Christianity

[Harbal]

Well, if it's "inevitable" that people believe lies, I guess it could be. Otherwise, no.

So evolution isn't a mistaken conclusion of research, it is a lie by scientists.

Some of them, obviously. And the others...well, the propaganda just denies they exist. Rather like the holes in Evolutionism I've pointed out already, actually.

Science, like all fields, is susceptible to politicization, pecuniary concerns, public relations issues, and the prejudices of the people who hand out the label "scientific." And these inauthentic influences have to be called out and resisted, if real science is to go forward.

You could read Thomas Kuhn on this subject, actually. But there are plenty of examples. In fact, when Galileo had his famous little incident, his chief opponents were not "the Church" as the legend goes, but rather the Aristotelian "scientific" establishment (which the Catholics also supported, at the time). Galileo was really no heretic against God, as nothing he said actually contradicted the Bible; but he was a heretic against the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic traditions, and it was for that he was harassed. That's an illustration, though, of how hide-bound the tradition we call "science" can be, if it is allowed to become that.

All the more important, then, that we allow free rational criticism of any scientific theory.

That hasn't happened so far. I'm thinking it's going to start soon, either.

You should maybe read about the Piltdown Man fraud, just to know how far this thing can go.

How does one fraud, or even a hundred frauds, suggest that it is all a fraud?

It doesn't. But one fraud, especially one like the PM fraud, clearly shows that what is declared "science," (or its synonym, "Fauci") is not necessarily actual science, or the truth. It may or may not be. But ideology is clearly very powerful in determining what the public is instructed to accept as "science."

Your determination to demolish evolutionism, evolutionists, Evolutionism and Evolutionists is far greater than mine to carry on jumping to their defence, IC, you are obviously motivated by higher stakes than I am. You know, it is only since I retired from work that I have come to fully appreciate the feeling of freedom that comes with no longer having a boss to answer to. And my boss wasn't even omniscient, so I could get away with quite a lot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, it was lame. There isn't anybody with half a wit who would buy the idea that just because somebody believes some foolish or wicked thing, and then acts on it, he's behaving "morally."

However, however, you word-twisting ‘twit’ (quoting someone, can’t recall who) that is not what I said and not what I meant. I would add “but you know that” yet it seems you don’t know that. Because of your intransigence and stubborn foolishness. A tragic flaw really.

That dog definitely cannot hunt.

[Dubious]

Unless I am wrong the above ‘explains’ Immanuel Can.

(Curiously science-method itself punctures science-certainty. And the new descriptive assertions/speculations begin to sound mystic.)

Nothing 'curious' about it, 'uncertainty' being inherent in its method. Science was never a search for truth per se that being the main prerogative of philosophy whose main method is to be assertive, speculative, descriptive.

[Immanuel Can]

Your determination to demolish evolutionism, evolutionists, Evolutionism and Evolutionists is far greater than mine to carry on jumping to their defence, IC, you are obviously motivated by higher stakes than I am.

Plausibly. I know exactly what's at stake, I think.

You know, it is only since I retired from work that I have come to fully appreciate the feeling of freedom that comes with no longer having a boss to answer to. And my boss wasn't even omniscient, so I could get away with quite a lot.

Ah yes...the bliss of being one's own boss. Not so bad, as long as one can be self-sufficient forever.

[Immanuel Can]

...that is not what I said and not what I meant...

What you said was: "People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action. And there is a special word for that! It's called morality."

That's your definition of "morality," apparently. No "word-twisting," unless your original words were themselves "twisted," which would be your doing, none of mine.

If you meant something other than what you said, then maybe you should explain now.

[iambiguous]

Just as with race, what I would like is for you to discuss your thoughts and feelings about Jews theoretically, academically, analytically etc., and then take those conclusions out into the world that we live in today.

Imagining others who think like you do in a position of power in any particular community. What might Jews expect from them? How would you yourself interact with them? What would you approve of, what would you disapprove of...in terms of reproduction and education and employment and social interactions.

