Monday, February 28, 2011

Needle in a Haystack

If any theists who claim their god(s) speak to them stumble on this post, let's play a little role reversal. You'll be playing the atheist in this game. Here's the setup:

The gods:
God Premise 1: Let us assume there are 26 possible god beliefs out there, labeled A through Z.
God Premise 2: Let us assume that you currently do not know which, if any, of these gods are real or false.
God Premise 3: Let us assume that each god is described as powerful.
God Premise 4: Let us assume that if any of these gods are real, that they wish to convince us of their existence.

The Priests:
Priest Premise 1: Let us assume we have 26 priests, one of each god belief who wish to prove that they are correct in their god belief.
Priest Premise 2: Let us assume each priest claims that their god, gods, or spirits speak to them.
Priest Premise 3: Let us assume that, to date, all priests have alleged records of ancient miracles.
Priest Premise 4: Let us assume that all priests are humans.

Human Premise 1: Let us assume that all humans are capable of making mistakes.
Human Premise 2: Let us assume that some humans are subject to mental disorders that lead to hearing voices, often with commands.
Human Premise 3: Let us assume that some humans are willing to lie about their god belief for various reasons.
Human Premise 4: Let us assume that human memory is subject to alteration based on personal biases.
Human Premise 5: Let us assume that humans recently developed methods of recording and measuring information that is more reliable than their memory and subjective perception.

Are there any objections to these premises?

If not, what will you ask of the priests to determine which, if any of the gods are real?


1 – 200 of 222   Newer›   Newest»
Ryan W. said...

Do all gods A-Z punish you infinitely for finite deeds?

What are said punishments?

My buddy Blaise and I think that could at least narrow it down to which one we're going to bleeve in.

Bronze Dog said...

They all just punish you infinitely for believing in a false god.

Ryan W. said...

Great, now I have to rely on things like "evidence" and "logic".

Unknown said...

Jesus Christ told me that this would happen, he said people would deny reality in wish for living in sin spreading hatred and Evil.

It is tragic that you prefer fagots, pedophilia and beastiality rather then living a good life, accepting Jesus Christ in your Life and make the world good, there is a reason all Help comes from christian Organization helping everyone in backwards shitholes like South America, Europe and Africa working hard to make it good so Children comes to Heaven.

But you do not want that, no, you want others to burn in Hell just like you indoctrinating them into evolutionism and darwinism and atheism. Its fucking SICK!

But Jesus told me this when I became his prophet, I was just naive thinking that that much Evil can't exist and when you Teach people so they learn about reality, they change rather then living in ignorance of denial, right?

Wrooooong, You love being stupid and hate the Truth. Sad indeed.

Gabriel - An Angel for God

Bronze Dog said...

Did Jesus tell you to lie, Gabe? Did he plan for you to expose your dishonesty by lying about my morality in a desperate attempt to ignore important logical questions?

Did he want you to play the part of Satan, acting exactly the same as all the other worshipers of false idols? Did he want you to act just like all the witchdoctors out there?

I reject biblical literalism because it promotes loose morals. I reject your crazy random morality because you can't come up with anything resembling objectivity.

You worship yourself, and believe god exists specifically to elevate you.

Meanwhile, I acknowledge my human weaknesses. You do not.

I reject ALL rape, Gabe. That includes child rape by pedophiles. I don't think you can claim that, after all, you've rejected consent-based sexual ethics in favor of random "morality."

I reject bestiality because animals aren't competent to give consent, and sentient beings are supposed to feel something for each other that non-sentient animals can't provide.

You know, it's funny that the Bible's often soft on rape, treating it as a "you broke it, you bought it" sort of thing, requiring a rapist to marry his victim if she wasn't already married.

It's also funny that priests, ministers and other allegedly morally superior people are often caught doing very nasty things. Like, for example, covering up child molesting priests for decades, and most probably centuries.

Unknown said...

Jesus told me to do everything to spread the word of Jesus and spread love, that you consider that "bad" or "lie", its up to you, considering you believe in evolutionism and atheism your mental state is clear.

You should visit GodHateFags to learn something about the world.

Wait, you reject bestiality???? Because "animals aren't competent to give consent"??? But.... Hold on, I thought you say WE are animals?

Did I just find an enormous contradiction? One second you support evolutionism, humans evolved from mud and we are animals just as everything else... But, now you say that you cant have sex with animals because they cant give consent? But they are just like you? Animals, this is a Complete contradiction.

But of course, you wont admit it, you just blabber on some bullshit and pretend you did not contradict yourself, a Chimpanzee is the same as Man, right? We evolved from monkeys and we are not "above them", they are the SAME as us, no? Evolutionism?

Or ARE we superior to them? That would be better because then we got a DOUBLE contradiction as you say the White Race is NOT superior, and then you SAY they are Superior (White man being the final product, we haven't seen any new so far but perhaps in hundred billions years ? With evolution? right?)..

I love the contradictions and then when you pretend to not see it and then your ignorant followers nodding, blindly to anything their master tells them. Fucking horrible.

Bronze Dog said...

Fallacy: Equivocation.

Yes, we are "animals" in the more technical sense. But in context, it should be obvious I was using the colloquial definition of "animal" that refers to non-human, non-sentient animals.

I don't know what moon speak language you first learned, but in English, there are words that mean more than one thing, and you have to use context to determine which definition is being used.


Oh, and Gabriel, to dumb it down for you, since you've shown that nothing is too simple for you to obfuscate:

1. Technological progress does not occur as the result of new genes. You won't even acknowledge that I hold this position because you're afraid of dealing with the real issues. You deliberately performed a lie of omission, there.

2. "Superior" is an ephemeral, circumstantial condition. Everything involves compromises. The right environment can change a former advantage into a disadvantage. The Earth is not a static entity. Human society changes even faster than nature. You lied by pretending that I believe in your sci-fi fantasies, and by pretending that there is no alternative concept of reality.


It's pretty sad that you pretend to speak for Jesus. If Satan existed, he'd probably be happy that you're depicting him as a nitpicking idiot who cares more about semantics 'gotchas' than morality or truth.

You're just another worshiper with another dime store gold-plated idol. You're no different from any other fringe cultist.

I take that back. Some fringe cultists at least attempt to make promises. You lack the faith to make any sort of commitment.

MWchase said...

And apparently, "everything" does not include "assent to a challenge in which the other party has bent over backwards to give you every possible chance to prove yourself".

Or perhaps there's some problem with my challenge. Would you care to point it out?

Let me put this to you as I see it: I have given you a task and time constraints that I would consider generous for a first-grader to carry out. The only limitation is that you must rely on divine revelation to know what the task is.

Am I wrong about that? If not, what is the problem?

Bronze Dog said...

What can a guy who speaks for a powerless stone idol do?

He knows he can only fail, which is why he has no interest in trying anything we suggest, and proposes nothing to bridge the gap. He's given up before even trying anything meaningful.

All he can do is relay whispers from his imaginary friend, whose knowledge and power are bound by the same human limitations he is.

Just like the psychics.

Just like the alties.

Just like the witches.

Just like the fortunetellers.

Just like the Scientologists and Raelians.

Just like the Jews (categorized by religion, not by the "Semitic" ethnic group or whatever), Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Fakirs, Wiccans, witchdoctors, shamans, Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and so on, and so on, and so on.

That's the crushing truth you're hiding from, Gabriel: In the vastness of humanity, you are ordinary. You are a flawed being like the rest of us. Humility demands that you accept that you are flawed and work to overcome those flaws as best you can.

But your boundless pride and hubris get in the way. You tell yourself that a god and his magical son exist to worship you and provide you with perfection. And when we point out your flawed humanity, you expect us to treat your perfection as self-evident.

In the ever-expanding bestiary of gods and spirits, your god is no different than all the other false gods. God belief A is in no better standing than god beliefs B through Z. I suspect you've avoided that fact by ironically being so sheltered from "Western" philosophy and the absurdly divergent nature of religion.

They all say the same things you do, Gabe. If you want us to take you seriously, say something we don't hear from all the other idolaters.

MWchase said...

Thing is, I've decided that holding him to a set of pitifully easy tasks is hilarious.

See, Gabe, look how smug I'm being, I bet you'd love to take me down a peg. I'm being so smug that I've left myself a huge rhetorical weakness, if you truly do speak with Jesus. Come at me with your best shot, for I welcome the truth.

(You know, it's too bad I set the time limit so generously. He might actually leave before it ends.)

Anonymous said...



Jim Roberts said...

Hello Mr. Mabus!

We miss you over on slacktivist. Or were you there and I missed you?

Bronze Dog said...

One thing I'm still waiting for is Gabe's tinfoil hat explanation for how proper, consistent, consent-based sexual ethics and a desire to strengthen the enforcement of laws against rape will lead down a slippery slope into acceptance of child rape.

MWchase said...

Oh, and reading over his post:

Gabe, ask Jesus if your characterizations of evolutionary theory make you look like an idiot.

There is no meaningful sense in which white people are "the final product" as of now, however you define white. (WHICH. YOU. HAVEN'T.) The main difference, genetically speaking, between the population of Africa, and populations that have historically resided outside of Africa, is predominantly a reduction of allele frequencies. (In other words, something like how creationists try to characterize the process of mutation, except that this was the result of genetic drift, natural selection, and population bottlenecks, which are all completely distinct from mutation.)

What I'm trying to say is, looking at, say, a white person and a chinese person, and saying that either one is the "final product" makes exactly as much sense as comparing a dalmatian and a chihuahua to see "which breed came before the other". (None.)

If you disagree with that assertion, Gabriel, I will ask: which came first: the dalmatian, or the chihuahua?

Chakat Firepaw said...

That might be too scary of a question for him.

Perhaps he would like a really easy, safe one: Were the Saxons white?

Unknown said...

The chihuahua is older (existed longer) then the dalmatian, god you are ignorant.

Is this the evolutionary "education"? You note I quoted "education" didn't you? In that clearly you do not have enough knowledge of even the most basic things and your "education" must be directly related to evolutionism, being equal to ignorance.

And you still want God to do WHAT YOU TELL HIM and do NOT find that a bit... Odd and completely valid, really, what can I say if you truly live in such a deluded world.

Ryan W. said...

The chihuahua is older (existed longer) then the dalmatian, god you are ignorant.

HA! He admits god is ignorant! Atheist Evolutionist Goddardist Newtonian Einsteinian Darwins FTW!!!

Bronze Dog said...

You're deliberately missing a point about the dogs, Gabe. They're separate branches from a common ancestor, just like today's "white" and "black" people are a separate branches from our earlier ancestors. It doesn't matter which branch got to its current distinctive characteristics first.

There's a reason why "more evolved" doesn't make sense when you're talking about two currently existing groups. Neither chihuahuas nor dalmatians are "more evolved" than the other.


