

  10. colewd: We are all saying the same thing. Evidence of creation is all around us if you open your eyes. The basic make up of atoms, the sequences in DNA, the protein micro machines of the cell, consciousness. The details of how that creation occurred remains a mystery.

    You obviously pack a lot into the term “creation” there. What’s obvious (and admittedly mysterious too) is that there’s a world with some awe-inspiring shit in it.

    But you can’t just tell that was “created” because there’s a lot you don’t understand in it. Fire gods making fire and all that.

  11. walto: You obviously pack a lot into the term “creation” there. What’s obvious (and admittedly mysterious too) is that there’s a world with some awe-inspiring shit in it.

    But you can’t just tell that was “created” because there’s a lot you don’t understand in it. Fire gods making fire and all that.

    It would be one thing if talking about the world as “Creation” were expressing an affectively laden attitude towards it. But doing so is not consistent with enjoining others to do as a rational judgment.

  12. walto,

    But you can’t just tell that was “created” because there’s a lot you don’t understand in it. Fire gods making fire and all that.

    I agree with this but it’s not just what we don’t understand its what we do understand. If you and I lived in a two dimensional world or were conscious players in a video game doing science we would eventually understand that our beings were made up of pixels. Red Green and Blue pixels that not only are the key components of us but everything in our reality. As two guys who use computers we know this because this is how computers are designed (created). As two characters inside the video game we might have the same argument whether the world inside the game is all that existed or the evidence of standard components signaled we lived in a designed (created) universe.

    At some point I might see fire and claim that there is a designer until science took me to the point I found what fire really was. In the case of the video game; flashing pixels. Then one of us asks where did the pixels come from? Since we are outside the video game we know but if we were inside then the question is beyond science.

    My argument is that since everything we know is made up of the same standard components(atoms), the evidence is very strong that we live in a created universe. A creation outside of space-time as we know it.

  13. colewd: Then one of us asks where did the pixels come from? Since we are outside the video game we know but if we were inside then the question is beyond science.

    My argument is that since everything we know is made up of the same standard components(atoms), the evidence is very strong that we live in a created universe. A creation outside of space-time as we know it.

    The thing is, the question being “beyond science” just means that we’re not going to be able to provide any evidence for one answer rather than another. It does not mean that there must be a creator. The evidence isn’t “very strong that we live in a created universe.” If your speculations about our necessary ignorance are right, there is no evidence one way or the other; we’re stuck not knowing.

    Ignorance is not a reason for theism.

  15. walto,

    The thing is, the question being “beyond science” just means that we’re not going to be able to provide any evidence for one answer rather than another. It does not mean that there must be a creator. The evidence isn’t “very strong that we live in a created universe.” If your speculations about our necessary ignorance are right, there is no evidence one way or the other; we’re stuck not knowing.

    Ignorance is not a reason for theism.

    I made an argument that we know how things are created that is not ignorance it is from knowledge of human creation. We know what it looks like as we know what murder looks like when someone has a bullet hole in the back of his head. We make a judgement based on evidence.

    I made an argument of how we know standard components are evidence for creation based on human creation (a video game).

    If your speculations about our necessary ignorance are right, there is no evidence one way or the other; we’re stuck not knowing.

    Again, there is lots of evidence. Your skeptic meter is forcing you to ignore it.

  16. Patrick: That doesn’t change the fact that a simple lack of belief is not the same as an existence claim.

    Lack of belief in what? If you know, then it’s a lack of belief in such-and-such and it seems to be your job to show how you distinguish your lack of belief in such-and-such from your lack of belief in the existence of such-and-such. If you are okay that such-and-such exists regardless of your belief, then there seems to be nothing to argue about.

    But if you don’t know what you lack belief in, then you have no business asking for evidence. Because evidence is always meant to be evidence for such-and-such and that’s what you don’t know.

  17. colewd: I made an argument that we know how things are created that is not ignorance it is from knowledge of human creation. We know what it looks like as we know what murder looks like when someone has a bullet hole in the back of his head. We make a judgement based on evidence.

