reply to post by BladeRunner5050
reply to post by chr0naut
I've tried to muddle through what the guy yacks, not because I'm interested in what he has to say, but to try to pick out in what he writes that some
people latch onto.
Is it that he is supporting already preconceived ideas held by some fundamentalist, preaching to the choir so to speak?
Does he spark the imagination in opening up minds that would ordinarily be shutdown to what he has to say?
If so what is the persuasion technique that he is employing to accomplish that?
It can be discounted that he is simply preaching nonsense to people who go with feeling more than logic and therefore he does not has to communicate
much more than feelings that play to a certain religious sect of a fundamentalist Christian belief system. However you can find the same is true when
dealing with those who supposedly employ logical thinking tools. For instance, look at my signature, " Life is a pinball machine without flippers
because chaos theory is BS. " There is an "accepted" idea that this means randomness exists. LOOK
Randomness in science Many scientific fields are concerned with randomness:
Even though there are just a few people on the planet that supposedly understand the math involved.
It relies on revolving debate www.physicsforums.com...
to exist held up by, "Disprove it if you can?" arguments. And
here's another example lofi.forum.physorg.com...
People who can do and understand the math involved refuse to challenge the popular mythical notion because how on Earth could you communicate what is
disproved or proven to the mass public? Try to explain that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not go far enough and that because the total
amount of energy contained in the Universenever changes due to the law of energy conservation predetermines all outcomes from the Big Bang to a
possible Big Crunch? Some do www.idsia.ch...
One of the books I have I need to finish.
Thing is how can people believe in ideas so passionately based only upon arguments centered on not being able to prove a negative? It would floor me
in laughter if it did not have such an impact in stifling the truth.
"Disprove God or my theories on the meanings in religious texts?"
"Disprove randomness or my view of the complicated mathematics involved?" That's like claiming the Winchester Manson floor plan is a rational layout.
It is if you believe in ghosts and gobbles of course, and that is a matter of faith.
"They're prophets and the chosen witnesses to God's prophecies say those in the fundamentalist Christian community ."
"They're brilliant mathematicians and physicist and are given creditability within the scientific community to vet themselves.
AKA faith! All of it.
"Disprove my abstract ideas if you can?"
I swear we are becoming more dark with every passing generation rather than becoming enlightened. Because people would rather be intellectually lazy
and spineless in not vetting the high priests of BS who have the full backing of whatever lazy establishment is in place at the top of their
individual fields. It's the a systemic dynamic that allows con artists to function with credibility deceiving the masses who have to take other
people's words for what is called, "accepted truth."
Power to the people! No more prima facie fantasies.
edit on 21-5-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: (no reason given)