So anyway, back to gods: Can you make a prediction about the things your god will do, if he won't take requests?

So far, he's sounding like all the false gods: He does nothing.

Ryan W. said...

BD, since Comrade Gabriel won't address anyone else, what is his opinion about the dogs? Which is superior, the Chihuahua or the Dalmation? From what I can tell of his worldview, it seems that one or the other must be "better".

How would he argue that they are different?

Bronze Dog said...

Good question. I think Gabe would be more easily provoked into answering if I gave the real world evolutionary answer. Afterward, Gabe would declare that wrong because some sci-fi series gave him a different answer.

The superiority of either dalmatians or chihuahuas depends entirely on circumstances.

In dense urban areas, chihuahuas would have an advantage since small dogs are better suited for small living quarters like apartments or condominiums. Smaller bodies means that they can still get some decent exercise despite the more crowded conditions. They also fill a niche in providing cuteness (for those who like them), which creates a human demand on breeders to increase the supply. Stray chihuahuas would also probably stand a better chance than dalmatians since their small size and the high population density would allow them to beg, where a larger dog might be perceived to be a possible threat and consequently more likely to be noticed and picked up by animal control.

However, out in rural areas and agrarian countries, the larger dalmatian would be "superior" since they'd be more able to do work for humans, and the lower population density would allow them larger living and roaming areas that they would be able to get their exercise in and avoid stress from cramped quarters. These traits would encourage farming humans to breed dalmatians over chihuahuas. Additionally, if some dalmatians went feral, there's a decent chance they could form packs out in the surrounding wilderness and survive on their own, which chihuahuas would probably have a harder time. Maybe. I'm no ecologist, so I don't know how good the niches are for small carnivores.

Of course, this argument ignores other breeds, but it's pretty much about their size difference, and how a trait can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on environment. Everything involves compromise, and everything changes. There's no such thing as a universally superior survival strategy.

MWchase said...

And you still want God to do WHAT YOU TELL HIM and do NOT find that a bit... Odd and completely valid, really, what can I say if you truly live in such a deluded world.

All I'm asking is for God to meet me halfway. I've done all I can to make this challenge as simple as possible for an omniscient being, or at least one that gives accurate knowledge of the future, as you claim to have gotten. I'm handling all of the rigor, so all the two of you have to do is a task that I'd give a first-grader half an hour to do.

How about this: pray to Jesus for the knowledge required to beat my challenge. Realistically, any situation that would give you that knowledge would require that I currently be in such a vulnerable situation that I'd have to do whatever you say.

Although, when I say it like that, it comes out to "you aren't someone I should piss off, there could be consequences", and I'm frankly not seeing many of those for all those times in the past.

Please either abide by Rule 8a, or give a better reason for your recalcitrance than "You're asking us to do things! And stuff!"

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's why the White Race created amazing technologies you are completely dependent on to this day, that's why White Mans technology is what we taught the asians and negro to survive, WE made the world good.

Fact is fact, if you can't deal with it, suck it up boyo.

MWchase said...


Everybody, run. He is undergoing mitosis.

Bronze Dog said...

Yeah, white genes did it all. It's not like scientists and inventors have to actually do any work, testing, independent verification, or troubleshooting.

It's not like they had to go to a school supported by stable governments and economies to learn how to not fool themselves and get results.

It's all in the genes, because Gattaca said so.

Unknown said...

OK, I have a confession...

Well, I have just been joking, been trolling. I do not believe in anything of what I said.

I believe in atheism and evolutionism just as you guys and that negros and spicks are equal to us even if they are the majority of criminals, I respect everyone and do not believe in gods.

I am sorry I was joking, I am going to post normally now just as you guys about evolutionism and such.


Bronze Dog said...

The "evolutionism" you described so often has nothing to do with our actual beliefs. "Evolutionism" is the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, which is why we disagree with it, and think you're an idiot for believing anyone here buys that stuff.

We're proponents of the modern synthesis of evolution. You know, a real world scientific theory. There's a difference between a real world theory and a fantasy plot device.

Of course, you'll say anything to avoid dealing with real people, because it's so much easier to erect straw men to stroke your divine ego. That is, after all, why you believe god exists.

You don't even know what we've been disagreeing with you about. I DON'T think that Africa is equal overall. It's technologically, socially, and economically behind. The disagreement is that I think there is no genetic cause. Race, if you're of the mood to consider it genetic, therefore has nothing to do with it.

Genetic destiny is bullshit, but instead of defending it, you'll just cave in and try once again to lie about what I've said because it's easier than backing up your arguments with scientific evidence.

Jim Roberts said...

Gabe, I'm also curious why you think that people asking for a sign is such an extraordinary thing. At least one character in Judges did it, as did one the apostles and there's not many who'd hold that against them.

Bronze Dog said...

You should also try reading the main post, Gabe. The worshipers of false gods also make excuses for why their gods won't provide signs.

Of course, if your god won't grant requests, you can still provide us with some specific predictions about his behavior. Just make sure you pick out some predictions that aren't expected by existing theories.

Unknown said...

I said I was joking and I said I was sorry and apologized, I believe in evolutionism/atheism just as you guys.

I was just bored, once again, I apologize didn't mean to cause offence, I am just like you guys, the world started with a big explosion and then we evolved here.

I'm on your side.

Ryan W. said...


I believe in evolutionism/atheism just as you guys.

What is "evolutionism"? I don't know if I believe in it if you don't define it.

Also, congratulations on believing in the concept of atheism.

I am just like you guys, the world started with a big explosion

I don't think anyone here would describe the Big Bang as "a big explosion" unless we were describing it to a toddler.

So, Edgar Allen, you need to try harder.

Unknown said...

I have no need nor care to bother about your games. Evolutionism is the belief that mud became man, it was promoted by Darwin and is today promoted by atheist like Dawkins (interesting that he got a similar name to Dawkins?).

I just wanted to let you know, I am sorry, that's over and done with, now I will be true to myself, Evolutionism and Atheism is true and I agree with all of you.

The most wonderful thing is that nothing becomes something, this is truly wonderful in my view as it is similar to what Religious people believe, so I feel we have something similar to the Christians, and therefor support this and hope we will all come to an understanding.

Ryan W. said...

...Evolutionism is the belief that mud became man, it was promoted by Darwin and is today promoted by atheist like Dawkins

Well, the fact that Dawkins or Darwin claimed that "mud became man" is completely made up bullshit (unless you could provide a citation and prove me wrong), but I did find another book that made a similar claim (note how I provide evidence):

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So "evolutionism" is a belief in Genesis. I don't think anyone posting here is an evolutionismist other than you Comrade Gabriel.

(interesting that he got a similar name to Dawkins?)

Amazing that their last names share five letters out of 26, four of them in the same place even! Call Uri Geller!

If you think that's interesting, my last name is exactly the same as my dad's!!!

Bronze Dog said...

Gabriel, did you seriously miss all those times I accused you of setting up a Straw Man fallacy?

Let's pretend that you were being sincere. Guess what? You've switched from disagreeing with us in one way to disagreeing with us in another way.

It's like going from arguing that 2+2=5 to arguing that 2+2=3. While all the time we've been saying 2+2=4 and complaining every time you ridiculed 2+2=3 people as if such idiots were actually present.

Either way, you'd still be wrong. You's know you're wrong because you manufactured the deliberately wrong position of "evolutionism" out of sci-fi and fantasy stories. You then went on to ridicule this idea you created while trying to pretend that we believed it. We don't. In fact, we ridiculed you when you first showed up, believing in "evolutionism" instead of the real theory of evolution.

Oh, and fun fact: Creationism necessarily posits spontaneous generation ex nihilo. Didn't you pay attention to my previous ridicule?

Inflationary Big Bang cosmology isn't committed to something from nothing for the origin of the singularity. Don't you pay the slightest bit of attention to first world science?

Besides, "nothing" is an unstable state, last time I checked with quantum mechanics people. Pair production, quantum vacuum events, Hawking radiation. Don't you ever change the channel away from SyFyllis and onto educational shows?

Or is it just dumb luck that the transistors in your computer work?

Even if Big Bang required something from nothing, a non-uniform chunk of mass is a hell of a lot more plausible than an infinitely complex, infinitely powerful deity coming from nothing.

You're the only one positing spontaneous generation of complex life.

Unknown said...

I have no idea why you insult me when I agree with you, I believe the same as you I am a evolutionist/atheist just like you guys.

Waiting for a new good atheist post from Bronze that I can post and agree with, I am not arguing any of the people I agree with, we are all the same.

Bronze Dog said...

Except you're still deliberately disagreeing with me, and calling it agreement for the sake of ridiculing the straw man you pulled out of your ass.

But let's have a laugh: Gabriel, explain why "irreducible complexity" makes for a poor argument for Creationism. There are multiple reasons.

Ryan W. said...

I agree BD. Now that Gabriel is one of us, he can explain this:

If we evolved from black people, how come there are still black people?

Unknown said...

I don't know about that, I haven't read the scientific research, perhaps they are just the left over offspring, kind of like the Chimpanzees are left over after we came about?

It's evolutionism, this is a blog, why bother about Schooling Things right? You always learn new things, if someone knows they say it and then I can just repeat it to does darn Creationist, they are so stupid anyway.

I.D is kind of a bad one for us evolutionists as we need to bullshit a bit to get away from it, but we got like 95% of the scientist on our side so they make it look like its not a problem and make fun of the stupid Creationists, yeah?

Personally, not being a Scientist, well I guess it is just stupid, with enough Time and Chance an airplane can create itself so its not I.D is it? Enough time anything is possible, the stupid Creationist don't get that, we bot Billions of Billions of years so its not a problem I think.

But thats just my opinion, I am not a Scientist, I listen to the Scientist and Agree with them.

Bronze Dog said...

I was right. It's a laugh to see Gabriel show that he doesn't even know what our position is. How can you agree with us if you don't even know what we believe?

And the fact that you don't even know the common answers to common Creationist points demonstrates that you've lived your life in a Creationist echo chamber. How about you try finding an answer I'd agree with, one more time?

Here's another hint, Gabe: Chance plus time is NOT the basis of evolution. I know it's a lie, and if you had any sense, you'd know it was a lie. You're just ridiculing Creationism: It's the idea that random chance belched up an infinitely complex entity from nowhere called a "god."

But that's Gabe's philosophy: Either believe in Creationism or believe in "Evolutionism," AKA Other Creationism. He won't even acknowledge that there is a real world theory of evolution.

Why do you ridicule Creationism version 2, Gabriel? You're the only one here who believes in it. Is ridiculing yourself supposed to convince us to join you?

All I see in your current game is defecting from Creationism to Creationism and feigning innocence when we still disagree with you for believing in such utterly fallacious stupidity.

Unknown said...

I don't know whats wrong with you Bronze, over and over again I stated and explained that I am one of you, I am a evolutionist/atheist and I agree with what you agree with.

You seem to Want conflict, maybe your kind of atheist sect is like that, but I am amongst the atheist not wanting to fight and want to take it easy and listen to what science have to say.

You still seem to treat me like I am "Gabe the Creationist", that was just a joke, I APOLOGIZED and I already explained I "trolled" and now I am serious and everything is good, Atheism Rule, I am one of you guys, stop this silliness now.

Bronze Dog said...

You disagreed with me before, and you're disagreeing with me now. It doesn't matter which you is the real you: Both disagree with me, and both are completely oblivious to my real position on the issue.

What part of "Straw Man" do you not understand?

Ryan W. said...

I don't think he knows what "irreducible complexity" means or even who William Dembski* is.

Pastor Bob told him that ID Creationism is all sciency and stuff so it really happened.

*What the hell ever happened to that guy? I haven't heard a peep outta Dembski or Behe since Behe said that the science behind ID is comparable to the science behind astrology.

Bronze Dog said...

From my understanding of the situation, Behe's been backpedaling since Dover, writing books using weaker and weaker forms of ID and vaguer and vaguer definitions of "irreducibly complex", each less popular than the previous.

Ryan W. said...

I think I want to play the game now.

I mostly agree with what Troll Gabriel said, And hope he Comes back. Because he thought just like me - we should kill babies and elect Sarah Palin Queen of the Universe (that was poofed into existence by god).

Ryan W. said...

Jesus, that Dover trial was epic. Yes, I said it. And yes, it was freaking epic.

They can't even litigate their bullshit into an educational curriculum.

Bronze Dog said...

Anyway, back to games with Gabe:

So, tell me, Gabe, what are my two preferred arguments about irreducible complexity? Feel free to search the blog for them.

Of course, you'll instead make up shit and pretend it's my position because it's easier to listen to the voice in your head commanding you to lie than to listen to a real person.

MWchase said...

I think I'll talk about him about completely unrelated things, since the challenge just requires waiting. (And I won't stop it. That would be against the rules, and I want this to be completely above the board, once I reveal where the board is.)

So, Gabe, how about those new games coming out in the coming months? It's looking like 2011 is going to be pretty good to me. Pokémon Black and White are coming stateside soon, and, as I understand things, Gen V shakes things up pretty nicely. What's got me interested is the fact that apparently, TMs are now infinite-use, which is great, IMO, because it really cuts down on the opportunity cost for using them. Also, there are some neat type combinations that I've wanted to see for a good portion of my life. Plus, the Pikachu-equivalent is a flying squirrel, which is awesome, and I guess pretty much guarantees that I will attempt a Rocky-and-Bullwinkle-themed team, now that I think about it.

And that's just this month. Next month is Portal 2, which is set to feature several new mechanics, co-op play, and multiple voice actors. Glee!

(Man, does anyone else remember, ahem "Troll" Gabe, complaining about how little depth of... everything games these days have? I'm kind of curious just because that was so pointless.)

Unknown said...

So, Gabe, how about those new games coming out in the coming months? It's looking like 2011 is going to be pretty good to me.

Yeah, let's hope the Cake isn't a Lie eh?

Personally I do not really play games that much, I prefer highly intelligent games, pushing boundaries, and the vast majority of games today are garbage, 15+ years ago we had good games, made with passion and love, today most is just rubbish.

I was just thinking about playing through King Quest (1 and 2) and Space Quest, but haven't decided if I should do Police Quest 1,2 and 3 instead, they are all well made high quality games, difficult to find these days, wonder why really, strange indeed.

Unknown said...

I do not think Portal 2 will be as good as it's predecessor, what do you think?

The "new things" they speak of, which I read about, worried me, I got worried it's going to ruin the game, but we'll see, the coop might be fun, who knows.

MWchase said...

Eh, if you want to go down that road... I've got some old LucasArts games handy, if you happen to think that either The Dig or the Indiana Jones games were any good. Otherwise, I will probably play BIT.TRIP, SpaceChem, Inside A Starfilled Sky, and the like.

Bronze Dog said...

So anyway: Any idea what my favorite arguments against IC are, Gabe?

Unknown said...

No Bronze, I don't, but as I am one of you, why would it even matter?

MWchase said...

Gabe, I guess I'm not sure what's the point of trying to ingratiate yourself with people you said—to their 'face'—that you were trolling.

... Are... are you... lonely? Help me out everyone, if you like. I am confused.

Unknown said...

MWchase, interesting choices, surprised you even know about does games (assumed you where a young boy, 18? 20?), but for the record, I HATE The Dig.

I do not know (doubt) you finished any of the games? But The Dig, of course games are subjective, is just really boring for me, whiles Fate of Atlantis is one of the Best Games ever made (according to me). I got Fate with scumm right here, as well as DOTT and Beneath a Steel Sky, wonderful games, truly excellent done compared to todays junk. I guess that is why I got tired of it, no passion, no skill in todays industry.

Unknown said...

Bronze, is this, or was this not a programming Blog? Well, just curious (as I realize I know far more then you in this field), whats your view on TB?

If you do not know what it is, ignore question, just curious about your own personal view as a programmer.


Bronze Dog said...

Gabe, you don't seem to understand. From my point of view, you defected from one enemy to another.

Of course, if you were one of us, you'd know that Behe's "irreducible complexity" that Creationists love to bring up is:

A) An argument from incredulity. Even if no one knew how an IC feature evolved, that would not be evidence for a god or intelligent designer. You can't put "I don't know" in an evidence locker for a positive claim.

B) We already know how IC structures can evolve.

MWchase said...

I was asking about those three because I already finished Loom, so I was like... "Okay, I don't think there's too much replay value on that one." (I mean, I loved the mechanics, might give Aquaria another shot since it's kind of similar except for the bits where it's completely different.)

Anyway, I was curious about TB since you mentioned it. It's clearly nothing to do with my programming experience (which is focused mostly on a few dynamically typed languages and repressing all memory of MATLAB.) Google seems to think that it's either tuberculosis, terbium, or terabyte. :/

Unknown said...

I was asking about those three because I already finished Loom, so I was like... "Okay, I don't think there's too much replay value on that one." (I mean, I loved the mechanics, might give Aquaria another shot since it's kind of similar except for the bits where it's completely different.)

I apologize, I guess I am on my defensive, didn't mean to sound rude (which I did).

I would HIGHLY recommend Fate of Atlantis, its well scripted and works well on pretty much all systems whiles I would PERSONALLY not recommend The Dig, but that is personal so take it with a bit of salt.

Other then that (which you did not mention), Dott and Beneath a Steel Sky is well worth the Download, I know BSS is available for download, well scripted, excellent voice acting etc, really good game, worth hours and days of your time.

Anyway, I was curious about TB since you mentioned it. It's clearly nothing to do with my programming experience (which is focused mostly on a few dynamically typed languages and repressing all memory of MATLAB.) Google seems to think that it's either tuberculosis, terbium, or terabyte. :/

More nostalgia, it's a programming language for DOS, I loved the ALGOL and general feel of the language and the possibilities it gave, of course today it is completely useless other then if you want to learn another one you gain some extra by knowing it.

I don't even know how many installers I built using TB, but in the great whole, I guess it is not that much different from other Basic compilers, I just loved the interface and built, think it became PowerBasic later on, which I didn't like at all.

Unknown said...

Added: Loom is worth to play on the Hardest if you go the Full Version with all the thrills (there is one cut down "short" version of the game, and one full).

I played the regular one first and then the hardest, made it harder (obviously) as you had to do everything by hand/ear (no visual to help you with the tones), but if you just finished it, it could be borderline playing it again.

MWchase said...

I might give it a shot. I feel like changing gears to the kind of thing that other people are asking about, but more generally...

What's your motivation here? The latest thing you've said is basically "I troll you all =D. Friends now?"

I can't imagine what your social life must be like.

(I don't really care, because I sunk most of my concern into the challenge, but... the way you're saying things, you're either a terrible liar, terrible at being sincere, or just totally messing with us. ... And, tb-brutally-h, the option that makes the most sense to me is "recursive poe", which is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve to be a thing.)

MWchase said...

Addendum: according to TVTropes, IIRC, Beware the Believers is multiply recursive poe. So it can get even worse.

Bronze Dog said...

If Gabe's a multi-recursive Poe, I think we can safely ignore him now.

Ryan W. said...

BD, I thought Dembski's baby was IC. What was his claim to ID then?

Bronze Dog said...

I think Demski's thing was CSI: "Complex Specified Information."

And if I remember MarkCC's discussion of the definition correctly, it ends up meaning information with high content and low content. In other words, it's self-contradictory when it's defined, but most of the time he doesn't define it.

Ryan W. said...

I'm all for ignoring a certain jackass.

I think my confusion about ol' Bill Dembski comes from his "Bacteria have flagellum. You can't explain that" article from...'04 maybe?

Then, of course, PZ explained it using layman's terms in about two paragraphs.

This is fun. What other ID morons can we make fun of for pushing dumbass ideas?

Bronze Dog said...

One of my favorites was Michael Egnor. To summarize his sort of argument:

"Biological information can't increase!"

"What do you mean by biological information?"

"That's for the biologists to decide! I just know that it can't increase, even though I don't know what it is, yet!"

Unknown said...

Yeah, haha, that Dr Egnor and Dr Dembski are sure moronic Creationist.

Pure idiots indeed, I wonder how they even got a degree? Sure are stupid people not like us.


Bronze Dog said...

Life lesson Gabriel missed out on: Degrees do not grant immunity from logical fallacies.

Ever heard of the "Nobel Disease"? There's a fair number of Nobel Prize winners who go off the deep end after winning the prize, believing in all sorts of nonsense.

The value of the work is what matters, not who's doing it. If you commit an obvious logical fallacy, your degree does not erase it. Authoritarianism has no place in science.

Bronze Dog said...

The other thing: Intelligence does not directly lead to correctness. Intelligence misused easily leads to rote memorization of logical fallacies instead of critical thought.

A high IQ score does not make a person into an infallible god. A low IQ score doesn't make a person always wrong, either.

Calling someone an idiot and that they're wrong because they're an idiot is an ad hominem fallacy and thus a weak argument.

Calling someone an idiot because they employed logical fallacies is simply an insult mixed in with a legitimate criticism.

Not that I expect you to understand that, Gabe.

Unknown said...

Yeah, you are sooo right Bronze.

It does give us Evolutionist's a bit of a problem as sometimes we could be sitting here saying that Dawkins is right, or Darwin just because he claims something, but we do not look at the evidence as we should.

We need to be careful and follow the Evidence and not the claims of Scientist, am I right?

Bronze Dog said...

When did anyone here cite any alleged inherent correctness in Darwin or Dawkins?

I didn't see it happen. All I saw was people making reference to well-known phenomena, experiments, and observations.