And, of course, hearing your own reaction to the polices of Hitler and the Nazis. Were there things they got right? Were there things they got wrong?

Then this part: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ws-a-race/

Your views on that.

Of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Anything to keep the discussion either up in the clouds or all about me.

Well, okay, without Googling anything, to me a Jew is someone who subscribes to the religious faith -- the moral narrative -- that revolves around the God of Abraham and Moses. Historically. But it can then get murky because while some are born into Jewish families others convert to the Jewish faith. So just about anyone can call him or herself a Jew. Now, to the extent that there are Jewish genes and Arab genes and genes for all the other ethnic communities...damned if I know. What does science say about that?

Me, I react to others more or less ignoring all that "racial" and "gender" and "ethnic" stuff. I'm far more interested in how intelligent they are, how tolerant they are, their sense of humor, their emotional depth, their social skills, how far off the beaten path they are, how fascinating their life is and how just plain engrossing they are.

Instead, I go back to the assumptions I make about dasein. And that was explored in the 2012 film The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

I’ve begun to grasp your method and your lexicon! If one choses not to be led by you to a foregone conclusion managed by you — that is wiggling. You set a trap — then demand that your victim walk into it. What a hunter you are! The Elmer Fudd of PN!

Any answer that is not for you accepting entrapment is riding skyhooks into concept-contraptions far far above ‘reality’ which, as it happens, you also manage. I gather that is what this mysterious dasein must be.

You cannot proceed calmly and methodically in conversation even if one desires to cooperate with you (say speaking about my thoughts on Judaism, Jewishness, the so-called JQ, or about Israel and Zionism) and get resolutely flustered when foundations are established.

Finally, mercilessly! you pepper your prey with links to truly exacerbating diatribes on your personal arcana which one reads wishing one had long ago died ….

If I’ve missed anything let me know …

Absolutely shameless!!!

Right, IC?

Come on, AJ, you are in way, way over your head with me. Why? Because unlike those here who will go up into the theoretical clouds with you in order to establish those pedantic intellectual "foundations", I insist that you bring those conclusions themselves down to Earth. Black, brown, red, yellow skin folks...Jews. What is to be done with them in order to stem the "demographic crisis"?

What did Hitler get right? What did Hitler get wrong?

Grow a pair and walk your talk.

[attofishpi]

I've got to go and see one of Jesus' reps to apologise for my appalling language and a few things later today (I have been disgusting, sorry to all ye faithful), just wondering if anyone wants me to ask the priest anything while I am there?

[Lacewing]

This is why people are always at war: someone imposing something on someone else, with self-righteous indignation that they have the right to do so.

If I perceive that there is no path for reasoning, I use other paths to support the evolution and expansion of ideas.

I asked what you would do and you did not answer.

Because it hinges on all sorts of things particular to the circumstances, of course!

What other paths?

Paths that go around the obstacle. There are many levels and techniques, so it's difficult to give you some kind of definitive ultimate answer. It takes observation to see what works in each moment and situation. In other words, it's not a robotic black or white response. It's dynamic.

Whether I need to fight, or operate under the radar, or go around the obstacle, or patiently wait for the extremist to burn themselves out, I will do what seems appropriate. And in the meantime, I will live my life the way I want to, and support others in doing the same, and support broader ways of thinking. It appears to me that nature has a way of naturally seeking balance (through many means)... and it works best for those who do the same.

Extremists live in the hellishness of extremism. I don't think they have much clarity, as their rabid intoxication limits and deteriorates the capacity of their mind. They will pursue that to its disastrous results if they cannot choose to seek more balance. My path is to avoid, circumvent, or outlast their toxicity... if reasoning and balance are not an option. Simply having more calm clarity in the face of another's mindless fury can reveal effective insights about the paths to take.

[Lacewing]

I've got to go and see one of Jesus' reps to apologise for my appalling language and a few things later today (I have been disgusting, sorry to all ye faithful), just wondering if anyone wants me to ask the priest anything while I am there?

