Jayjay4547 wrote:

Photocopy wrote:No one should deny the existence the ''atheistic element'' in the theory of evolution. The most vocal proponents of evolution are atheists. This is not a coincidence. ToE fulfills the needs of those who do not fancy the idea of intentional design. Evolution is the secular equivalent of ancient origin stories. The concept of common descent should be investigated carefully with an open mind. We should admit that many atheist automatically evolution is true beacuse it is the only alternative to special creation. ''since god is not real evolution must be true'' This is circular reasoning. The concept of common descent is actually unproven. It is based on interpretations.

=
Hi Photocopy, welcome here!. I agree that evolution had a common origin with ancient origin stories,

So you don't know what evidence is, how science works, or what evolution describes either? Well thanks for clearing that up, I guess.

the story of its splitting off or speciation had a lot to do with atheism, and its subsequent growth also does.

If atheism means being able to appraise evidence without being forced to shoehorn it into "goddidit", then yeah, I suppose so!

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm genuinely at the point that I think JJ is intrinsically unable to have an honest conversation on any topic.

Jayjay4547 is being sincere. Just because his errors are so obvious to us does not mean he sees them at all.

I would summarise his activities at Ratskep slightly differently to your take: JJ is intrinsically unable to have a conversation on any topic other tan creationism. 98.61% of his 1010 posts are in that section of this forum. This suggests an obsessive streak, and people's minds who are obsessive are trapped by an idée fixe rather than dishonest. "An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it". These people cannot be reasoned with.

The thing is that, even if the above is true, his idée fixe isn't specifically about Creationism, but about the motivations of the atheists, how they've done this or that, and what they think, etc. So it's still firmly dishonest because he's talking to atheists and non-believers, telling them what they think, and when they disagree that's what they think, he spends dozens of pages arguing that it is.

You're conflating being wrong and irrational with being dishonest, Spearthrower.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm genuinely at the point that I think JJ is intrinsically unable to have an honest conversation on any topic.

Jayjay4547 is being sincere. Just because his errors are so obvious to us does not mean he sees them at all.

I would summarise his activities at Ratskep slightly differently to your take: JJ is intrinsically unable to have a conversation on any topic other tan creationism. 98.61% of his 1010 posts are in that section of this forum. This suggests an obsessive streak, and people's minds who are obsessive are trapped by an idée fixe rather than dishonest. "An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it". These people cannot be reasoned with.

The thing is that, even if the above is true, his idée fixe isn't specifically about Creationism, but about the motivations of the atheists, how they've done this or that, and what they think, etc. So it's still firmly dishonest because he's talking to atheists and non-believers, telling them what they think, and when they disagree that's what they think, he spends dozens of pages arguing that it is.

You're conflating being wrong and irrational with being dishonest, Spearthrower.

Where?

You initially said that he was being wrong and irrational whereas I pointed out that, even while that may be the case, his motivations are dishonest. He is not here to talk about primate morphology and dentition, or any of the sundry other topics he has raised. He is here because of the contempt he has for the people here, and he has a compulsion to spend time each week rehearsing that contempt. It is easy to pretend that he is just ignorant and poorly educated (for the latter, I mean in terms of relevant subjects) but it is not that simple at all.

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 is being sincere. Just because his errors are so obvious to us does not mean he sees them at all.

I would summarise his activities at Ratskep slightly differently to your take: JJ is intrinsically unable to have a conversation on any topic other tan creationism. 98.61% of his 1010 posts are in that section of this forum. This suggests an obsessive streak, and people's minds who are obsessive are trapped by an idée fixe rather than dishonest. "An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it". These people cannot be reasoned with.

The thing is that, even if the above is true, his idée fixe isn't specifically about Creationism, but about the motivations of the atheists, how they've done this or that, and what they think, etc. So it's still firmly dishonest because he's talking to atheists and non-believers, telling them what they think, and when they disagree that's what they think, he spends dozens of pages arguing that it is.

You're conflating being wrong and irrational with being dishonest, Spearthrower.

Where?

In the bit of your post I quoted. It is true that JJ prattles on about the motivations of the atheists, how they've done this or that, and what they think, etc. It is also true that he is wrong about that. What does not logically follow, is the conclusion that he is being dishonest. He's just plain wrong and impervious to reason. That is the chief characteristic of having an obsession, or idée fixe; "a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it".

Hermit wrote:
In the bit of your post I quoted.

That is odd, because to me it reads exactly the opposite.

He is *both* wrong and irrational, and being dishonest.

He is wrong about details, topics, and ideas, but not dishonest in that respect.

