We are all too familiar with the schtick of certain posters. I’d like to know what they hope to achieve by pounding their limited collection of nails year in year out.
One could summarise the entire output of some in a dozen or so sentences. They KNOW that no-one will answer their challenges to their satisfaction. They KNOW (rather, they think they know) that this is because their challenges cut right to the heart of the matter, and evolutionary theory (“which evolutionary theory?”, a poster mutters for the thousandth time) is not an arena of explanation that will satisfy them. So, once you have satisfied yourself that this is the case, why keep buzzing against that glass like a trapped house-fly?
Certain commenters can be turned into Markov chain based bots with no discernible difference in the quality of their output. Their next word or phrase is eminently predictable based on what the previous one was.
I also suspect they think this is how science is done, dueling talking points and whoever gets bored first loses. If they just keep repeating their tired catchphrases then eventually they will succeed. But they mistake a lack of engagement with their talking points with acceptance of those same points.
I think they are just doing what they can in their own poor befuddled way to progress their agenda, and the fact there has been no noticeable changes from all their efforts does not put them off as they don’t know what that change would look like anyway as they simply don’t understand how the academic world works.
They mistake the lack of rebuttals to their incoherent rantings as success, that their views are now making progress.
The point is that you are starving needlessly on naturalist ideology. Abrahamic theists (scattered among the ragamuffin group here) can accept the limits & possibilities of natural-physical science in a ‘better’ way both conceptually and perceptually than you, Allan Miller, because they involve more dimensions in their existence, including the ‘spiritual’. They don’t ‘artificially’ stop at the ‘natural,’ silly penguins! = P
An example would be useful. Or, you know, just be all talk.
Gregory,
Sure, I can accept that Abrahamic Theists think they have it all right and the likes of me have it all wrong. There – that thought took one 2-part sentence to articulate. The rest of the endless robot chatter goes barely one baby-step further than that. And, curiously, one of the worst offenders in the endless repetition stakes at least claims to be no ‘Abrahamic Theist’.
Some of those valuable Abrahamist dimensions are genocide, imperialism, heresy trials, and cultural incest. By their fruit.
Why do you keep posting on about evolutionism as if it is science after it has been exposed as unscientific BS?
What do evolutionists hope to achieve by pounding their limited collection of nails year in year out, considering their nails are made of bullshit?
I was in a thermodynamics class in my second year as a physics student at NC State, and somebody asked about some wackaloon perpetual motion machine, and the professor told us a story about how every week the department secretary would give him envelopes containing manifestoes about how einstein was wrong, or quantum mechanics was all a sham, etc etc etc. And after a few months of getting all these screeds from randos, he told the secretary, “I know i teach thermo, and a lot of these nutsos make arguments about entropy and such, but I’m just one guy, can’t you divvy the manifestoes up among all the professors?”
And she said, “I do.”
There are millions of Joe G/Gary Gaulin/Salvador Cordova/Mung-level idiots out there. The tard endureth.
The point is the battle of “worldviews” or “religions.” They should be comprehensive, explaining everything, or at least potentially explaining everything. Since their religion “explains everything” (by making an omnipotent, or at least extremely capable, God responsible for everything) and science can’t explain everything, they win.
Nothing like science, to be sure, but then that’s the point, they’re defending religion, not interested in scientific discovery that disagrees with their religious beliefs. Another reason why “assume the poster is posting in good faith” doesn’t work, people on the science side think that means being honest about the evidence, and people on the other side think it’s about the potency and moral worth of the “final causes” on either side.
That’s not necessarily a discussion killer, because it can be interesting how these closed-off beliefs arise and continue, what elaborate systems arise from a few a priori beliefs or presuppositions and how they demand that everything follow the revealed certainties. But there have to be minds that understand the systems and how these work. People who adhere to these systems but don’t understand them only know how to rubbish the other side, not how to build beautiful castles on fantasies.
When it’s little more than “explain everything or you fail” (in their minds), well, it gets dull fast. We don’t care if everything is explained, and we’re particularly not impressed with “God did it” as the explanation for everything. I don’t have any real problem with someone thinking that God ultimately did do it, but why not at least be interested in how God did it?
Only you have to accept the fact that the evidence is that life evolved (without the intelligence that would disrupt evolutionary patterns, if at all like our intelligence (the only known example of complexity-causing intelligence)) and that God must have done it that way. If you don’t like that, just go back to musing on the perfection of your beliefs that never lead to discovery.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
I doubt that you know what science entails. Glen
Oh, sad. Pity the poor Allan? This is a kind of reading in guilt fixation that wasn’t written there before, at least not coming from me. I’ve never met an Abrahamic theist who “thinks they have it all right.” Nor for that matter have I met a person who “had it all wrong.” Why does Allan talk just as silly as Sal with such nonsense as if kosher skepticism is guilt-ridden superficiality?