    I made an argument of how we know standard components are evidence for creation based on human creation (a video game).

    If your speculations about our necessary ignorance are right, there is no evidence one way or the other; we’re stuck not knowing.

    Again, there is lots of evidence. Your skeptic meter is forcing you to ignore it.

    (Quote in reply) (Reply)

    I read your cave analogy. The conclusion was that we can’t know what created the pixels from inside. Now I take it you want to dump that analogy and use some other argument instead?

    I really have no idea why you think some combination of your inability to tell where atoms came from and your view that everything is built nicely out of them constitutes an argument for God. You’ll have to put it more slowly and explicitly.

  18. Erik: Lack of belief in what?

    Everything you have no belief about, known and unknown

    If you know, then it’s a lack of belief in such-and-such and it seems to be your job to show how you distinguish your lack of belief in such-and-such from your lack of belief in the existence of such-and-such.

    So if you have a lack of belief in the divine you have an obligation to distinguish that lack of belief from lack of belief the existence of the divine? Perhaps you could demonstrate with something you lack belief in

    If you are okay that such-and-such exists regardless of your belief, then there seems to be nothing to argue about.

    You may be okay with such-and-such existing and still have an issue with the logic those who have the belief. Theists do it all the time .

    You can be okay with the concept of The Divine and still think young earth creationist arguments are wacky. That is why one needs to be specific about the version of God being discussed especially when attributing actions and motivations .

  20. colewd: Again, there is lots of evidence. Your skeptic meter is forcing you to ignore it.

    Or your lack of skeptic meter is what makes the evidence persuasive. One can always find evidence to support a belief they already hold.

  21. walto: I really have no idea why you think some combination of your inability to tell where atoms came from and your view that everything is built nicely out of them constitutes an argument for God. You’ll have to put it more slowly and explicitly.

    1. Virtual worlds are made of bytes.
    2. The actual world is made of atoms.
    3. There are “laws” (i.e. the rules of the program) that organize the bytes into a virtual world.
    4. There are laws (e.g. laws of physics and of biology) that organize the atoms into galaxies, planets, organisms, and conscious beings.
    3. We know that an intelligent being is responsible for writing the program that organizes the bytes into a virtual world.
    4. Therefore, we know that there is an intelligent being responsible for writing the “program” (i.e. laws of physics) that organizes the atoms into the diversity of natural phenomena.

    In other words, it’s the same old argument from analogy that we’ve always seen. It’s still just as crappy as it was when Hume showed exactly what was wrong with it in the Dialogues and Kant demonstrated in the “critique of the physico-theological argument” in the first Critique.

    There is no there there.

  22. Erik: Lack of belief in what? If you know, then it’s a lack of belief in such-and-such and it seems to be your job to show how you distinguish your lack of belief in such-and-such from your lack of belief in the existence of such-and-such. If you are okay that such-and-such exists regardless of your belief, then there seems to be nothing to argue about.

    But if you don’t know what you lack belief in, then you have no business asking for evidence. Because evidence is always meant to be evidence for such-and-such and that’s what you don’t know.

    Doesn’t seem like much of an obstacle. One simply shifts the burden back to the existence claimant as follows:

    Hey, you’re the one who says that God exists; you tell ME what you mean by God, and then I’ll tell you what sort of evidence I think a reasonable person needs before committing to its existence.

    Now, I know you have given your definition (along the lines of “immanent, transcendent, immaterial, and omni-this, that and the other”). It is obviously an extraordinary claim that anything like that actually exists, so I’d be prepared to have a gigantic burden to meet before a reasonable (NOT UNreasonable) skeptic will say anything like “Yeah, it makes sense to believe in that.”

  23. Kantian Naturalist: 1. Virtual worlds are made of bytes.
    2. The actual world is made of atoms.
    3. There are “laws” (i.e. the rules of the program) that organize the bytes into a virtual world.
    4. There are laws (e.g. laws of physics and of biology) that organize the atoms into galaxies, planets, organisms, and conscious beings.
    3. We know that an intelligent being is responsible for writing the program thatorganizes the bytes into a virtual world.
    4. Therefore, we know that there is an intelligent being responsible for writing the “program” (i.e. laws of physics) that organizes the atoms into the diversity of natural phenomena.