Where he is being dishonest is his engagement on these fora, his engagement with other people, and his refusal to acknowledge any details which contradict his statements.

For example, he has repeatedly pretended (via his typical historical revisionism which also necessitates dishonest motivations) that atheism has perverted the course of biological research, and a perfect example of this is that biology today sees organisms as being "self-created", a term he has made up to indicate that intra-specific competition is the primary component of survival and therefore the primary driver of natural selection.

That could just be wrong.

But its not just wrong. How can we know? Because not only have ample examples been provided showing why it is wrong, but I even took some photographs of plants in pots to have JJ see a real world, immediate example so that he could learn what mistake he is making. His response, of course, was to repeatedly ignore it - that is not about being wrong, its about being dishonest.

The same scenario happens with folks like Ray Comfort. They make statements which are provably and laughably wrong; abjectly ignorant in fact. Finally, they encounter someone sufficiently competent and patient to explain their errors with Comfort following along and being obliged to understand the mistakes they are making. Comfort, of course, is also dishonest, so even after acknowledging and admitting his errors, he will be back repeating the same falsehoods again a month later.

I am all for Hanlons razor. But there comes a time when the continued application of it is simply naive.

Spearthrower wrote:But its not just wrong. How can we know? Because not only have ample examples been provided showing why it is wrong, but I even took some photographs of plants in pots to have JJ see a real world, immediate example so that he could learn what mistake he is making. His response, of course, was to repeatedly ignore it - that is not about being wrong, its about being dishonest.

You're making the mistake of crediting an obsessive person with the ability to reason about the object of their idée fixe. How many more times need I mention that "an idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it" and "these people cannot be reasoned with"?

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:But its not just wrong. How can we know? Because not only have ample examples been provided showing why it is wrong, but I even took some photographs of plants in pots to have JJ see a real world, immediate example so that he could learn what mistake he is making. His response, of course, was to repeatedly ignore it - that is not about being wrong, its about being dishonest.

You're making the mistake of crediting an obsessive person with the ability to reason about the object of their idée fixe. How many more times need I mention that "an idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it" and "these people cannot be reasoned with"?

I don't think it's a as simple as you're making out, and I'm saying that even under the assumption that you are very familiar with JJ's posting history. There is, of course, an underlying preoccupation, a fixed idea, but that's part of possessing a religious belief; unshakeable faith is a desirable trait within the paradigm of belief. All the sundry other components that are neither necessary nor really even connected to that religious motivation, from chimpanzee gaping maw attacks, to Haka being war dances, to monkeys frightening off predators, to Legolas/Gimli metaphors in hominid evolution... they can't all be considered idée fixe resistant to any potential modification. Rather, they're all desperate ad-hoc attempts to stave up the failing paradigm he cannot allow to be challenged; his fundamental belief in the Christian sky papa.

However, back to the previous point. I didn't actually mean to conflate error with dishonesty... looking back again now at a more reasonable time of day, I still don't see how you've taken that from what I've written - to me, it reads exactly the contrary. However, suffice it to say that as you apparently do perceive that, then at least some of the blame must reside with me for failing to be clear, but I can only assure you it wasn't remotely what I intended to convey.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm genuinely at the point that I think JJ is intrinsically unable to have an honest conversation on any topic.

Jayjay4547 is being sincere. Just because his errors are so obvious to us does not mean he sees them at all.

I would summarise his activities at Ratskep slightly differently to your take: JJ is intrinsically unable to have a conversation on any topic other tan creationism. 98.61% of his 1010 posts are in that section of this forum. This suggests an obsessive streak, and people's minds who are obsessive are trapped by an idée fixe rather than dishonest. "An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it". These people cannot be reasoned with.

I don’t know that Hermit has tried very hard to modify my thesis that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. He got stuck on the premise that there can be such a thing as an atheist ideology. That in spite of his co-atheists sounding strikingly like ideologues. Surely, since the dawn of ideas, people who figured they owned the world of ideas have been incredulous at any challenge to it.

It’s mystifying to be accused of being unable to have a conversation on any other topic than my thesis. Why on earth should I choose to chew the fat with self-identifying “rational skeptics” when I’m not one of youse? Here, ratskeps have been most valuable in helping me lift one corner of the carpet of the ruling beliefs of my time; to be the best I can be.

Which isn’t to say much, no doubt. I expect there is no outcome from my posts beyond personal journey but sometimes I do hope to leave something with a sleeper, a morphic resonance with a poster of enquiring mind like zoon, maybe to have someone recognise what I am doing, and know how to do it better.

See, Hermit?