The "authority" of Darwin and Dawkins isn't relevant to anything I've said about the evidence, therefore there is no problem except your inability to read what I wrote and honestly critique what I wrote. You were too busy erecting straw men by spouting every misconception about evolution that you now appear to believe.

Unknown said...

Oh no, I didn't make any such claim, just pointed out that we, As Evolutionists, need to be careful so we do not make such claims like Creationist making claims that are wrong (according to us).

We need to learn from each other and just be careful in general in our formulations as Atheist/Darwinists, that is all I am saying.


Bronze Dog said...

In short, the failings of authoritarianism are only problems for authoritarians.

Good thing I've consistently held an anti-authoritarian views, and thus only an idiot like Creationist Gabriel would think I was making a pro-authoritarian argument.

He kept trying to tell me that Dawkins-authoritarianism was wrong (which I already agreed with), therefore I should embrace Gabriel-authoritarianism (which I don't agree with.)

It never occurred to him that I have non-authority reasons for believing in evolution, such as the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria, utility in evolution for fine-tuning a cancer patient's chemotherapy, ERVs consistent with the nested hierarchical nature of evolution, practical applications of genetic algorithms, the fact that evolution was used to breed all the crops we have today, and so on and so on and so on.

It's like he's never been to America, and blindly believed whatever lies the third world anecdotalist witchdoctor said about evolution instead of, you know, asking non-loaded questions from people who actually believe in the well-tested theory.

Ryan W. said...

Michael "evolution has nothing to do with medicine" Egnor.

Jesus Tits.

All he did was bust out the old redefinition of "evolution" trick while hiding behind his MD. Sure, things change over time, but they don't change a bunch.

Of course, he can never explain what that bunch is or why these changes are limited to said bunch.

Wasn't he one of the first to pull out "macro" and "micro" evolution? You know, the terms pulled out of someone's ass to fit their BS because they just couldn't deny speciation anymore?

Bronze Dog said...

He certainly wasn't an early one. The false dichotomy of "macro" and "micro" is pretty ancient as Creationist claims go. I first encountered it back in middle school, and it's as fallacious now as it was back then.

What, do they seriously think that "species" are super-duper magical Platonic perfect eidolons floating out there in the ether?

Do they seriously think that if a gene goes outside some arbitrary, ephemeral confines, that Plato will hop on the horse eidolon (the horsiest horse that ever horsed, and all other horses are illusory imperfect copies of that horse) and ride down into our imperfect world to nibble off the offending base pairs?

The species labels we use today can't enforce anything on the universe. The universe has its own reality independent of human language. Words aren't more real than the objects they were made to describe.

Unknown said...

Yeah, words are words, only for us to use to explain things in the world, like atheism and creationism

Bronze Dog said...

I disagree completely. Words are only useful if they allow for communication, for which they require some degree of consistency and context.

Creationist Gabriel, just like you, Straw Man of Evolution Gabriel, whom I also disagree with for reasons I've already told Creationist Gabriel, seems to think they get to mean only what you want them to mean, even if someone defines those words using an explicit, commonly accepted definition.

Bronze Dog said...

In other (old) news, I still think it was a boneheaded move for Dawkins to give Bill Maher have that award. It's a good thing no one here considers Dawkins infallible. Even people who often act smart can sometimes do stupid things.

Bronze Dog said...

More fun to be had with Straw Dog Gabriel (so named because he models himself after every lie Creationist Gabriel told about me and my beliefs.)

So, Straw Dog Gabriel, if we were to give 50 random "white" American children and 50 random "black" African children an IQ test, what would you predict the results to be, and why?

Unknown said...

Why do you insult me and act like that Bronze when I am one of you guys?

It's really a rhetorical question, I have no reason to "fight" with you, I think you are just angry, something personal perhaps, you should look for something making you happy, something emotional, perhaps it's the evolutionism or atheism making you this Angry? What do I know, does not seem to be good for you Bronze.

Perhaps you could use the Blog to relieve your anger? Or find the reason for it?

I give you awhile, you clearly need to sort yourself out.


Bronze Dog said...

I "fight" you because you deliberately, knowingly disagree with me. You don't act anything like the people I side with, and you still act like Creationist Gabriel: You act like a Jack Chick character in one of those strips that's intentionally disconnected from the real world.

Of course, if you were poe trolling, that only shows that you're the one craving conflict, since you've knowingly started accepting positions you know I disagree with and pretend that I believe those things I disagree with.

You've gone from being a Creationist to being what Creationists wish evolutionary biologists were like.

You've lied about evolution so much that you can't fake being on our side. You believe those lies about evolution you told yourself as a Creationist.

You're also avoiding any questions I ask to confirm your agreement with me while you post the same lies we criticized Creationist Gabriel for telling. A lie doesn't stop becoming a lie just because you switch sides.

Bronze Dog said...

Name one thing I've said that you agree with, Straw Dog Gabriel.

Ryan W. said...

In other (old) news, I still think it was a boneheaded move for Dawkins to give Bill Maher have that award. It's a good thing no one here considers Dawkins infallible. Even people who often act smart can sometimes do stupid things.

I think it's great that I don't have to accept things on authority. It's a foreign concept for the religious; while they know that some of the shit their god did/does is immoral, they have to apologize for it.

Human sacrifice, slavery, chastising women, etc. are all things YHWH's down with that I'm not so fond of.

Unknown said...

Yeah, fully agree with you Bronze, it was a boneheaded move by Dawkins indeed.

But we all Atheist and evolutionist can't be the same, some have wrong views you know, luckily we agree with most things Dawkins do. He is truly a great man.

Bronze Dog said...

So, do you have the slightest idea why I disagree with that award?

Hint: It has something to do with consistency.

Unknown said...

No, not really, but I do not know much about Maher, I understood he is some sort of whacko Liberal/Communist?

I do not watch TV so, the small amount of news I seen I would simple agree because the guy seems crazy and Dawkins is our Hero so he shouldn't support him?

All subjective no doubt.

Bronze Dog said...

Dead wrong. Maher's expressed a number of absurd arguments in favor of alternative medicine that go against well-proven science, including him rejecting the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

We don't want someone with that anti-science attitude to get an award from anyone who's supposed to be pro-science, and we don't want anyone the impression that he represents mainstream American atheism.

After this was pointed out, Dawkins still said he was okay with Maher having the award. The problem with that is that it gives the impression that atheism is more important than a logical, scientific, and critical mode of thought, something I vehemently disagree with.

Science is all about having a rational justification for your beliefs based on evidence and plausibility, not simply having the same belief. Conclusions are tentative, based on evidence, not a point of dogma.

Truth is objective, and science is the best method we have of improving our accuracy. If there's any kind of god-like being out there, it'll be science that finds it. If someone comes up with a testable, falsifiable theory of god with predictions outside of existing theories, and those predictions come true, then we'd need to accept that something strange is going on.

As it is, theists only show us nothing that wasn't already within our range of expectations.

Unknown said...

"Dead wrong"? What do you mean, I agreed with you, a loon.

It seems that you are very angry, you want to disagree with me simple because, if I agree you say you disagree even when we agree.

Bronze, you should deal with these issues, really.

Anyway, completely agree, we do not want anything none-science in Science, only people who follow the Dogma of Science are allowed, the rest are nobodies like religious people, right?

Hail Atheism.

We should produce a synbol we can spray over government buildings spreading the Truth of Atheism/Darwinism, our kind is above others so it is more then fair, right?


MWchase said...

Oh, so that's your game...

Gabe, we're all anti-authoritarian here, remember? Stop trying to double-reverse-concern-troll us, or whatever the hell that was.

If you truly are on our side, you'll make an effort to be less aggravating, okay?

Bronze Dog said...

You only changed your position because I called you out on disagreeing with me in the post before.

And what exactly is "dogmatic" about science? Dogmatism is about certainty and resistance to change.

Science is about the rejection of all claims of absolute certainty, and changes when new evidence comes in. That's pretty much the opposite of dogma.

Or do you mean to suggest that there are infallible humans who can justifiably have absolute certainty living among us, in complete contradiction to what I said before?

Unknown said...

Bronze Dog

I use "dogma" as in the definition of "code" which we, as suppoerts of Science, have to follow. Science have a code needed to follow, else it is not (proper) science. I assume you follow these as you should and support Truth and the search for Knowledge, we reject claims of absolutes and are open to change.

You sound like a Creationist or something, are you really for Science like me and the gang?



I have not "double/reverse" anything, perhaps self-projection? I do not know, I am in agreement with you, Science all the Way.

If you find me aggravating I can not do anything about that, perhaps you simple do not like me letting your personal views go into the way of Objective Reality, Science is my thing, what is yours?

Bronze Dog said...

Equivocation fallacy. You're the one trying to paint science as a religion by using the inaccurate word "dogma."

Of course, I'm quite certain you know nothing about the "code" science requires.


So, level with me, Gabe, what are you trying to accomplish?

All you're doing is saying things we consistently disagreed with. We quite vehemently disagreed with them every time Creationist/Racist Gabe accused us of agreeing with them. Are you really so gullible that you think we'd suddenly start giving Creationist Gabe ground by agreeing with the nonsense you're spouting about science now?

Your "current" position on science was fabricated by Creationists specifically to be wrong. I know it's wrong. You know it's wrong. You know that I don't agree with you, which is why you're pretending that I do.

What do you hope to accomplish by lying about my position when everyone present knows that you're lying about my position?

What's changed about your position on science?

Unknown said...

So, level with me, Gabe, what are you trying to accomplish?

What do you mean? I am trying to bond with you guys, I am one of you, Evolutionism and Atheism is my thing, you know it, I been repeating it several times now, which is quite worrying.

All you're doing is saying things we consistently disagreed with. We quite vehemently disagreed with them every time Creationist/Racist Gabe accused us of agreeing with them. Are you really so gullible that you think we'd suddenly start giving Creationist Gabe ground by agreeing with the nonsense you're spouting about science now?

No, You disagree with things over and over again, I do not. I agreed several times with your Evolutionism, I stated my opinion once and awhile and so on. You are looking for "a fight" and admit that you do, for some reason. Perhaps personal anger? Perhaps issues, I do not know why me and not the others.

Science is truth Creationism is silly. No debate there.

Your "current" position on science was fabricated by Creationists specifically to be wrong. I know it's wrong. You know it's wrong. You know that I don't agree with you, which is why you're pretending that I do.

No, I agree with Science, perhaps you do not and you are worried that the others will see that you do not have "clean flour" in your bad?

I won't speculate, but your behavior is odd.

What do you hope to accomplish by lying about my position when everyone present knows that you're lying about my position?

I am not lying, that you say so does not make it so. And as you claim to promote Science it is interesting that you seem to think that because you "say so" it is truth, which is completely against Science.

Once again, makes me worried that perhaps you are not for Science like me and the others.