That you’re starving on naturalist ideology seems rather obvious, Allan. Lizzie had her moments of honesty going extra-natural, but it was all confused & piece-meal, systematically incoherent. ‘Skepticism’ is just eaten like porridge here apparently with (kantian) naturalist ideology as chocolate dung desert.
It is now obvious that only one possible answer to “What’s the point?” was expected or is possible. Allan Miller is the point of TSZ. So is every other worldview ‘skeptic’ here. Case closed. No need to go further.
You are against productive, cooperative, collaborative science, philosophy and theology discourse, which to Abrahamic theists is a defeatist position, unnecessary given the alternative. We understand your lifelong frustration that most healthy people around the world don’t agree with you because they go beyond the ‘merely natural’, which is an artificial limit you have created in your worldview. 🙁 They (we) involve social, ethical, normative, and spiritual or religious dimensions of human life. (sunshine)
If you were to demonstrate some willingness to encounter theistic worldviews in science and philosophy conversations, the tone you seem to wish for would likely change in short time. You don’t show willingness, so it hasn’t and frankly looks like a waste of time to try anymore. This site is full of spiritual zombies, dead with IDism or aggressive anti-creationism usually meaning tribal (‘bright’) atheism, all over-baked in Anglo-Saxon cocksuredness.
Looking on as neither an IDist, creationist, or ‘skeptic’ meaning ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’ here at TSZ, it does not appear from the mischievous ‘play’ on both sides that either ‘side’ really wants a change of tone. ; ) Blah, blah, horns, strings & a pouting tenor.
What’s the point? Look elsewhere than TSZ for that. Too much philosophistry, anti-philosophy, anti-theology, anti-common sense. Those visiting to read can heal or steer clear from ideological skepticism; it is poisonous mind blather one can’t even put their real name behind. =D
Gregory,
Shouldn’t you be fleshing out your alternative to evolution, young man?
I would rather have a lean diet of reality, than feast on a mirage.
Fair Witness,
Naturalist ideology has been starving skeptics around the world for decades. Lean or thick reality both betray naturalists in society, which is obvious from this “What’s the point?” whiny screed.
What a myopic worldview – atheist/agnostic naturalism … yet some people sadly see no other option. Nature is ALL THERE IS – that’s the missing point? = (
Drop the ugly penguin, no hugs. Now cry together for unfair against ME&I smartest skeptic? Blah, blah
Yes & is happening far from alone these days, though with several accents. Alternative to ‘evolutionism’ and to ‘evolution’ in social sciences and humanities (SSH) is more accurate. =)
How old are you again? Funny when metrics are taken seriously and when they aren’t. Youthful delights in 2017 indeed! 😉
No, there aren’t. Those few are noisy and obnoxious, but they are still few.
Insert standard rant about how “-tard” unecessarily insults people who do not deserve it.
You can have all the theologies and designers you want, but the rest of us will be using science to actually do useful stuff, like new technologies, new medicine, or useful patents. Maybe give us a call when you have an alternative that DOES SOMETHING?
Thanks for demonstrating Allan’s point so succinctly FrankenJoe.
I think that nature is bigger than you think it is.
You don’t know what science is
That comment was so predictable. 🙂
I’ll note that this happens on all sides.
Several people have started threads which attempt to prove the Christianity is false. And, every time, I wonder “What’s the point?” It is not as if any of the actual Christians are going to be persuaded.
This seems to be mostly an issue of human psychology. Some people have to be right, and need to have people acknowledge that they are right, even when they are obviously wrong. Somehow, we currently have one of those kind of people as USA president.
The naturalist version of horse manure works better on my garden.
Gregory, for the record, I’m a horn player myself. Or I was at one time, lol. And I’m here for the porridge because i hate to go hungry.
Amen sir.
Trolls don’t need to have a point; trolling is the point.
Though, to echo Neil’s point, there are tolls aplenty on both “sides”.
Thank you Neil.
I try to take Allan’s OP far more seriously than Patrick’s recent OP, but then one of my first thoughts was, dude, aren’t you paying attention? An atheist just posted another OP on why Christianity is false and in his thread he seems rather proud that he’s posted 18 other OPs on the same topic.
I’ll give Allen a pass on his rant though, the same way I gave Patrick a pass on his rant. That’s my contribution to getting along. 🙂
And I think it’s littler than you think it is. That part is obvious (though maybe take it up with “I could have told you Vincent” cuz he capitalises ‘Nature’). What is not obvious is what positive terms you give to what is non-natural? If you’d add a short list here that would be appreciated.
