New Christian Visitor

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you have evidence of any jesus at all, you're welcome to present it.  I mean, instead of your Strawman Argument. 

 

I'm not talking about evidence Prof, I'm asking you for a baseline.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said and you know it.  I have already called you out on this lie once before; yet you persist in repeating it.  If you will not give me the courtesy and respect of engaging in honest dialog, then further conversation will not be possible.

 

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what we can, and cannot, measure.  You are, again, attempting to conflate valid data points with invalid data points.

 

As you know, I am a biological scientist.  I think I've mentioned before that I am in the pharmaceutical industry.   More specifically, Ed, I am currently for the United States government in the field of molecular medicine, researching the use of macromolecules and biosimilars as potential treatment options for a variety of illnesses.  This field of medical science operates completely on the objective fact that, at the molecular level human beings are nearly identical . 

 

At the risk of being accused of appealing to authority, your entire assertion here is complete and utter bullshit.  Despite the color blue.

But we are still talking about conditions in the body….nearly identical you said.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

27 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

I'm not talking about evidence Prof, I'm asking you for a baseline.

I'm under no obligation to provide you with a baseline for your mythological deity or any claims or beliefs that stem from it.  Reckon you're shit out of luck, there, sport.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

But we are still talking about conditions in the body….nearly identical you said.  

No.  You don't get to rewrite the narrative.  I know you like to lie; but I neither appreciate the dishonesty, nor am I willing to allow it.  The conversation is, as it has always been, at the molecular level.  You don't get to claim it is, or ever has been, about conditions in the body.  

[Myrkhoos]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd say we are on the same page, or at least in the same chapter.  I suppose when I speak of objective facts or objective truths, I'm referring to the specific number of people killed by gun violence each year, for example, or the specific number of degrees the global temperature has risen since 1957.  These things are not subjective, nor are they open to interpretation. 

I think we are, but there are always methods of rejection that data. Like argument here is that I could say your data is unreliable. In communist Romania my mother never even trusted the weather report :)). State wide deceit has happened before. Information control IS a problem in our age to be sure. 

     But even if the official data is botched for a myriad of reasons , this DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the Christian argument. Because you can turn that argument around in a nanosecond. - like the Gospels are just pure fabricated legenda with some dash of history into them sanctioned by the state in order to ensure mass uniformity and control. Voila! But when you say that they start to defend the official record, the system of copying, reliability of manuscripts, etc.

Most of the time they care not for truth, just belief confirmation.

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

As you observe, though, they may not be objectively perceived through our flawed senses or mental filters.  There is a difference, though, between accepting the subjectivity of our perception of objective fact, versus trying to reinterpret the facts to fit our subjectively held beliefs.  And it is this reinterpretation that we observe when our christian friends attempt to justify the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl.

Well, yes, I agree, I even said that they use the subjectivity argument selectively and, in my view, not logically consistent. Radical subjectivity does not really help them, in my view if they REALLY understood it. But I echo your claim, they are not interested most of the time in truth or understanding, but justifying the belief system. And that automatically leads you to a path of intellectual gymnastics and dishonesty frankly.

      And this was my claim, I don't want to get in a bigger question about knowledge production and distribution, but to observe that their conclusion is already set in stone and they will use science, philosophy, subjectivity, history, etc for that ends, and discard them if they so much as touch upon even minor issues.

    That's why I think dialogue is impossible past a point. It's playing soccer with someone who is hell bent on having 3-0 final score and they will follow the rules or not to get there, while I am actually trying to play the game and see what result will come. And I think Ed has shown he is willing to just pick the ball with his hands and run towards the goalpost.( Hand touching is not allowed in soccer for all you Americans :)))

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

That's why I think dialogue is impossible past a point.

I think we're reaching that point and for exactly the reasons you state.  

[Edgarcito]

35 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  You don't get to rewrite the narrative.  I know you like to lie; but I neither appreciate the dishonesty, nor am I willing to allow it.  The conversation is, as it has always been, at the molecular level.  You don't get to claim it is, or ever has been, about conditions in the body.  

Well you said it was the experience which I gather as conditions too, that made the data invalid.  Then you came back with nearly identical within the body… which I assumed you now meant the conditions were similar enough across humanity within the body that you could collect data… you know, for the government.  So then it was errantly illogical for me to run with that thought and assume the nearly identical happened in the brain sufficiently enough to collect data for the government there as well.  And experience certainly drives conditions… so you lost me.  I’ve got the soccer ball in my hand running and I can’t even find the goal thanks to “my lies”

[Myrkhoos]

A question for all. Am I the only one that cannot understand any of Ed's last posts? They just sound like gibberish to me. I am not speaking in metaphors. I cannot make sense of the sentences and I think my English is pretty good. Not that they are wrong or right, they seem nonsensical to me I am not trying to be mean or glib here, but I just want some other opinions. I cannot follow his discourse at all. 

