Sunday, June 26, 2011

Don't Trust the Anonymous Bloggers


[a lesbian blogger - exposed]

One key point to constantly remember is that we know absolutely nothing about anyone writing on the Internet and not providing clear, verifiable, identifying information.

This was brought out recently with the case of Bill Graber, a married, heterosexual man who blogged as "Lez Get Real", posing as a a deaf, lesbian, mother of two.

Also a couple of weeks ago it was revealed that "Amina Arraf", the blogger who wrote "A Gay Girl in Damascus" was in fact not gay, not a girl and not in Damascus but actually turned out to be Tom MacMaster, a married, heterosexual American student at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

So bear this in mind when a Jewish skeptic blogger claims to be a nuclear scientist or a rabbi or sexual abuse victim or whatever. Anything they write about themselves to increase their credibility may be complete fiction. In fact, I would guarantee it is. Furthermore, five different Jewish skeptic bloggers may all be the same person.

106 comments:

NC said...

My personal credibility has nothing to do with my comments. It does have everything to do with your attacks on me as an "addict".

On the other hand I claim that you are dishonest about your claims regarding transitional fossils, and you haven't responded. There ARE transitional fossils, forms, structures.

jewish philosopher said...

" There ARE transitional fossils, forms, structures"

No more or less than a landfill would reveal transition forms between various man made devices, all of which are created not evolved.

NC said...

"No more or less than a landfill would reveal transition forms between various man made devices, all of which are created not evolved."

As I mentioned to Nathan, you are free to interpret it as "god did it", which is something that I don't claim to be able to disprove. [Since we don't really know what a god is or how he would behave, I certainly can't say what he would or wouldn't do.] All I demand is that you acknowledge the FACTS, that there are many many examples of transitional and intermediate forms, throughout the animal kingdom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Because if you can't even properly acknowledge what we CAN see, you certainly will err on what CANNOT be seen.

Then, you decide what you think is the most likely explanation. The fact that we are able to witness evolutionary processes in real time (although in a micro level) make the evolutionary model far more likely to fit the facts than a biblical creation story. Like, why would god make blind mole rats with eyes covered in skin, if not for the fact of adaptation and vestigiality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_mole_rat

jewish philosopher said...

How are the lists of transitional fossils any more impressive than lists of transitional human technologies?

Again, everything appears to be designed because it was, and the arguments from bad design are shrinking yearly as more research is done. We understand very little about life so predictably some things appear badly designed to us.

nc said...

I don't know what "more impressive" means.

"badly designed" is a misrepresentation of evolution and of my example. Vestigiality is just strong evidence of transition and adaptation. It also doesn't rule out some use for the vestigial structure. So more research about it doesn't "shrink" the significance of the fact, that the structure no longer serves it's original function. Whether or not your wife likes your hairy legs (thus giving it some "use") does nothing to detract from the fact that body hair originally served ( and still does) some entirely different function in other species. .

natschuster said...

#1. Maybe G-d created mole rats with sight, but they their sight since then. Loss of function is a devolutionary process. I don't think it necessarily follows that we can infer from here that an organism can gain a function by the same process. Things break down spontaneously, but they don't fix up automatically.

#2. The eyes of the blind mole rat have no known function. But tomorrow a function migh just be discovered.

jewish philosopher said...

To make atheism work, atheists must substitute an infinite amount of blind chance for one Creator. The only reason for doing so is denial of an unpleasant reality.

natschuster said...

NC:

How do you know it ever served another function? The only way to say forsure that it had another function is if we evolved. But that is what we are trying to prove in the first place. More circularity.

NC said...

Nathan-- The mole rat didn't just lose vision, it grew skin over its eyes! If evolution can do that than it certainly can do the reverse-- which is what is seen in the zoological record.

"How do you know it ever served another function? The only way to say forsure that it had another function is if we evolved."

Because it serves another function NOW in other animals. And in other species/fossils, we have seen examples of a similar change. Like hairy mammoths to modern elephants. But yes, time and evolution are based on induction.

I know I am repeating this over and over again, but you guys don't seem to get it, that science is induction. We infer the unseen from the seen, but we can't know with 100% certainty-- although pretty close. Like how do we know the sun will rise tomorrow? Induction. How do we know it rose 1000 years ago? Anybody witness it? Induction.

jewish philosopher said...

How do we know that machines are created by intelligent designers? Induction.

Essentially our main dispute is: Are we creations of God and imbued with a God given soul? Or are we zombies created by an infinite chance interaction of particles?

My proof: the duck test.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Your proof: appeal to scientific authority.

"Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139

I am confident that I am making the right choice. And even if I am making the wrong choice, Judaism will still probably make me a happier and nicer person.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-being-orthodox-jew-will-make-you.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

NC said...

" And even if I am making the wrong choice, Judaism will still probably make me a happier and nicer person."

A rational position. I hope you're right. Are you happy?

And BTW you can still make the same choice and accept evolution.

"My proof: the duck test."
"Your proof: appeal to scientific authority."

OK, good way to put it. Can you give me a different example of a conflict between modern scientific authority and the "duck test", where science turned out wrong and the duck test right? Because I can certainly give you plenty in the reverse. [In case you're tempted to bring up "nazi science"-- that was clearly regime propoganda under guise of science, which no non nazi scientists agreed with]

The fact is that we in science do use a "plausibility" criteria when determining whether the results of some study are valid. I think we discussed this regarding the ESP research. You still have to use common sense to overide. However, when the research is consistent, and there is a clear concensus among experts in a field, I would be hard pressed to say that a duck test should take precedence. Otherwise, we would reject many counterintuitive ideas like relativity and quantum theory. Or things in medicine like giving ritalin, a stimulant, to hyperactive kids.

jewish philosopher said...

"Are you happy?"

Happier.

"Can you give me a different example of a conflict between modern scientific authority and the "duck test", where science turned out wrong and the duck test right?"

Well, I'll give you one small example: varicoselle correction surgery to treat low sperm counts. I'm sure that a real scientific insider could add many more.

For many years, urologists loved doing the surgery although it "helped" for "unknown reasons".

http://www.mainstream-urology.com/articles/varicocele.html

Those surgeries undoubtedly paid for a lot of Jaguars and country club memberships.

Then treatments were developed which really worked.

http://www.advancedfertility.com/icsi.htm

And the varicocele surgery was finally revealed to be bogus. 

http://www.drmalpani.com/book/chapter6a.html   

So if a scientific theory seems fishy while providing scientists with some major benefits, I would steer clear.

natschuster said...

First of all, elephants did not evolve from mammoths.

Hair on humans serves a purpose now. So how do you know it ever served a different purpose?

natschuster said...

I'm not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I predicted correctly that a function would be found for blind mole rat eyes:

http://www.livescience.com/8468-blind-mole-rats-study-confirms.html

They have some limited vision that helps them. All I did was use inductive reasoning and follow the pattern.

NC said...

Nathan

You keep on interpreting me as saying that vestigial organs have no use. This is an intentional misrepresentation. They just don't have their original apparent function. Anyway, there are plenty of animals who are blind who just have vestigial eyes.

Vestigiality is just a special case of homology. Its not "bad design", as JP puts it.

I don't know what purpose body hair on human serves. Maybe cosmetic, maybe nothing. They seem to be able to do quite well without. But certainly not for warmth, protection or markings. The fact that you or somebody else can come up with a different use makes no difference. The feature diminishes because its former function is lost. Its that simple.

And I didn't say that elephants descended from mammoths. They are, however, ancient relatives, like other homonids are to humans.

ksil said...

NC, in all seriousness, whats the point in arguing with someone(s) who would never change their mind about something even after proof after proof after proof has shown their beliefs to be foolish?

These wacked out, brainwashed believers have the starting point that some invisible god made the entire universe, (i guess he placed these fossils there to trick us!) and wrote a book (a book!) and gave it to some wandering, uneducated, recently freed slaves....they then ignore everything else out there that points in a different direction. they also think that we dont believe that stuff, not becasue its false but becasue we want to watch porn and masturbate. (truly sick puppies)

its useless and pointless. even though i get a kick out of watching you destroy these 2 numbskulls!

jewish philosopher said...

NC, you see the basic reason I don't share your faith in the consensus of the scientific community is that I believe that in many cases the experts are perfectly capable of fudging, massaging and even occasionally outright fabricating data if they have a strong personal interest in doing so. One example which I just happen to be aware of is varicoselle correction mentioned above. Another example might be Haekel's embryo drawings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel#Controversy

Or Wiedersheim's vestigial organs 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wiedersheim

Or the Piltdown man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

There is no reason to presume that scientists are any more or less honest and objective than businessmen or politicians.

"These wacked out, brainwashed believers"

This may be an example of psychological projection or projection bias. It is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

natschuster said...

NC:

You haven't explained how you know that it previously served another purpose. You assume that it did because it evolved. bu then you site it as proof of evolution. