GenesForLife wrote:So, twistor59, this was a case of equivocation and as a consequence, quote mining?

Well, all I can say is that it seems to be a reference to a "left field" theory. There are a great many of those around, and they never seem to lead anywhere.

I lost track of how the original reference came up here - I just occasionally have a look at this thread to spectate at the flying insults !!

Rumraket wrote:...And then of course, how he insisted that evolution is a "world view" from which we get our "atheist moral relativism".

I have to say, given the choice between Tsar's Divine Command Theory (he wouldn't mind that we all die horrible deaths to cancer) and the "atheist moral relativism" of the members on this board, I think I'll just stick with the atheism thing.

It does seem that the people keenest to go on about the evils of atheist moral relativism do seem to be likelier than average to be simmering with a desire to see other people suffer.

However, I guess in one way, maybe they actually are being sincere.
Possibly they're such damaged individuals, feeling forever on the brink of violence that they actually believe the only thing standing between them and a murderous rampage is the restraining influence of the threat of eternal damnation.
Maybe they do find it hard to accept that most people (whether religious or not) simply aren't as full of hate as they are, but can manage to live decent lives quite happily without needing to feel God's knife forever at their throat.

tolman wrote:

Rumraket wrote:...And then of course, how he insisted that evolution is a "world view" from which we get our "atheist moral relativism".

I have to say, given the choice between Tsar's Divine Command Theory (he wouldn't mind that we all die horrible deaths to cancer) and the "atheist moral relativism" of the members on this board, I think I'll just stick with the atheism thing.

It does seem that the people keenest to go on about the evils of atheist moral relativism do seem to be likelier than average to be simmering with a desire to see other people suffer.

However, I guess in one way, maybe they actually are being sincere.
Possibly they're such damaged individuals, feeling forever on the brink of violence that they actually believe the only thing standing between them and a murderous rampage is the restraining influence of the threat of eternal damnation.
Maybe they do find it hard to accept that most people (whether religious or not) simply aren't as full of hate as they are, but can manage to live decent lives quite happily without needing to feel God's knife forever at their throat.

That's one fucking scary thought. I almost can't convince myself that some people actually feel like that. And then I remember Christopher Hitchens debating his brother Peter, who practically said that if it weren't for the threat of gawd and having his morality commanded to him, there "were a lot of things he would do". The implication in the exchange was that it weren't pleasent things he would start doing. Sick shit...

Rumraket wrote:

Scar wrote:I have to revise my earlier statement: The wicked course Tzar has taken in this thread is beyond what you usually get from a creationist. It is digusting, vile and far from the behavior you'd normally expect from a sane, adult person.

Yes but you see, if you look at his avatar, you might think he's here on behalf of Jesus Christ. That would explain a lot really...

Yes, plus we all know what happens when Christians act like that don't we.

That's right, Jesus has to kill kittens. Lots and lots of innocent kitties.

Царь Славян wrote:Chemical processes are physical processes.

Thanks to your sexually frenetic response quoted in my now deleted response, I don`t feel bothered as the worst human garbage to reiterate my reply in full. However, it is egregiously obvious that streaming rivers are not “reasonable”, as they do not have the ability to process thought or cognition; cognitive processes.

Царь Славян wrote:Explain why.

I already have.

Царь Славян wrote:There was no misconception. Atheism does imply that there is no God.

I`d love to see how the prefix “a—” meaning without, absence, or lacking necessitate “no gawd” from simply lacking the belief in gawd or coined as theism. Go on and fucking rigorously explain how it implies that.

Царь Славян wrote:You can tell people not to believe in feries. You can tell people no to believe in a paricular moral issue. You can tell people not to believe in a certain cour ruling etc...

Apparently the term demote flew by your head.

Царь Славян wrote:Yes it does. Saying that no religion is true, and that there is no God automatically implies that atheism is true. Since atheism implies that there is no God.

Oh, look, another duplicitous assertion. There are extant degrees which possibly don`t reflect on your black and white thinking by splitting an important concept, which include religion(s) are probably true, probably not true, equiprobable, true, false, et al. displaying uncertainty, certainty, scepticism, faith, et al.

Царь Славян wrote:If there is a God, he decides right from wrong. If there isn't one, then everyone decides for himself. Which means thatthat in the first case, there are absolute moral values, and in the second case they are relative.

So, what evidential justification do you have that supports its existence having an implication that purportedly decides a moral standard? Once again, due to the removal of my original response, I`ll condense that having independent bases for our morality, surprisingly having no knee-jerk reaction-murders from losing thereof, does not make it difficult to have secure justifications for maximising happiness or optimising everyone`s well-being.

Царь Славян wrote:Exactly. That's how new definitions come about. If it wasn't so, and you always had to have a reference for a definition, then there would be no definitions at all. Because the first definition would need a reference, which is impossible since none would exist before the first one.

Uhm, I can dismiss your bloviation of a response if it lacks utility, consistency and meaningful value. I required a significant reference, not a vapid authority self-reference, which may consist in the instance of scientific peer review the reproducible experimentation that verifies the success in laboratory work for a new medicinal treatment and whatnot.

Wishing that everyone here, and all their relatives, die of cancer is, in my mind, a personal attack on the entire membership here, and could be seen as enough personal attacks to warrant permanent suspension. If it's to be death by mod so be it.

Hey, Czar, defend your hate with scripture. I dare you to try!

Good job of showing how delusional acceptance of that which cannot be supported with reality can lead to sickening displays such as we have seen in this thread. No, I'm not talking about the Darwin slurs. Charlie isn't a member here, and I sure don't hold any emotional attachment to the long dead naturalist. Hell, he could have been a sex freak and it still changes nothing. I'm talking about the shit volcano which has spawned a lahar of forum abuses and no end is in sight.

Just sayin'.

RS

Царь Славян wrote:If there is a God, he decides right from wrong. If there isn't one, then everyone decides for himself. Which means thatthat in the first case, there are absolute moral values, and in the second case they are relative.

With all due respect, that's complete bollocks.
For a start, people don't grow up in a vacuum.
With or without religion, people develop their sense of right and wrong by learning from their parents, their peers, their society as a whole, and as a result of introspection.
When it comes to religions as sources of morality, people have to choose which religion to believe in (unless they just follow their parents like sheep), and then pick and choose which bits of the religion to believe.
It's clearly not 'God' inspiring them in those choices, otherwise there wouldn't be the plurality of choices that clearly exists.

It's possible to read the Bible as a believer and end up a decent person.
It's possible to read the Bible as a believer and conclude that slavery, incest, murder, rape, mutilation and genocide are all things that 'God' seems to consider OK.
Effectively, how good or bad one's morality is after reading the Bible seems to depend pretty much on how good or bad it was beforehand.

It's just that afterwards, all manner of people seem to end up thinking God agrees with them.
Which isn't necessarily a good thing.

Царь Славян wrote:

To the rest of you:

Now that we have no reason to pretend that we like each other, I will come clean so that we can either continue this discussion politely or not at all. In my opinion you all, are the worst case of human garbage that I ever came across. I don't like you one bit and I don't care what happens to any of you. If it was up to me, I would not care if all your relatives got cancer. And as a matter of fact, that would be just fine as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I feel highly insulted. Garbage is smelly and I bathe on a regular basis! Now I do not know whether you are a Christian and or whether you are a brother in Christ, but I can assure you, you are not setting a good precedent for fellow Christians. It makes my job having a worthwhile discussion with non-Christians more difficult and makes any attempt at ministering to them even harder. As as Christian we are to follow rules posted on the FUA. This site is not an atheist site but a site for rational minds. The fact that you have ignored and/or taken arguments out of context has shown that you are not willing to have a rational discussion. I admit I would love to see less cursing and profanity used in arguments, but that does not mean you have to go on an irrational rant claiming you could care less about any of us. It is not civil and far from Christian-like.

And I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Actually it is not. I genuinely respect everyone on this forum because it is the appropriate thing to do. Each member generally has something to contribute whether we agree or not.

So now that we know that we do not care for each other, the discussion can continue any way you want it to. It's up to you. My following posts will be perfectly polite. If I even for a second sense that I'm not getting back that same politeness, you will be hearing stories of Darwin and his pets for as long as it will be needed. It's your choice.

Answer rudeness with more rudeness? I remember reading a story that told me to "turn the other cheek." I have been subject to rude scrutiny plenty of times on this forum, but you know something, I do not act rudely to them back. Guess its that darn Christian life I have.

Darkchilde wrote:It is even worse than that Hack.

He talks about aether, but what he is talking about is the Planck aether model. I have written to my last year's Physics tutor, she has a PhD in molecular physics and has done work in archaeological science. When I'll hear from her on said model, I'll put up a longer summary.

An interesting hypothesis, to be sure. I'll look forward to the summary. This isn't a hypothesis I'd come across before (where have I been hiding?) Interestingly, a quick google brings up this post on the first page.

There is another OU tutor who is an expert on QM, and would probably know a lot, but have to find his e-mail address and ask him about it. He was one of my tutors in last year's experimental course.

In none of his physics, he ever mentions any names first. I always mentioned the names first. Check all my posts where I respond to him, and his posts. The evidence is all there. He mentioned the aether, but not that he was talking about a different thing, namely the Planck aether model. He talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but no names again. Not until I mentioned Heisenberg, he named him, and also I was the first to name the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation. [Btw, the summary on the two main interpretations I gave is from a physics assignment from last year, and of course I aced that question.]

As for the aether, seeing that he made a very ignorant error, I think that Czar, just put aether into google scholar, found two papers at random and gave them here. I don't think he knows anything about QM, he is just writing bullshit. He tried to make it so that they were apparently by unknown physicists/mathematicians and he succeeded with one, but the second paper is from a well-known in physics professor, F. Winterberg.

Indeed. Nothing new there, and a familiar part of the cretinist aetiology. I have come across similar arguments before, but they were mostly directed at the postulated Higgs field, which has been compared by many to the aether. Of course, since the Higgs field has no effect on the travel of photons, or indeed anything else with zero rest mass, this argument is as empty as the head of the proponent.

Oh Tsar, you are so right! Everything you say is absolutely true! You are a genius beyond measure-such wisdom and clarity of thought! I am as proud of you as I am as proud of this forum of rational sceptics! What gems of wisdom you bring us. For how can we possibly be good without god? This is really wonderful, a revelation of your good person. Just imagine the billions of dollars we will save by not wasting it on useless, evil science! All we need to do is listen to YOUR wisdom! You have every right to personally insult us, for we are bad and wayward children.

Darkchilde wrote:Soearthrower, what he is trying to talk about is not aether.

If I remember correctly, this is something to do with space being granulated. We perceive it as smooth, because the granules are smaller or equal to Planck lengths.

Some physicists equate this granulated space with aether, and this is what the Planck aether model is. However, this does not in itself say anything about any of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

I don't know about these proposed interpretations of QM he has linked to, but I will probably ask one of my tutors.

I can see from the papers there that what he's talking about is not, as he said, 'aether - the medium that light moves through' as that's a falsified notion from over a century ago. That's why it had a high comic irony value!

Darkchilde wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Царь Славян wrote:The aether, you know, the mediom [sic] that ligt [sic] travels through. To [sic] bad you never heard of it. Yet, you claim that your strong field is physics.

Darkchilde's question mark was not an indication that she didn't know what you were talking about, but incredulity that you erected such previously refuted nonsense. There were these two gentlemen, names of Michelson and Morley. Too bad you never heard of them.

It is even worse than that Hack.