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Are you serious?  Can we add a preschool toddler to the survey?

 

Yes, the Prof is deadly serious here.

 

And so am I.

 

Please do as he asks and post an an image of something blue.

 

Doing this will demonstrate the point which I put in all that effort to describe to you.

 

That we DO communicate and understand each other.

 

That therefore we CANNOT BE totally unique.

 

In all sincerity Edgarcito I'm asking you to do this.

[walterpthefirst]

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

And at any given instant, there is no possible way that the molecular makeup of individuals is not completely and totally unique.  Despite the color blue.

 

 

If you post something blue in colour that will prove that you and the Prof do communicate and understand each other.

 

Which means that your belief that everyone is totally unique cannot be true.

 

If you and the Prof were totally unique you would both be totally dissimilar in every way.

 

You wouldn't understand each other and couldn't communicate at all. 

 

But this simple test will show otherwise.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok Edgarcito,

 

I'm pleading with you now. 

 

Please, please, please do not use the Prof's tone or rough words as an excuse to not go through with this simple exercise.

 

Look at it a different way.

 

If your belief that everyone is totally unique is true then you shouldn't be bothered about testing it, right?

 

Your belief should pass the test with flying colours. (Pardon the pun)

 

 

So which do you want more?   The demonstrable truth or your dearly held belief?

 

It's your play.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, @Edgarcito, four different people, from four different walks of life, from three different countries, have all posted an image depicting roughly the same color.  Thus means that, despite speaking different languages, despite different cultures, despite being raised in different social, political, and economic environments, we all still arrived at the same concept of the color blue. 

 

This demonstrates that we are not nearly as unique as you are trying to say we are.  There are objective truths which are not subject to individual interpretation. 

 

Are you willing to do as Walt has asked and post your own concept of the color blue?  Or will you hide behind subjectivity so you can cling to your preferred beliefs?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I gather

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I assumed

No, Ed, you did not.  You neither gathered nor did you assume any of these things.  In order for you to have done so, at some point, the cconversation would have needed to have been about generalized conditions in the body.  But the conversation is, and always has been, specifically about what happens at the molecular level.  You made the claim that we are all completely and totally unique at the molecular level; and at no point did your claim involve general conditions in either the body or the brain.

 

You will not rewrite the narrative, nor will I allow you to persist in this dishonest behavior. 

 

The only honest thing you have said is that you really are doing exactly what Myrkhoos described.  You are doing whatever you have to do to cling to your preferred beliefs despite the evidence that contradicts them.

 

Unfortunately, as Myrkhoos also noted, dialogue becomes impossible when such behavior is prevalent.  I'm not going to be disrespected by someone refusing to extend to me the courtesy of simple honesty.  I'm not going to have my intelligence insulted by someone telling me we are talking about birds in general after making a specific claim about Blue Jays in particular. 

 

I'm done here.

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, @Edgarcito, four different people, from four different walks of life, from three different countries, have all posted an image depicting roughly the same color.  Thus means that, despite speaking different languages, despite different cultures, despite being raised in different social, political, and economic environments, we all still arrived at the same concept of the color blue. 

 

This demonstrates that we are not nearly as unique as you are trying to say we are.  There are objective truths which are not subject to individual interpretation. 

 

Are you willing to do as Walt has asked and post your own concept of the color blue?  Or will you hide behind subjectivity so you can cling to your preferred beliefs?

You and I both know we are unique in makeup.  At birth, yesterday, tomorrow, right now.  Each has his own unique fingerprints.  Most everyone can learn what blue is.  I taught the colors to my children.  I expect you did as well.  

 

Please respond the to post I sent late last night.  Thanks

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I'm done here.

Please rejoin the discussion when you are ready.  Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Please respond the to post I sent late last night.  Thanks

You've gotten all the responses from me that you are going to get.  I gave you a second chance on the dishonesty; and got more dishonesty for my trouble.  Good day, sir.

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You've gotten all the responses from me that you are going to get.  I gave you a second chance on the dishonesty; and got more dishonesty for my trouble.  Good day, sir.

There was never any willful dishonesty on my part.