Since it seems obvious you don’t do things to be appreciated, just to try to be ‘reasonably’ correct all within a tightly constrained naturalistic worldview (‘nature is all there is’), I therefore won’t ask you to list anything that is not ‘natural’. The asking itself likely wouldn’t make any sense to you, even in your native English language.
Not by the bullshit keiths is spewing, anyway. You have to be able to articulate an actual argument and then some may be persuaded- it all depends on the argument
Allan, I don’t much care for the broad brush approach of your OP, especially after the way Patrick went about trying to tar and feather an entire segment of the site’s populace. But if you want to ask me any specific questions I’ll try to answer them.
I know it probably gets lost in the noise, but when it comes down to it if I think someone is asking me a serious question I try to give a serious answer. I’ve had such encounters with a number of members at the site so I know it’s possible.
cheers
‘natural’ refers to horse manure. ‘naturalist’ refers to ideology. Do you understand the difference and if so, why butcher English language with nonsense like “naturalist version of horse manure”?
Gregory,
How on earth do you get that from what I said? This is why I don’t tend to bother with you: fundamental comprehension issues. If God is attempting to bring me into the fold through you, he’s even dumber than I thought.
If the goal is a ‘battle of worldviews’, this still does not explain what someone gets out of endless repetition of the same points – even to the point of endless reuse of the same phrases. Are people trying to bore their opponents into seeing the light?
At my age, it’s a battle of memories!
Haha! I am so against ‘worldview discourse’ that I pen OPs under which people are entirely free to discourse their asses off.
Just to be clear: the OP was not specifically about worldview – how very Gregory to leap on that charger, tally-ho-ing all the way – but about a particular style of discourse. If one is satisfied that there is no ‘there there’ in evolution – or theism, for that matter – what purpose does endless repetition serve?
Repeating the facts in the face of repeated falsehoods is always a good thing.
Do you think that your denying the genetic code is a real code is going to get science to change its ruling n the topic?
Frankie,
This is an excellent example, thank you. Open your playbooks at #75: “Take a phrase from the last post and turn it around. Click ‘post’, doing a kind of self-satisfied head-wobble as you do so.”.
Not a lot of knowledge or imagination.
Looks like that to me, anyway.
Glen Davidson
:_((
This ‘all wrong,’ wrongness. Is it all so unfair to you in particular in the whole wide world or just according to your ‘none’ logic? The people I know & associate with daily don’t think “all wrong” like that. Are you speaking with complaint (what’s the point?) on behalf of a certain constituency or alone? Smth like according to which the Creator of the universe must always be ‘dumber’ or ‘less intelligent’ than the non-created, just-evolved Allan Miller? Is your basic argument against mainstream Abrahamic theology or just against the ragamuffin Abrahamic theists here? (Don’t know if to include Erik in that or not.) If it’s just the people here, then go away & get a life!
Perhaps otherwise make the audience clearer; e.g. ‘I speak on behalf of none of the other idiot theists on this site and am an anti-IDist.’ What is the point of what you’re doing here on this blog? Just to vent – what’s the point? If you set your personal mission of who you wish to dialogue with and what you wish to convince those you disagree with to believe instead, that would be rather helpful, Allan. Right now it just looks like a flailing cry for help + grunt piss-off to any (normal?) theist who tries to explain to you anything that could possibly be explained ever and anywhere by any of ‘them.’
Neil Rickert,
I agree. With a few deft strokes of the keyboard, I could have been a lot less one-sided! It is an opportunity for anyone, on either side, to say what they think ‘the point’ is.
For me, it’s just that I’ve always found biology and evolution, in particular, to be fascinating areas. I enjoy discussing them. And sometimes, perhaps unwittingly, Creationists raise points that get my investigative juices flowing.
And I can tell you I’m not sticking around this abandoned place for skeptic despair counselling, no indeed. “What’s the point?” Wallow down the tread mille into the dust with UD. That’s this site’s destiny.
Gregory,
I never even mentioned theology. The endless repetition relates to the arguments levelled against evolutionary theory. That much, I’d hoped was pretty clear in my short opening paragraphs.
“Stop posting at TSZ”, says TSZ poster.
Sure. I do nothing but post here. Nothing.
I can’t begin to tell you how many books I’ve purchased due to discussions at this site. I’m endangering my retirement, lol.
What theory? Or should I ask which theory? 😀
ok, ok. I get it! LoL.
I KNOW that I am hoping someone will- or at least try. But this is obviously not that place. Why is it forbidden to have skeptics try to defend the claims they accept?
It was perfectly clear to me that you were complaining about the rhetorical style of certain “critics”, and your complaint had nothing to do with theology.
I don’t understand what you are asking for. Can you provide an example of “a positive term of what is non-natural” ?
Fair Witness,
A list of things that are/what is not ‘natural’
Skepticism here means being skeptical of the beliefs of others.