He talks about aether, but what he is talking about is the Planck aether model. I have written to my last year's Physics tutor, she has a PhD in molecular physics and has done work in archaeological science. When I'll hear from her on said model, I'll put up a longer summary.

There is another OU tutor who is an expert on QM, and would probably know a lot, but have to find his e-mail address and ask him about it. He was one of my tutors in last year's experimental course.

In none of his physics, he ever mentions any names first. I always mentioned the names first. Check all my posts where I respond to him, and his posts. The evidence is all there. He mentioned the aether, but not that he was talking about a different thing, namely the Planck aether model. He talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but no names again. Not until I mentioned Heisenberg, he named him, and also I was the first to name the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation. [Btw, the summary on the two main interpretations I gave is from a physics assignment from last year, and of course I aced that question.]

As for the aether, seeing that he made a very ignorant error, I think that Czar, just put aether into google scholar, found two papers at random and gave them here. I don't think he knows anything about QM, he is just writing bullshit. He tried to make it so that they were apparently by unknown physicists/mathematicians and he succeeded with one, but the second paper is from a well-known in physics professor, F. Winterberg.

I think the key piece of evidence is in his own words: 'the medium that light travels through' - that's actually what he conceives of as 'aether', and it appears to have bugger all to do with the Planck Aether Hypothesis, which is as he says 'non-popular science' as you can see from the tiny number of papers and the few citations - I would guess it's a dead-end hypothesis from its lack of acceptance.

So I have to conclude you are right. Rather than admitting to cluelessness on a topic, rather than simply saying 'I don't know' about a topic he's ill-furnished to deal with, he not only pretended to have a clue, but he also used intentionally deceptive methods to give the impression that he had a clue.... and he did it with an insulting and patronising little personal attack too.

This guy's character fits perfectly in the Discovery Institute - I am sure he'll be made an honorary fellow one of these days.

This guy's character fits perfectly in the Discovery Institute - I am sure he'll be made an honorary fellow one of these days.

How do we know he's not one already? ;D

Rumraket wrote:Yes but you see, if you look at his avatar, you might think he's here on behalf of Jesus Christ. That would explain a lot really...

hackenslash wrote:More interestinigly, that avatar has Jeebus looking like he's got steam coming out his ears, which explains the behaviour of the last few pages, maybe...

Concerning Tzar's avatar:

Tzar got his nickname from the title of a pseudohistory book by Russian mathematician and history revisionist Anatoly Fomenko and his avatar from the book cover.

Larkus wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Yes but you see, if you look at his avatar, you might think he's here on behalf of Jesus Christ. That would explain a lot really...

hackenslash wrote:More interestinigly, that avatar has Jeebus looking like he's got steam coming out his ears, which explains the behaviour of the last few pages, maybe...

Concerning Tzar's avatar:

Tzar got his nickname from the title of a pseudohistory book by Russian mathematician and history revisionist Anatoly Fomenko and his avatar from the book cover.

That actually explains quite a lot...

Well, Fomenko should stick to mathematics...

Larkus wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Yes but you see, if you look at his avatar, you might think he's here on behalf of Jesus Christ. That would explain a lot really...

hackenslash wrote:More interestinigly, that avatar has Jeebus looking like he's got steam coming out his ears, which explains the behaviour of the last few pages, maybe...

Concerning Tzar's avatar:

Tzar got his nickname from the title of a pseudohistory book by Russian mathematician and history revisionist Anatoly Fomenko and his avatar from the book cover.

Funnily, I had looked all this up the other day, but had to go out before reading it.

It certainly explains an awful lot, and fits in perfectly with the 'reality-denial' we've seen here.

That's a whole new level of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Maybe this guy wasn't worth bothering with in the first place.

iamthereforeithink wrote::nono: That's a whole new level of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Maybe this guy wasn't worth bothering with in the first place.

I see it like vaccinations for diseases you hope to never get. A mild dose helps train your body's response to the next infection attempt.