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

No, Ed, you did not.  You neither gathered nor did you assume any of these things.  In order for you to have done so, at some point, the cconversation would have needed to have been about generalized conditions in the body.  But the conversation is, and always has been, specifically about what happens at the molecular level.  You made the claim that we are all completely and totally unique at the molecular level; and at no point did your claim involve general conditions in either the body or the brain.

 

You will not rewrite the narrative, nor will I allow you to persist in this dishonest behavior. 

 

The only honest thing you have said is that you really are doing exactly what Myrkhoos described.  You are doing whatever you have to do to cling to your preferred beliefs despite the evidence that contradicts them.

 

Unfortunately, as Myrkhoos also noted, dialogue becomes impossible when such behavior is prevalent.  I'm not going to be disrespected by someone refusing to extend to me the courtesy of simple honesty.  I'm not going to have my intelligence insulted by someone telling me we are talking about birds in general after making a specific claim about Blue Jays in particular. 

 

I'm done here.

But you cited experience was the reason for non-acceptance.  It's not a great leap of the mind, given I program my instruments to run the same conditions, that I "gathered", ah, he's saying the conditions are different, and that's the reason the data is invalid.  To which I then responded, well, the conditions should be the same in the body and brain.  You do know that I run chromatographs all day and conditions are certainly a part of the exercise.  I'm telling you, maybe the average Joe didn't "gather", but I DID given my profession.

 

So maybe you could not assume I'm lying.  Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't doubt you made some kind of typical Edgardian connection in your mind, @Edgarcito.  The lie comes in when you want to claim the conversation revolves around general conditions of the body and mind instead of admitting that your initial, and very specific, claim of molecular uniqueness is complete bullshit.  And the lie is useful to you, because if you can broaden the conversation out to generalized conditions, you still get to hold to your claim of individual exclusivity and uniqueness.  This is the very behavior both Myrkhoos and I have explained.  This is what I labelled cowardly.  Intentional or not, the behavior persists and clouds your perception and judgement.  As a result, dialogue is no longer possible.  Not because I'm angry; but because the truth has no defense against a person determined to believe a lie.

 

So, again, good day, sir.

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't doubt you made some kind of typical Edgardian connection in your mind, @Edgarcito.  The lie comes in when you want to claim the conversation revolves around general conditions of the body and mind instead of admitting that your initial, and very specific, claim of molecular uniqueness is complete bullshit.  And the lie is useful to you, because if you can broaden the conversation out to generalized conditions, you still get to hold to your claim of individual exclusivity and uniqueness.  This is the very behavior both Myrkhoos and I have explained.  This is what I labelled cowardly.  Intentional or not, the behavior persists and clouds your perception and judgement.  As a result, dialogue is no longer possible.  Not because I'm angry; but because the truth has no defense against a person determined to believe a lie.

 

So, again, good day, sir.

It's not bs.  You and I both know the body is a totally dynamic process...and unique, at any given moment....and that was my claim.  Then you used the word "nearly"....which seemed/seems disingenuous.  But I stand with the discussion I started.  And I don't have to work hard at all to broaden my claim....totally unique at any given moment.  And if you are unwilling to admit to just this simple point, then yeah, you might need to reconsider participation.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You and I both know the body is a totally dynamic process...and unique, at any given moment....and that was my claim. 

 

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I just expect that we are all instantaneously unique molecularly speaking… diet, environment, etc.  

 

13 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And at any given instant, there is no possible way that the molecular makeup of individuals is not completely and totally unique.  

No, Ed.  Your claim was that we are all unique at the molecular level.  Not that we are all unique in the general conditions of our bodies and minds.  That claim, that we are all unique at the molecular level, is bullshit; and saying you made some other claim than the one on record is a lie. 

 

This is why the conversation cannot move forward.  Now, don't make me have to say "Good day, sir" again.

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

No, Ed.  Your claim was that we are all unique at the molecular level.  Not that we are all unique in the general conditions of our bodies and minds.  That claim, that we are all unique at the molecular level, is bullshit; and saying you made some other claim than the one on record is a lie. 

 

This is why the conversation cannot move forward.  Now, don't make me have to say "Good day, sir" again.

It's very simple at this point.  Yes or no, are we unique or not. 

[walterpthefirst]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's very simple at this point.  Yes or no, are we unique or not. 

 

Why not let your posted image of something blue be the judge of whether we are unique or not?

 

You do scientific work in science lab.

 

You test and check and re-check.

 

Why not test here?