    In other words, it’s the same old argument from analogy that we’ve always seen. It’s still just as crappy as it was when Hume showed exactly what was wrong with it in the Dialogues and Kant demonstrated in the “critique of the physico-theological argument” in the first Critique.

    There is no there there.

    Yes, that seems right to me, KN. Thanks.

  24. walto: colewd: I made an argument that we know how things are created that is not ignorance it is from knowledge of human creation. We know what it looks like as we know what murder looks like when someone has a bullet hole in the back of his head.

    The Grand Canyon looks like a big hole like humans create therefore it is evidence that God created it?

  25. newton: The Grand Canyon looks like a big hole like humans create therefore it isevidence that God created it?

    I pull a thread on my pants and make a hole because I’m an idiot. So when moths make a hole in my pants, they are being idiots.

  26. walto: Now, I know you have given your definition (along the lines of “immanent, transcendent, immaterial, and omni-this, that and the other”). It is obviously an extraordinary claim that anything like that actually exists, so I’d be prepared to have a gigantic burden to meet before a reasonable (NOT UNreasonable) skeptic will say anything like “Yeah, it makes sense to believe in that.”

    The flaw in that argument is that any skeptic who doesn’t believe the evidence is persuasive is unreasonable and in denial except for the very rare ” true skeptic “

  27. walto: I pull a thread on my pants and make a hole because I’m an idiot.So when moths make a hole in my pants, they are being idiots.

    Absolutely, moths are idiots. Therefore God exists.

  28. The simplicity of atoms is evidence for God.

    The complexity of life is evidence for God.

    Why?

    I mean, why? Why?

    Conversely, if we’re going to begin a universe with low entropy, wouldn’t simplicity be expected in the beginning, while complexity grows with time? You know, like beginning with hydrogen (with much helium produced within minutes) and evolving complex life much later. One may well ask where this low entropy universe came from, but it really appears to me that if we recognize that we did get a low entropy universe it’s not at all surprising that we get simple atoms (and more complex atoms later, but not exceptionally complex atoms) and move on with complexity.

    There is in fact quite a zoo of particles that last for very short times, and I’ve seen speculation that life could arise from the greater variety of particles existing in a neutron star than exists with atoms. Seems quite speculative, indeed, but you get the point, it’s not that hard to get complexity from simple things with a certain variety of forces acting, and nothing seems to actually favor atoms except that they are stable. Because carbon forms four strong stable covalent bonds, it’s sort of the Lego set of atoms, letting you make just about any sort of structure out of it–yet one wouldn’t want a heavily carbon planet,as you’d end up with great quantities of carbon dioxide and a shortage of continent-making rocks.

    Does God entail carbon, though? No one has come close to actually making that case, although some very sloppy “thinking” matches up anything that seems not to be random (and at least imagined to be favorable to life) with “God.” Psychological reasons for this are not lacking, while good causal reasoning for this is decidedly lacking.

    One rather suspects that anything that makes life possible would be claimed as “evidence for God,” because it leads to this truly amazing (it amazes me, at least) result, life. This may satisfy one’s desire for wonder, but it hardly satisfies any meaningful desire for causal explanation.

    Glen Davidson

  33. newton: So if you have a lack of belief in the divine you have an obligation to distinguish that lack of belief from lack of belief the existence of the divine? Perhaps you could demonstrate with something you lack belief in…

    Good one. Let Patrick go first.

  34. walto: Hey, you’re the one who says that God exists; you tell ME what you mean by God, and then I’ll tell you what sort of evidence I think a reasonable person needs before committing to its existence.

    In reality, that’s always seen to be a dishonest question. Whatever the answer, the asker will simply say the question has not been answered (to his satisfaction, and we will never know what would satisfy him).

    I think we agree that the claim about lack of belief is a claim. If the person who makes the claim cannot tell what he lacks belief about, his claim is empty. It looks equivalent to me saying out of the blue, “You’re wrong” before you have said anything and I’d never tell you what you were wrong about. And I would further say, “It’s YOU who is wrong. YOU sort it out.”