Its not just ignorantly wrong; it's clearly motivated.

I'm not sure if you were at RDF, but the sorry truth is that JJ is still taking out his angst from that forum, even though most of the membership from there are no longer here.

You do realise that endlessly repeating the same unevidenced and counterfactual bullshit won't magically make it true JJ?

Jayjay4547 wrote:... Why on earth should I choose to chew the fat with self-identifying “rational skeptics” when I’m not one of youse? ...

What do you self-identify as then? An irrational credulous con-man's mark?

Edit intensify? I'm losing my marbles here.

newolder wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:... Why on earth should I choose to chew the fat with self-identifying “rational skeptics” when I’m not one of youse? ...

What do you self-intensify as then? An irrational credulous con-man's mark?

Who also does actually invest a fairly substantial amount of time chewing the fat with people he's wholly hostile to on ideological grounds, on a website he repeatedly indicates he has nothing but scorn for.

Silly, sad little man.

Spearthrower wrote:See, Hermit?

Its not just ignorantly wrong; it's clearly motivated.

This?

Jayjay4547 wrote:...sometimes I do hope to leave something with a sleeper, a morphic resonance with a poster of enquiring mind like zoon, maybe to have someone recognise what I am doing, and know how to do it better.

Um, yeah, looks like JJ is expressing the hope of unexpectedly convincing one (or more) of us, so grok what he is saying.

Spearthrower wrote:I'm not sure if you were at RDF, but the sorry truth is that JJ is still taking out his angst from that forum, even though most of the membership from there are no longer here.

I joined RDF a year or two before that forum got the axe, but did not pay much attention to its creationist section.


Spearthrower, we are looking at the same posts generated by JJ, but interpret them differently. I just don't see the dishonesty you say is there. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue.

newolder wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:... Why on earth should I choose to chew the fat with self-identifying “rational skeptics” when I’m not one of youse? ...

What do you self-identify as then? An irrational credulous con-man's mark?

Edit intensify? I'm losing my marbles here.

I'm not irrational, I'm pretty much the outcome of my particular history. I self-identify myself as an Anglican.

You CHOOSE to be an outcome ....and irrational.

Sky daddy nonsense adherents are made not born ....

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I'm not irrational, I'm pretty much the outcome of my particular history. I self-identify myself as an Anglican.

Ok, so then I will consider you a Luciferian as I don't self-identify as an atheist, but you have always just imposed that on me. Quid pro quo.

Alan B wrote:Well, now, Photocopy. We've had lots of words from JJ, none of which has offered any insight into the nature of 'Atheist Ideology'.

You keep saying that, but just now, I've been offering evidence of the miserable last fruit produced by Darwin's having directed the human origin story along the lines of sexual selection, which concept he took care to edit, to clarify that it didn’t depend on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions. That directs attention away from where a creator might exist, inwardly towards humanity as self-creator. In chapter 19 of Descent he implied that men have led human evolution through competition for the possession of females. And from there the narrative has just deteriorated, through Desmond Morris to the pic from Mark Maslin (2017), discussing what we can learn from the relative size of the human penis.

Not that humans aren’t interested in penis size, but in our context of relations with other organic beings or external conditions that we are taught to call the Anthropocene, Maslin is seriously off-message. Especially considering that he is professor of paleoclimatology at a top UK university.

Incidentally, Maslin’s article in The Conversation (“Scientific Rigour, Journalistic Flair”) included a comments section, long closed now, with 23 comments; mainly joshing the topic but ending with a bizarre controversy over an alleged but unidentified spelling mistake in the pic. So that conversation just nose-dived into the ground. If you want to find a broader discussion on this topic you have to refer to this creationist on the ratskep forum. Not that you do listen of course, not listening is part of the armour of any ideology.

I've been offering evidence

Flapping your gums =/= evidence

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Alan B wrote:Well, now, Photocopy. We've had lots of words from JJ, none of which has offered any insight into the nature of 'Atheist Ideology'.

You keep saying that, but just now, I've been offering evidence

Well you'd first have to know what evidence was in order to offer it.

Not that you do listen of course, not listening is part of the armour of any ideology.

To be fair, there's never been much of anything to listen to from people whining about Darwin in 2019. But hey, keep brandishing your "goddidit" chestpiece, in the hopes that someone, somewhere will be dumb enough to buy it.

Peahens prefer the showiest peacocks. So sexy!

Tigers also prefer the showiest peacocks. So unable to fly away.

Peacocks would like to both survive and mate.

Curse you Darwin with your unnatural ideological preference for self-created huge cocks!

Something something.

Therefore god.

Amen.