What's changed about your position on science?

Nothing changed, I was joking earlier, I apologized and made it clear.

You, on the other hand, have been repeating over and over again that I am a Creationist, you have been saying I am against Science and made claims which have been lies against me, This is the normal behavior of Creationists.

It is odd how your behavior is identical to Creationist you, yourself, claim do this. It is almost like you are one of them playing around, perhaps trying to get "into the fold".

Either way, I thought it was worth mentioning that you been doing just what they do, I repeated myself more then once and you continue to ignore what is said, just like I seen Creationist do on other sites and you even mentioned yourself.

Very odd indeed, perhaps worth a think about eh?


Bronze Dog said...

Gabriel keeps digging himself deeper.

I am one of you, Evolutionism and Atheism is my thing, you know it, I been repeating it several times now, which is quite worrying.

Define "evolutionism" and why you agree with it.

Unknown said...

Cheeses Bronze, you should know this, it is worrying you ask.

As to "what" it is, I guess you could define it in many ways, and thus, you will by default "not accept it" as you done with everything else (looking for excuses to say I am wrong or that you do not agree, or other silly behavior), but in SHORT, Evolutionism is "evolution through natural selection" (this term/line you may have come across if you know something about evolutionism).

We got Evolution in Biology, cosmology etc, so there is much to define, but I generally use it to refer to Biological Evolution in how we evolved via Micro and Macro Evolution to what we are today.

I Agree because it is true. In Science opinion is not relevant.

Bronze Dog said...

The problem is that you don't seem to know, which is why you're being vague now that I'm trying to burn up your straw man.

How about this for a question: What's your opinion of Piltdown Man?

Unknown said...

Piltdown Man? Was a Scientific Hoax, what about it?

Bronze Dog said...

What makes it a "scientific hoax"?

It's a regular hoax. It only got famous because at the time there were very few early hominid fossils to compare it with, and it appealed to British nationalism. Concerns over the fragility of a then-rare fossil prevented close examination.

Over time, more and more authentic hominid fossils were discovered, and they corroborated an entirely different evolutionary history. Piltdown was the oddball. Because this one fossil contradicted all the other fossils, the consensus was that Piltdown was very likely to be a hoax. If it were real, it would not be explainable by evolution.

The hoax was definitively exposed after Piltdown was already considered a joke by the scientific community. Out of simple curiosity, they attempted to drill out a sample and discovered it wasn't a fossil at all: It was still bone, treated so as to look old under casual examination.

It was evolutionary biologists who proved it was a hoax. Creationists didn't do a damn thing except try to steal the credit.

Unknown said...

Ehm... Okey... What does this have to do with anything? That is, me? I know this, so? Why do you tell me?

What makes it a "scientific hoax"?

Because it was Science?
I told you, you would look for something to complain about, and silly indeed.

What I understood, which you will go against as you need something to complain/contradict me with, that it is famous because of the TIME until it was found out.

But anyway, how is this related to me I ask? Being that I am not a Creationist, why do you tell me this?

Bronze Dog said...

If you don't want conflict, don't start one by putting words into my mouth the same way Creationist Gabe tried to.

How is Piltdown (unnecessarily capitalized) "Science"?


Next question:

Is it possible for a dog to evolve into a cat?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

Unknown said...

Next question:

Ah, I wonder if it is possible to even succeed considering your emotional state and behavior towards me.


Is it possible for a dog to evolve into a cat?



If not, why not?

I haven't studied Evolutionism that deep, but I understood they can not but can not give you a Scientific explanation to why not.

I guess that makes me a Creationist, right?

Cheeses Christ I hope you realize your behavior and attitude and can look back.

Bronze Dog said...

You're right in that it can't happen, but the reason why it can't happen is supposed to be well known:

Dogs produce dogs. Even if you could breed some dogs to have superficially cat-like features, their DNA would still have all the features of canine lineage, and you wouldn't be able to import things like cat-specific ERVs or non-coding sequences over into the dogs.

In short, you can produce a dog with superficially cat-like features, but it would never be a cat, and it would never stop being a dog.

Just like humans are still apes, and all apes are still monkeys, and so on.

MWchase said...

I'll lay out what I was trying to get across earlier: what you suggested was an attempt to institutionalize and politicize the concept of freethought, which is, um, a terrible idea. I can think of two basic reasons for you to suggest that:

You hope to bait us into territory that you understand how to argue in;
You genuinely have thrown your lot in with us, (though not our ideas) but have brought along baggage from previous views, and, are, um, metaphorically unpacking.

The thing is, I can only understand the motivation behind the first one. If it's the second, then you're basically a complete wildcard to me. (It's not so much the idea of bringing behind old patterns of thought, and such, more bewilderment at throwing in with us. And, to 'test' your loyalty and such, I'll remind you that I'm a quarter Spanish-Cuban, and bisexual. So far as I know, I've never been the subject of any kind of criminal investigation, although existing on the internet has apparently positioned me to benefit marginally from various class-action suits that I really don't care about.)

Unknown said...

Weird, I thought that the ones not being Apes where Monkeys... Not that All Apes are Monkeys..

I guess I learnt something new, really strange mindyou, because I was told at a lecture that everything that is NOT Apes OR prosi-something are All Monkeys...

But you tell me all Apes are Monkeys which goes against this, but I will assume you have authority on this.



So you are a male having sex with both male and females and you are "a quarter Spanish-Cuban", whatever that is suppose to mean? That you define yourself as such why not 1/4 American, 2/6 Canadian and so on? It is just weird from my position atleast.

Bronze Dog said...

A quick summary.

MWchase said...

Just, you know, making sure you've totally thrown in. Also, that's not how bisexuality works.

(It's a matter of desire, not action. Which is why it's possible for bisexual people to be monogamous.)

Ryan W. said...

MW in the minds of the willfully ignorant "lights off missionary position only when trying to conceive a child with your wife" crowd, sexuality only has to do with intercourse.

I can only imagine the repressed feelings most of them have.

Unknown said...

Bronze, I checked your link, very interesting.

If the guy is right (looks like some hoodlum considering his general appearance, perhaps part of some biker criminals, let us hope he does not have children eh?) then it is not just me wrong here, but most people, but it would simple be a simple classification thing. Right?

So, we are monkeys then by classification.



Have you ever thought about having your condition checked? Have you gone to a physician or clinic?

Basically, I was wondering if you ever wanted treatment or simple fine with your behavior?

MWchase said...

Gabe, for an idea of how that question seems to me, suppose, just suppose, that you're some guy who's felt attraction to women with light hair and women with dark hair, and I'm acting like you're... I don't even know, because I'm mainly attracted to dark-haired people.

The biggest difference between those scenarios, IMO, is that it's more socially acceptable to have different ideas about hair than about sex. Beyond personal preferences, I don't see how qualities of the body should relate to romance. Invariably, humanity will find a way around any apparent limitations.

Bronze Dog said...

Why comment on something as irrelevant as his appearance?

And there are far too many people who rely on old classification schemes. I used to make the old mistake, but when I learned to focus on the nested hierarchical nature of evolution, thanks in part to some other AronRa's videos and my previous understandings of evolution, it made sense and was consistent with everything I had learned about evolution's mechanisms.

Previously defining monkeys to exclude apes was what didn't make sense under examination: It was an arbitrary, superficial distinction instead of an objectively meaningful one.

Unknown said...

So you have not seen a physician or gone to a clinic regarding your condition then?

Unknown said...

Bronze, yeah, and they (does Creationist and even evolutionist themselves I noticed) seem to think of evolution as some sort of hierarchy not understanding that We, the Human Monkey is Equal to Chimpanzees for example.

Sure they do not build Houses and Computers and amazing technologies like we do, but we are still equal, we are not better in any way like Creationist think.

MWchase said...

1. Not interested, especially since I'm pretty sure there aren't any reputable doctors who do that.

2. Please, just... stop trying to agree with us. You're really bad at it.

Bronze Dog said...

It depends on which yardstick you're using.

Most evolutionary mechanisms use the ability to survive long enough to reproduce viable offspring as the yardstick.

Humans are very good at it right now.
Chimps are doing an okay job.
Bacteria are doing splendidly, and have a high probability of surviving all sorts of radical changes to the environment.

Humans are an oddball species since we can use non-genetic methods of transferring traits like technology: We can pass on knowledge and behaviors without using DNA thanks to our neural plasticity.

Tear down the infrastructure, the educational systems, the libraries, the internet, and we'd have a much harder time doing the things we do now. Our continued survival depends on our ability to maintain and improve our infrastructures and not nuke ourselves in the process. Our genetic variation is having less and less of an influence on our survival.

If you put a human child born to an industrialized nation out in the wilderness to be raised by wolves, it's extremely doubtful he'd grow up to be a paragon of human intellect.

Thanks to our technological development, there's much less standard Darwinian natural selective pressure on the human gene pool. Being able to treat diseases means that the gene pool has a greater tolerance for genetic diseases and predispositions. It also means that there's reduced negative selective pressure on traits that would be a mixed blessing in the wild. This means that these sorts of traits could be of benefit in a civilized infrastructure instead of a trade off or disadvantage otherwise.

Of course, since humanity values altruistic, intellectual, artistic, cultural, scientific, and technological pursuits instead of mere survival, the ability to support people with physical disabilities is a good thing. Physically weak individuals can still live, grow, and contribute to human society, rather than suffer and die as they would in the wild.

That's why we hope to extend the highest quality of life to all humans, so that they have equal opportunity to develop their ability to the fullest. Human plasticity gives us great individual variation in ability that non-sentient animals aren't capable of. That neural plasticity that so empowers us is why "nurture" is so much more vital to a human's ability than the comparatively tiny variation in "nature" from our genes.

That's why a person's genes should be almost completely disregarded in judging them as individuals. Instead, they should be judged according to their character.

Unknown said...

Instead, they should be judged according to their character.

This is why I love Science so much, it shares so many Christian values with us, perhaps mere chance, perhaps we "took" some ideas from Christianity, who knows? History is a long and confusing place.

Anyway, are we going back to topic?

Bronze Dog said...

What would the common ground be?

Secular morality is informed by science on the benefits of altruism regarding highly plastic sentient beings: Teamwork works. Education works. These things lead to a stable society.

Biblical morality is highly inconsistent. Sometimes it favors "love thy neighbor," but in other areas, it attempts to justify genocide, treating people according to their nationality or heritage, rather than their individual character.

Most first world Christians simply pick and choose the parts that conform with the dominant secular morality while de-emphasizing or ignoring the violent, destructive attitudes present in much of the Bible.

Fundamentalists, however, quite often choose to ignore the altruistic portions of the Bible in favor of the destructive, barbaric aspects.

The Bible often includes pro-authoritarian attitudes, treating one being as an absolute authority based on arbitrary measures such as power.