  35. Erik: In reality, that’s always seen to be a dishonest question. Whatever the answer, the asker will simply say the question has not been answered (to his satisfaction, and we will never know what would satisfy him).

    I think we agree that the claim about lack of belief is a claim. If the person who makes the claim cannot tell what he lacks belief about, his claim is empty. It looks equivalent to me saying out of the blue, “You’re wrong” before you have said anything and I’d never tell you what you were wrong about. And I would further say, “It’s YOU who is wrong. YOU sort it out.”

    I don’t really have any problem with that approach. In my own case, I’d just answer “Nearly every sort of God I’ve ever read or heard about: those are the ones I don’t believe in. When God is taken to be identical with the universe or life or something, I believe in it, and if the term is used metaphorically as in, e.g., ‘Michael Jordan was a God on the court’ I’m ok with it. But as used by all the religions I’m familiar with, I don’t believe in it.”

    I’ve already said what sort of evidence I’d need to believe in the xtian God. For Thor or Ganesha I’d come up with different stuff.

  36. Erik:
    If the person who makes the claim cannot tell what he lacks belief about, his claim is empty.

    Utter silliness. There are plenty of things I lack belief in that I cannot describe in any sort of detail. For example, I lack belief in “Eldritch Abominations” and “nameless things that gnaw the world” even though I can’t even begin to describe either one. Similarly, I lack a belief in the “gods of ancient Egypt” and the “spirit-folk” of old Norse tales, again without any knowledge of what they could be. There are hundreds of references and concepts that one need not put any effort in learning in order to simply dismiss as not meeting the minimum requirements to pass one’s level of reasonable skepticism and thus disbelieve without forethought. You vague “god” falls into this category quite easily I might add.

    It looks equivalent to me saying out of the blue, “You’re wrong” before you have said anything and I’d never tell you what you were wrong about. And I would further say, “It’s YOU who is wrong. YOU sort it out.”

    No, it’s equivalent to saying “you’re wrong” after you’ve simply offered a basic concept that conflicts with someone’s understanding of anything. One need not have an understanding of all or even most (or even some) of the various characteristics of “god” in order to say, “nope…don’t believe it” without accompanying evidence. Saying silly things like, “atoms are evidence of said god” just makes such skepticism and disbelief all the more easy because it demonstrates quite quickly that the believer has no concept of what he or she is relating. If a believer can’t wrap his or her head around the concept he or she supposedly believes in, there’s really no point in my bothering with it.

  37. colewd:
    walto,

    …
    My argument is that since everything we know is made up of the same standard components(atoms), the evidence is very strong that we live in a created universe.A creation outside of space-time as we know it.

    The combining of simple components into more complex components is the easiest way for complexity to arise, whether natural or man-made. This is called a hierarchy.

    You sound a bit foolish if you say that complexity is why you believe the universe is created, and then turn around and say that simplicity is why you believe the universe was created.

    If a process can make one particle, it does not take any more information to crank out a trillion of them.

    It would be much less likely for natural processes to NOT reuse existing particles, so in my mind, the more logical evidence of a creator would be to NOT see re-occurrence of the same fundamental components.

  38. If I was a god, and I was lonely, I wouldn’t make messy, flawed biological organisms who could barely comprehend me.

    I would make more gods out of god-stuff.

  39. Woodbine: So, we’re still left with trying to devise an experiment to prove Dave’s omnipotence. What’s next?

    Just as we are left without an experment to prove Zombies exist

    Disaster averted
    Thanks Fred

    peace

  40. newton: My guess is one would have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to defeat death if it is logically possible

    At least some body is getting close to conceivable evidence that would convince them that God exists.

    Perhaps there is yet another skeptic here 😉

  41. Patrick: Unicorns are straightforward ———– Faeries are more difficult———–
    Gods are just further on the continuum of poor and contradictory definitions.