Nobody cares about your constant asshole redemption routine. Simply, because you're no more convincing in any of your schizophrenic roles than you are with any of your whacked-out claims. So, maybe ask the priest to perform an exorcism on you to deliver you from the ongoing delusions you're under as a result of the Tormentor God who -- as you've claimed -- scrambled your brains long ago.

[attofishpi]

I've got to go and see one of Jesus' reps to apologise for my appalling language and a few things later today (I have been disgusting, sorry to all ye faithful), just wondering if anyone wants me to ask the priest anything while I am there?

Nobody cares about your constant asshole redemption routine. Simply, because you're no more convincing in any of your schizophrenic roles than you are with any of your whacked-out claims. So, maybe ask the priest to perform an exorcism on you to deliver you from the ongoing delusions you're under as a result of the Tormentor God who -- as you've claimed -- scrambled your brains long ago.

Mmm. I think that question is rather irrational. Let me know if you can think of something intelligent I could ask him.

Anyone else? This is open to atheists, theists, gnostics, even spiritual atheists (LW).

However, I will only have time for one question (I've been a very naughty boy).

[tillingborn]

If that is what everyone knows as the Darwinian narrative/model, they are reading more into Darwin that he wrote. As the title of his book says, his theory was about the Origin of Species. Darwin understood perfectly well that his theory does not explain the origin of life, as he said "My theory leaves quite untouched the question of spontaneous generation."

Yet it is inevitable that explanation be given though right?

Creation stories are rife, so yes, people like to have some idea of how they ended up here.

You can’t leave something like that hanging can you?

So Darwinism … evolved. (That is a feeble attempt at a joke btw).

I think most readers would have recognised it as such, without being told. If you use Darwinism as a blanket term for any theory about evolution that includes some hypothesis about the origin of life, but doesn't have some god directing it, then yes, research since Darwin has meant that Darwinism has evolved

[attofishpi]

I wish people would make the effort to hold down the <shift> key for the g of God, even the atheists.

Spinoza did, show some respect for nature.

(ah..ffs he didn't did he)

[tillingborn]

I don't believe you don't know the answers to those questions. If you didn't, it would mean you knew nothing about Darwin or evolution at all.

Again, you are not distinguishing between evolution and a theory about evolution,

There's no difference. Evolutionism IS a theory.

It is a straw man. Creationists, such as yourself, have created a myth that evolution implies that the fossils of missing links should be under every stone, and that the bulk of humanity should have fully formed adaptations, wings or gills for example, because anything less than fully formed organs confer no advantage.

You don't get to summarily declare something a fact without providing sufficient warrant

The problem is not that the warrant isn't provided, nor sufficient, it is that you won't read it, as in here:

In your own words:

"Absence of evidence" is exactly what a person has when they've not looked.

You may not wish to look, but if you google 'recent human evolution' there is a wealth of evidence that human evolution is real and ongoing. This is one example: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -it-happen As I said, people who study evolution, including human evolution, do not study whether evolution happens, they look at it happening.

...and then claim it's scientific and nobody's allowed to question it. That's anti-scientific procedure.

Theories about evolution are questioned all the time. What is not questioned is that living organisms adapt to their environment, at least not by anyone who isn't convinced that ancient creation myths are more compelling than actual evidence.

But it's the procedure of Evolutionism.

So now you have added "anti-scientific" to your myth of "Evolutionism".

[tillingborn]

I wish people would make the effort to hold down the <shift> key for the g of God, even the atheists.

I can't answer for others, but I have enough respect that if I am talking about God, I will knock myself out and hold down the shift key, but I'm not going to bother for just some god.

[Dubious]

I wish people would make the effort to hold down the <shift> key for the g of God, even the atheists.

I think the 'E' in Evolution should be capitalised since it's conceptually valid to think of Evolution as god in slow-motion.