A first world society requires the free exchange and critique of ideas to function properly. An absolute authority who punishes people for holding ideas not sanctioned by the absolute authority is inherently destructive to a free, prosperous society, as well as to the advancement of science.

Science allows any idea to be challenged by good counter-evidence, if such evidence is found.

Unknown said...

Yeah, Science all the way.

You going to make a new thread or something? Something interesting? Perhaps something related to evolutionism?

Bronze Dog said...

When I feel like it. This is a hobby.

Unknown said...

Ah yes, of course, but Science should be a 100% thing, not just a "hobby", making the world better right?

Christians seem to put 100% of their life into it, making the world good, shouldn't Science?

Anyway, Talk later, you don't seem to interested in Science at the moment.


Bronze Dog said...

Science is an everyday thing, like mathematics and reading.

My blog is the hobby I was speaking of.

Unknown said...

Yeah, Science rules. It was what made us monkeys "Super Monkeys" creating Computers and making our Nation number one.

I always found it interesting how other monkeys do not do the same, almost like we are better, even if that is not true as we are all Equal and The Same.

Perhaps Ducks simple do not want to build spaceships and stuff, who knows, maybe Science is Researching it now trying to find out?

As long as we keep Religion OUT of Government and our Nation it will be fine, that's what destroys a nation, just look at our nation compared to Soviet Union.. OK bad example, but take Mao's China.. Ah, ok bad example to.

But WE KNOW, in our Heart, Science is Good so its True, things like does examples are probably made up anyway by Anti-Science Evil Creationists.

Science Rules.

Bronze Dog said...

The reason monkeys and ducks don't make technological advancements is because they lack the neural complexity necessary for those tasks.

Stalin and Mao were anti-science figures who formed cults of personalities around themselves. Whether the subject of the cult is real or not, such absolute authoritarianism is antithetical to science for the same reason faith is.

America, however, broke the pattern of religiously dominated governments, allowing free speech and free religion, without government enforcement of faith-based conformity. Europe also minimized the role of its religious roots, leading to the current technological and scientific progress. These first world countries aren't perfectly free from faith-based politics, but the more freedom scientists have from religious "authority," the greater advances they were able to make.

Creationists, however, want to enforce faith into government policy, just like Stalin and Mao. Despite the well-known reasons that authoritarianism is evil, Creationists think that extremist cultural relativism gives them the right to repeat the acts of Stalin and Mao, who copied much from Dark Age Christian authoritarianism.

The same thing happened with Islam. When Muslim culture was more tolerant of secularism, they made advancements in science, mathematics, and architecture. After radical sectarian Muslims took hold of the culture, they entered a dark age that persists to this day.

Creationists, refusing to learn from their own history as well as the history of Communism and Islam, seek to once again rise to sectarian authoritarian power, think that they are somehow immune to the anti-science consequences of authoritarianism.

Bronze Dog said...

As an American atheist who values the freedom of thought and the benefits such freedom to science, I have to do what I can to protect everyone's rights equally, including people whom I disagree with.

I have to vote according to core American values to keep America from repeating the mistakes countless Fundamentalist Christian, Communist, and Islamic authoritarians have made.

Faith has no place in government, therefore the government should never be allowed to endorse or prohibit religious opinion. The rights of the minority have to be protected. Without those rights, the majority rule would turn into mob rule, since it would allow any dominant group in fashion to threaten the rights of the minority.

Without equal rights for everyone, any controversial new hypothesis could be crushed by an authoritarian government and the tides of popularity, instead of whether or not that hypothesis has supporting evidence.

Unknown said...

I been watching a movie on a Christian Channel, I know I know I shouldn't, Christianity is evil, but still, it is good to know what the "enemy" is watching.

It made me so sad, emotionally, it was hard to keep the tears away. It was about South Africa and a young man wanting to get rid of the Blacks and Jews. He read Mein Kampf and saw Hitler as an Idol and was prepared to lay down his life for his nation to save it from the Blacks who where destroying it.

Anyway, it was a Christian movie, showing how he became a better man after accepting Jesus Christ in his Heart and seeing everyone as equals rather then Blacks as Monkeys, which they did.

The movie is not finished so I don't know how it finish, I know the History (which you probably do not so don't bother about it) but as it is a movie I don't know if it a Hollywood movie or historic.

Unknown said...

I got the gist of the movie now.

It is quite good, the only thing really disturbing is that they seem to link all this good with Christianity. As soon as there is someone good, we got Christianity.

He was angry and hateful and wanted to know where a passage of Hate where in the Bible, which he was told existed, and then asked where, which he couldn't find. The Bible was a Book of Love, not Hate.

Very very annoying that the Movie would have such a loving view of Christianity, I don't like that as a Evolutionist as Christianity is evil.

Very annoying I say.

Unknown said...

I starting to cry like a baby when the White man (main character) almost killed the negro priest and stopped, he had seen God and not killed him, Thanks to Christianity he did not murder the negro.

A beautiful story, but very annoying with all the Religion, it would be better if they had Atheism or Evolutionism transforming him not Christianity, it is of course a lie, Christianity is evil as you all know so it is really annoying.

Sorry, needed to tell you, I am crying when writing this, really hard but it would be so much better if they just showed the Truth of Evolutionism instead, it was obviously Evolutionism making him a good person, Not Christianity, thats bad, we all know it here, we are no fools.

Gabriel - Evolutionism is Truth

Bronze Dog said...

You really, really have no idea what my attitude towards Christianity or morality is, do you?

MWchase said...

You know, we've got a handy-dandy hypertext reference to all of the Bible's love and smiles and joy.

Really, if you want us to accept you as having the positions you say you do, you'd be best off reading something like the Talk.Origins archive. Poke through it, and whenever you see something odd, look at it in more detail.

Unknown said...

Well the Evolutionist community is pretty tight, we do our best to spread the gospel of our beliefs.

That movie really made me think, it is so annoying when Christianity takes credit for things that our belief caused.

The reason he did not kill that negro pastor was because of altruism, right? But he/the movie made it clear it was God (Christianity) and seemed to want to make it like a Propaganda movie for God, this is really annoying as a Evolutionist.

Maybe if you saw it you would agree. Anyway...

MWchase said...

Gabe, who are you even trying to score points with? I bet your fundy buddies would be really proud to be associated with such a smug asshole.

And don't fucking bother acting like you don't know what I'm saying. Beyond the fact that what you've said makes no sense whatsoever, you're more transparent than a sheet of cellophane, regardless. I mean, I won't insult the mentally disabled over this: for you to think we'd fall for anything like that, you'd have to think we're all clinically dead, and probably ghost-written by Gentry Lee, or something. (That may be an over-the-line comment to make about a literal rocket scientist who contributed to Cosmos, but I can't respect the man who expelled the Rama sequels from his brain.)

Unless your sole goal is to piss off a bunch of people on the internet, in which case: congratulations! You've wasted your life.

Bronze Dog said...

The reality: There is no such thing as "Christian morality." The source document is full of contradicting lessons. Some are good, many are bad.

Pre-enlightenment Christians weren't much that different from modern day radical sectarian Muslims. Why? Because they picked and chose to model their society after the barbarism, authoritarianism, and idolatry present in the Bible and ignored the peaceful, caring parts.

But now, the majority of Christians subscribe to very secular enlightenment values. They have a secular morality which gives them a reason to emphasize the good parts of the Bible and reject the barbaric parts.

There is no coherent Christianity. A Christian's morality isn't produced by the Bible. Their morality is what makes them pick and choose which parts of the Bible they support, and which parts they will ignore. Their morality determines which parts of the Bible they will teach their children, and which ones they'll avoid teaching.

The Bible doesn't teach morality, it's a big pile of contradictions anyone can use to claim that they have "Christian morals" when no such entity exists. Pretty much any behavior, moral and immoral can be "justified" using the Bible.

In short, the Christian religion is nothing but an irrelevant middleman in the formation of a good Christian, and it so easily becomes a false justification for all sorts of destructive behavior in bad Christians.

Unknown said...

Well, Bronze, that is not entirely true is it? We got most of our Morals from the Christian principles, just look at our History and see how it evolved.

It is more that our Evolutionist views have adapted to the Christian concept in the western world. We shouldn't pretend otherwise just because we don't like religion.


MWchase said...

I thought the key Christian principle was to defer to a higher authority that is supposed to be infallible and absolute.

Funny thing, when people do that, bad things tend to happen.

Bronze Dog said...

Which Christian principles? They aren't internally consistent.

The good parts of the Bible aren't exclusive to Christianity, either. They're found in every civilization that enjoyed long periods of stability. It's much more likely that those good parts were put in the Bible because they were already known for producing stable societies.

Pretending that Christianity is unique ignores human history.

Unknown said...

Agree with you 100%, obviously. But lets not forget the positive the Bible also have given us, it is easy when bashing Christianity.

As evolutionist's we shouldn't be narrowminded, that is all I am saying.

Bronze Dog said...

The problem is that the Bible wasn't the source of those positives. Religion has falsely claimed to be the source of morality.

Unknown said...

Well that is your word against theirs, they do have the Bible showing quite clearly basic things like You Shall Not Kill and so on, you could claim they "took it" from others but either way we got it there and no proof of such, so why try to fight it, better to accept and move on with life then fighting religion.

It could also be very simple that they are right and we do not want to accept it, this demands an open mind which I encourage you to have Bronze, to be narrow minded is not good for you, try to be more acceptant of other societies, cultures and things you been told not to "like" by your parents or culture or friends.

Having an Open Mind is imortant, you need to grow on this part Bronze, I am telling you out of Love.

The Best

Bronze Dog said...

Do you seriously mean to suggest that no one knew that murder was wrong before the Bible showed up?

How could a stable society form without a prohibition on murder?

Unknown said...

Well the Bible is around 3000 years, the world 6000 or so, right? Written word came to be around the same time as the Bible so it seems very suitable.

Anyway we believe the world is billions of years so we get in kind of a problem if we dispute the Bible don't we?

Bronze Dog said...

But there are civilizations that were around over 6,000 years ago. Even if you don't include sedentary civilizations, even wandering tribes would need a prohibition on murder to remain together as a group.

You speak as if you were unaware of this.

Unknown said...

Yes of course, but does these "tribes" not rank as apes similar to the negros in africa?

My point was that they where not civilized as us as we have in africa and amongst other apes like chimpanzees that do not have written books either, right? So is it not suitable that we got stable and advanced societies same time as the Bible got written?

And obviously we have earlier versions of it, perhaps a large portion even being claimed something else and called "another" book and so on even if it is part of or is the Bible, just falsely translated or promoted and so on?

Is it not suitable that we got civilized societies at the same time as the Bible got around, right? And say we had these tribes before 6000 years and they simple where not civilized enough even if they had "laws" amongst themselves deciding not to kill eachother did not build a system that would work, like a written word making the laws of the land clear, more like Chimpanzees, right? Like we have today amongst the negros in africa and even in United States in the ghettos?