    So you are a skeptic when it comes to unicorns and almost a skeptic when it comes to Faeries and not a skeptic at all when it comes to God

    Got it

    peace

  42. walto: And FMM (who has often claimed he’s not looking for CERTAINTY) replies, “Hah, see? There’s nothing that would convince you!”

    not at all,

    What I say is that there is nothing he can conceive of that will convince him, He has admitted as much repeatedly.

    peace

  43. Neil Rickert: Before the theists try to persuade me that there is a god, they need to persuade me that it matters. These arguments are usually just a big yawn.

    I’m not trying to persuade you of anything because

    1) I already know you believe in God
    2) It is impossible for me to persuade anyone. That is God’s job.

    I’m am trying to ascertain whether you are a skeptic and trying to illustrate the all too common silliness here of using “skepticism” as a means to deny instead of discover the truth

    peace

  44. Erik: But if you don’t know what you lack belief in, then you have no business asking for evidence. Because evidence is always meant to be evidence for such-and-such and that’s what you don’t know.

    Stuff like this is why you are my new favorite 😉

    peace

  45. fifthmonarchyman: What I say is that there is nothing he can conceive of that will convince him, He has admitted as much repeatedly.

    Actually, he’s never said that. Not even once.

  46. walto,

    I read your cave analogy. The conclusion was that we can’t know what created the pixels from inside. Now I take it you want to dump that analogy and use some other argument instead?

    I really have no idea why you think some combination of your inability to tell where atoms came from and your view that everything is built nicely out of them constitutes an argument for God. You’ll have to put it more slowly and explicitly.

    We do have an inability to know where atoms came from but we certainly can study their make up. The question is the atom the result of creation? KN did not understand my argument but almost certainly my fault 🙂

    The universe is made of 100 types of atoms that I mentioned before. Atoms are predictable and operate reliable by the laws of nature. There precise properties are critical for life. The GC and AT pairs in DNA are connected with the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom has a specific bond strength which is critical for allowing DNA transcription. Proteins are also the result of amino acids that are bonded together with hydrogen. The cell uses destruction mechanisms for control (takes proteins and breaks them down to amino acids for recycle) again the price bond strength of hydrogen is critical to this process.

    What is the likelihood that this atom that operates so precisely to enable life can be the result of an unplanned event? The very nature of atoms shows evidence of a designed or a created component.

    95% of the components required to make you are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

  47. fifthmonarchyman: At least some body is getting close to conceivable evidence that would convince them that God exists.

    Perhaps there is yet another skeptic here😉

    Wait. Not Newton!! X>{

  48. walto: Actually, he’s never said that. Not even once.

    Of course not in those exact words.
    Are we really going to get into a Clintonesque fight over his exact phrasing?

    peace

  49. colewd:
    walto,

    We do have an inability to know where atoms came from but we certainly can study their make up.The question is the atom the result of creation?KN did not understand my argument but almost certainly my fault 🙂

    The universe is made of 100 types of atoms that I mentioned before.Atoms are predictable and operate reliable by the laws of nature.There precise properties are critical for life.The GC and AT pairs in DNA are connected with the hydrogen atom.The hydrogen atom has a specific bond strength which is critical for allowing DNA transcription.Proteins are also the result of amino acids that are bonded together with hydrogen.The cell uses destruction mechanisms for control (takes proteins and breaks them down to amino acids for recycle) again the price bond strength of hydrogen is critical to this process.

    What is the likelihood that this atom that operates so precisely to enable life can be the result of an unplanned event?The very nature of atoms shows evidence of a designed or a created component.

    95% of the components required to make you are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

    Suppose there were 200 or 12000 types of atoms. Couldn’t one make the same argument?

    Or suppose those four types made up 60% of us. Wouldn’t you make it again? The point is that nothing seems (to me at any rate) to follow from any of it. It’s just a story that appeals to you.

  50. fifthmonarchyman: Of course not in those exact words.
    Are we really going to get into a Clintonesque fight over his exact phrasing?

    peace

    I don’t think that’s necessary to see that you’re blatantly misrepresenting him to make a (silly IMO) point. He has said over and over that he could be convinced.

Leave a Reply