See my point?

Bronze Dog said...

1. What kind of "rank" are you talking about?

2. Your point is wrong because precisely because those things I describe predate the oldest versions of the Bible. The prohibition on murder is a prerequisite for humans maintaining any sort of group cohesion, which in turn is a prerequisite for language, which is a prerequisite for written language.

Unknown said...

1. I am thinking of a subjective definition of apes, humans being "higher" then other ones using Writing and language as the measure.

Take it as you will.

2. So, perhaps the Lord inspired this making it written further down the line? He started it like that to initiate it and when we evolved to a point where we have the mental ability he inspired the bible?

or something?

Bronze Dog said...

In which case, you're making the belief unfalsifiable and untestable: There'd be no way to tell the difference between a world where the evolution of social instincts lead to prohibitions on socially destructive behaviors and one where an unproven entity randomly inserted those instinct.

If the evidence can be reinterpreted to support both ideas, then Occam's razor suggests we reject the one that posits a new entity without necessity.

How can this 'inspiration' hypothesis be tested in a way that rules out current well-known mechanisms as the explanation?

Unknown said...

I am just suggesting possibilities using Christianity as a possibility.

You admit yourself it is indeed possible, I am not claiming its truth, just saying with our history and all we shouldn't discard our own History to easily, especially the positive things we have gotten by Christianity even if we are Evolutionists.

Anyway, this is just your hobby, don't want to take your time. Perhaps you can start a thread about it later on when you got time and we all can supply our thoughts about it?


Bronze Dog said...

When the idea can be used to make falsifiable predictions and have those predictions tested is when it becomes worthy of consideration.

The problem you seem to be having is that you can't separate the Christianity from the people who believe in the idea.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist who gave us calculus, Newtonian gravitation, and physics. Does this mean I should praise alchemy for those things?

Bronze Dog said...

You're performing a fallacy that's known among some skeptics as the "part of a complete breakfast" fallacy. An endorsement for juice and whole wheat toast does not constitute an endorsement of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs.

Alties, for example, want me to praise alternative medicine for (sometimes) endorsing proper diet and exercise.

The problem is that there is nothing "alternative" about proper diet and exercise. The fact that a package includes some good things does not in any way negate the fact that the package contains bad parts, especially if there is still a net negative influence.

Christianity is like alternative medicine in that regard. The good parts can and should exist independent of the "package."

Unknown said...

Simple pointing out that maybe the Christian views where used as a reference when writing these rules.

You are suggesting that maybe they did Not use these as a reference.

Its like a 50/50 here, you got no evidence for your claims so its your word against someone else I am just pointing this out reminding you that it is important to be open minded and not closed thinking our dogma is above all others and not any possibility of evolutionism being wrong.

That is all.

Bronze Dog said...

So, when did historical consensus depend on my word?

Funny, all this time I thought it was based on logic and evidence that archaeologists dug up and presented to the academic world for intense scrutiny.

Now I just feel silly.

Unknown said...

"You do not belong in this Area...."

Oh, sorry, just been playing some cult classic games, I doubt you where even born before this was released so never mind me, don't want to make you look stupid and like a young boy talking to an older man with A LOT more experience and knowledge of the world.

Bronze Dog said...

Fallacy: Ad hominem

This isn't a penis fencing contest.

Don't insult everyone's intelligence, including your own, by pretending truth is subjective in regard to who anyone here is.

Unknown said...

Of course not, just that, you know, I travelled the entire world, seen things you DREAM about, and here you are acting all arrogant and above.

Worth having a look in the mirror one of these days perhaps?

Think about it, when you want to LEARN about AFRICA, South America, Asia and Europe, you could always ask your "old buddy Gabriel", because he would always be prepared to help out and tell you about the world, what he experienced and seem, Yes, subjective experiences as well as objective reality, but better then getting your truth from the latest Hollywood movie.

Think about it.

Bronze Dog said...

Yes, let's all trust in Gabriel's confessed laziness to get to the truth. Because, you know, scientific confidence from exploring known alternatives is just smoke and mirrors that never ever has practical outcomes.

Yes, let's all just blindly bow to the subjectivist philosophy of ageism and authoritarianism and abandon the process of questioning self-appointed authorities.

Yes, let's all just abandon everything science has shown us about human development and just assume humans are as hardwired as insects, and that environment and upbringing has no impact whatsoever.

And then we can all form a hippie drum circle and watch The Secret.

So, Gabe, are you truly a subjectivist and epistemological nihilist, or will you admit that it was silly for you to bring up age and anecdotalism?

Are there any third options I'd be missing?

Bronze Dog said...

So, Gabe, using your ageist subjectivism, let's posit a scenario:

I meet an old accountant who says 2+2=5.

Should I just bow down in worship to him like you ask me to do of you, or should I check his math?

Unknown said...

Lets make another Scenario, let's assume Bronze wants knowledge of South America and Gabriel offers information about Brazil, Bolivia and Peru.

Bronze has no knowledge of these nations, Is his (Gabriels) knowledge worth anything or is it better just to go to Wikipedia and randomly quote some passages then listen to Gabes ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE in this SUBJECTIVE WORLD and then take this information (with as much salt as anything else) and go ahead with whatever it is?

Be honest now Bronze.

Bronze Dog said...

Scared to answer honestly, huh, Gabe?

How dare a young whippersnapper like me dare to point out that the emperor is subject to normal human biases like he were a mere mortal. Oh, and that he's naked, too.

The gall! Thinking for himself about which evidence he'll accept and asking questions instead of blindly obeying the sacred dictate of one random elders!

Before trusting a Wikipedia page, I'd check to make sure the sources cited showed signs of scholarly work, corroboration with social and economic experts, objective statistical measures, and so on.

If the Wikipedia page failed that test, I would look for other sites that showed signs of hard work like I listed.

It's a hell of a lot better than someone who asks me to blindly trust in his alleged god-like lack of bias and superhuman ability to detect causation by anecdote.

You are not a god, Gabriel.

Unknown said...

But where do their knowledge come from? Oh, it is more... Valid... Then others?

You see if someone speaks of, say, the Poverty in Bolivia, you can't believe them because its just Anecdotes and Subjectivitism, right?

But then you accept another, because well, you know, its on wikipedia, and it looks all nice and shiny, so DOES people (if even visited and seen) speak of the poverty and explain how it is it is all fine, but not if Gabriel says it.

Because Gabriel is "bad", right?

Which is funny since I am part of your fold now but you continue referring to me as a Creationist so I don't know.

Anyway, if you want to learn, I am always here, just as the movies having people seeing the light and finally dropping their Darkness and going to ask for Help, or accept the Truth of the world or become a Better person, I am always here and prepared to teach you about the world.


Bronze Dog said...

Read what I wrote. Don't make up shit.

And talking about shininess, it's ironic because you're the one who was complaining that we were using the "one-liner" style when we were asking substantial questions or making observations.

It has nothing to do with how the information is displayed, but how it's corroborated and evaluated. Substance is more important than style.

I wouldn't expect a person as superficial as you to understand how to measure the substance of an article.

Unknown said...

Substance is more important than style.


Odd... You said this... Before... Remember?

Before trusting a Wikipedia page, I'd check to make sure the sources cited showed signs of scholarly work, corroboration with social and economic experts, objective statistical measures, and so on.

That something is "showing signs of" does not make it "true(tm)", and you made it clear, just here, that you would LOOK for VISIBLE SIGNS of what YOU define as "more true" which puts you in a weak spot as it would be easy to manipulate that spot you got.

But you wouldn't even admit it, because "Gabe is evil", right, and that I point this out, well, lets ignore it or just tell him its "false" and move on.


Bronze Dog said...

You can't be serious.

You think description of steps taken to reduce bias are about fashion?

You think the use of objective measurements and statistical analysis exist just to look good?

MWchase said...

It sounds to me like he's saying that he could write a scholarly article about anything he felt like, expressing whatever view he wanted, and have it pass peer review on the strength of the text formatting or whatever.

If that's so, I've got a paper on a genetic algorithm that it would be nice to have help with. I mean, it's easy, right? (I am not seriously suggesting this. Apart from anything else, the effort required to get Gabe's writing style to match my own would probably exceed the effort required to just write the paper myself, like I'm supposed to.)

Bronze Dog said...

I'm beginning to wonder if Gabe padded out school papers with triple or quadruple spacing.

Unknown said...

I have been sitting watching this "AronRa" guy on youtube that you linked to, he made A LOT of videos and most of them are, well, I think it says a lot about you, Bronze, you seem to follow this guy like some sort of minister, is this correct?

This guy looks like a Biker, most likely a criminal, I don't think he got a job maybe he gets money through youtube by his followers. Most of what he says is garbage, he knows very little about the World, not to mention Evolutionism, which he spouts a lot about.

Interestingly enough, he does what you always accuse "stupid and evil" Gabriel of doing. He makes claims without any "Evidence" and it seems, considering you Linked to Him, follow his word blindly without questioning, but others such as ignorant and stupid Gabriel, is ignored because they did not write what they said on Wikipedia.

So basically, if I make a Wikipedia entry, my word is "true", or make a Youtube video, it turns True, or become famous making books like Dawkins, it is true and Bronze follow it, right?

I still wonder, it is so strange, Do you want to know how Bolivia is? Or Brazil perhaps? What about Egypt? There is a lot about Egypt on the news the last couple of weeks, have you been to Egypt Bronze? No, what is a surprise, I have by the way, would you want to know anything about that nation? Muslim nation, by the way? No you wouldn't, I haven't made a Wikipedia entry about it, nor wrote a Paper claiming things having the kids in school "educated" about the Truth.

Sorry, What do I know, I have the "wrong" views. And yet I so badly want to teach you about the world. Sad indeed.

Bronze Dog said...

Let's review Gabriel's schoolyard tactics:

1. Did you check the information of the videos for links to citations? That usually is where people cite their sources.

2. Why is looking like a "biker" bad for his points? Are you really so shallow, Gabriel? Is truth really subjective to AronRa's hair length? Do you seriously think that anyone here cares about physical appearances?

3. Subscribing to someone's YouTube channel does not constitute worship. Thinking that someone makes points with eloquence does not constitute worship. Noticing that those points corroborate with experts and evidence carefully gathered from across the world does not constitute worship.

It's very telling that you immediately jump to such wild accusations of authoritarianism, Gabriel. You are essentially asking me to worship you just because you claim to be older.

Is authoritarian subjectivism bad or not, Gabriel? Which is it?

Unknown said...

How old are you Bronze?

Bronze Dog said...

Why does it matter? Truth is objective. No matter what I claim my age is, the universe will not suddenly change as a result.

Do the right thing and apologize for your dishonesty in bringing the red herring of age into this.

Unknown said...

I simple asked your age, you clearly are to afraid of sharing it.

I did expect you to answer so I am, somewhat, surprised I should say.

Bronze Dog said...

I don't share irrelevant details about my personal life because all that would do is fueling your red herrings and ad hominem fallacies. Red herrings are distractions.

Answering the question about my age would give you yet another direction to retreat to. I want the discussion to move towards epistemology so that we can actually talk about the evidence.

Your behavior suggests you just want another schoolyard taunt so that you can get your supply of shits and giggles.

Unknown said...

So you seem to understand that your young age and lack of experience and knowledge is somewhat Valid when speaking to a Man knowing MUCH MORE having EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE of the WORLD?

It seems you admit it quite clearly. Thank you.

Pathetic indeed, but atleast you admit it.

Bronze Dog said...

You're still avoiding the issue of your ageist subjectivism, Gabe.

If a 100-year-old mathematician told you that 2+2=5, would you just blindly accept it, or would you double-check his work? Or would you at least ask some other mathematicians to check his work?

Ryan W. said...

Is someone seriously using the Appeal to Age or Appeal to Experience?

Using experience as evidence suggests one has no bias and is therefore perfect. I thought only gods were perfect?

Unknown said...

Maybe God has given me all the knowledge?

But as I am an evolutionist I do not believe in God, but this would not STOP God from giving me this ability, right? So we can deny it all we want and be Atheist, but I could still be Above.

Worth thinking about, spooky.

Bronze Dog said...

Informal fallacy: Circular argument.

Unknown said...

"Informal Fallacy"? Seriously Bronze, this is the only thing you do, I realize that now, when you don't like something, you call it a Fallacy X and refer to some page (which makes it true).

OR, maybe, it could just be what Gabriel said? Eh? Ever... No, you haven't.

Being a Evolutionist/Atheist like you, I pointed out that maybe God (which would exist even if we don't believe in him, just like the Eiffel Tower exist even if you do not want to "believe" in it, or that there is huge amount of poverty in negro infested nations in Africa and so on EVEN if you do not believe it) made it so.

Very easy indeed, God made me know all these things, you do not want to accept it because of arrogance and fear of the Truth.

Just an example, I am an evolutionist after all so I wouldn't believe this myself, but could still be true I haven't "checked" my powers or anything other then knowing my high intelligence and general skills but that I always attributed to being of Aryan decent and my nation and heritage does indeed show this.


Bronze Dog said...

Seriously, Gabe?

"The voice in my head is a real, external entity communicating with me because the voice in my head tells me it's a real, external entity communicating with me."

I'm just pointing out that argument is circular. What's so wrong about that?

Jim Roberts said...

I question your "high intelligence," Gabe, if you're still insisting that BD thinks that there isn't much poverty in Africa. He's said that there is. He's linked to evidence that there is. The only difference between your perception of the poverty and Africa and his comes down to what caused it.

Really, you are so remarkably dense that I wonder if light has trouble escaping your event horizon.

Unknown said...

Sounds like Jealousy to me.

You should work on that, just because you do not like something does not make it "false", The Real World, which I often speak about (and do not want to be accepted by people like Bronze) does not care about your opinion.

Considering I am a Evolutionist/Atheist just like you, and yet I am called a Creationist show's the limited understanding of Bronze and the rest of the boys here (who also show jealousy).

Considering your eager and anger towards my higher intellect is always prevalent and that even when offering to educate this young boy about the world, He Does Not Want To Learn.

Show's the True Sign of his mental state, a Person not wanting to Learn is a fool, plain and simple.


Bronze Dog said...

What does my alleged emotional state have to do with epistemology?

Is the utility of authoritarian subjectivism dependent on my emotional state?

Why do you avoid answering questions about basic epistemology?

Jim Roberts said...

Think he may have been talking to me there, BD. I believe you are "this boy," in this convo.

There's no anger here, Gabe, only gobsmacked amazement. And while I do believe that natural evolution from simpler forms of life to more complicated forms is the most logical, and therefore most likely explanation for life, I am definitely not an atheist.

I do not, however, claim to any special knowledge because God speaks to me in a way He doesn't to others - apart from that claim to special knowledge, and a claim to your own biased personal experience, do you have any support for thinking what you do?

Bronze Dog said...

Either way, he has to explain what jealousy has to do with the nature of epistemology.

Or he could apologize for using such a dishonest red herring fallacy when he knows such fetishizing of jealousy is purposeless beyond rhetorical shits and giggles.

MWchase said...

Given the level of effort he's putting into this latest charade, the whole thing seems like it's about "shits and giggles".

Dunc said...

"Why do you avoid answering questions about basic epistemology?"

Because he's yanking your chain. Very successfully, I might add...

Bronze Dog said...

Duh. I'm just having fun with it.

MWchase said...

Hmuh. I guess if we just accept that he's going to put as much effort as he is to look like he's nuts, we might as well all accept that.

I'll probably try to stay out of this until the deadline rolls around.

Dark Jaguar said...

Hi there, it's been a while since I got involved in the whole Gabe thing. Anyone care to summarize what's going on? The gist I'm getting seems to be that he's been exposed as a troll who doesn't actually believe anything he says, is that right?

Bronze Dog said...

That's how it looks to me, now.

MWchase said...

And I'm going to guess that he's been using poorly-configured speech-to-text for a lot of his comments.

Speech-to-text that ranks him as more likely to use the plural of "doe" than the plural of "that".

Unknown said...

Bronze skill and intellect is shown, wow Bronze.

It is amazing how you guys live in this delusional world where you seem to make it up bit by bit. I wonder why as well as what emotional issues that caused this, you guys really have issues, no insult meant, just truth.

Earlier I ADMITTED that I had been "trolling"/playing around, I then Apologized for this explained why and continued to apologize.

From then on you called me a liar, insulted me and, on occasion called me a Creationist even when you now knew I was a Evolutionist/Atheist like you.

Your behavior is... Weird, I don't know if it is that you want me to say "sorry, sorry, sorry" and it makes your poor self-confidence less noticeable (to yourself?) or what.

You know Gabriel is extremely Intelligent, well Travelled and skilled in things most of you never will be able to do. I usually offer my knowledge of the world but you never need it as you always know everything (especially the things you have NO knowledge about, amazing eh?).

I thought Jealousy, perhaps they are Jealous and thus, get angry and so on, an evil spire so to speak, but I think its more, it's jealousy as well as a lot of other things seeming to build up, my help is irrelevant and ignored.

Then again, speaking about myself in Third Person, yeah, you could be right, I am Evil and Bad and Stupid, I must be, anyone knowing more about the world must be Evil and Wrong, universally.

Gabriel - Truth is Fear

Bronze Dog said...

Seriously, Gabriel. You think you can troll off and on for over a year and patch everything up with the equivalent of "just kidding"?

Heck, your eternal evasion of basic epistemological questions via making up psychobabble ad hominem fallacies was pathetic enough back then, and it's even more pathetic right now.

You've pretty much announced that you have no purpose for being here beyond shits and giggles, and you expect us to just accept you?

Even if you agree with us on some positions, you've only done so by poor epistemology and coincidence.

Unknown said...

The EarthQuake was a surprise eh? Happened in a Nation called Japan, you probably never heard about it, it's east of China, very wealthy after we built it up after World War II and helped them giving them all our technology etc.

Anyway, if God's existed something he would do? What do you think?

Ryan W. said...

I don't think about god/s existing because I don't claim they exist. I actually claim it's more likely they don't exist (as defined by others). Therefore I don't know what her powers are.

Bronze Dog said...

Gabriel seems to think something only exists if he himself experiences it. Not like there's a preponderance of evidence as a result of indirect interactions.

Anyway: Which gods? There are lots of them, and theists never come to any sort of consensus about their behavior, even when talking about the same god.

It's kind of pointless to speculate when there's no evidence of gods. No testable hypotheses, either, so they can't even figure out what would constitute evidence.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed to see that you guys are still trying to communicate with someone as mentally incoherent as Gabe. How many years have you been putting up with this sad loser?
Do you like to suffer fools gladly?


Bronze Dog said...

When it's fun.

Unknown said...

Yes, truth is scary, so call them who spread it "losers" and then run away like sheep, hurdle up and nod, don't think, that is scary.

Even PZ Myers are scared of me, I can no longer access scienceblogs at all, probably because He is afraid of me worried I might rally up others. Pathetic indeed.

Bronze Dog said...

Why don't you try analyzing the situation without using your bloated ego? You might actually gain some rudimentary social awareness if you can learn to do that.

Ryan W. said...

I think I've asked this before, but do you think this asshole went to to share how he totally fooled the Evilutionists at The Bronze Blog?

Verification Word: dizzases

What Snoop Dogg transmits.

Unknown said...

I am curious, I never asked this, how do you guys, as Evolutionist/Atheist, consider woman in society?

As Evolutionist are all different, we have different opinions, yeah, But we still have to follow our Dogma and Evolutionism shows that woman are weak whiles feminists and other hate groups want to destroy the normal stable Society we have by giving woman more money for less work, the right to randomly call any man rapist (and then get money out of it) and of course divorces they "should" have half even when they been unemployed or doing jack shit.

Anyway, our Evolutionist views and Current Social Trends seem to contradict eachother and these Feminazi groups are generally Liberals/Communist and therefor it seems a majority is also Evolutionist.

A bit of a contradiction I think, your thoughts on this? As we are all different I assume Bronze have a different view from me and from Ryan etc other then our Evolutionist Dogma's, but it seems a bit strange.


Bronze Dog said...

Seriously, Gabe, are you on drugs?

Women are sentient beings, just like men. Therefore they should get treated by the same standards.

Equal pay for equal work.
More pay for better work.
Less pay for sloppy work.

Equal rights.

Equal legal treatment: A suspect in a crime should be tried and judged on actual guilt or innocence. Sex shouldn't enter it, just like race shouldn't.

You don't need to believe in evolution to understand any of that, just basic secular morality.

Besides, last I checked, both men and women are subject to evolution, and for the vast majority of species with the two sex model, they're dependent on each other for reproduction.

Unknown said...

Women are sentient beings, just like men. Therefore they should get treated by the same standards.

Interesting, so are Chimpanzees? Or Dogs? Or.... Ad infinitum...

Yet you do not say the same about them, you seem not to mention it for some reason. Strange.

This is called hypocrisy, so let me address that first... How do you say one is sentient therefor, and ignore other sentient beings rights as they have none?

Bronze Dog said...

You must be using one of the vaguer definitions of "sentient" than I am.

The attributes I am attempting to convey with the word: Sapience, consciousness, self-awareness, complex culture, and so on.

Non-sentient animals are capable of emotion and limited learning capability, but aren't capable of the complex thought sentient humans are, and are thus not up to great moral reasoning.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 222   Newer› Newest»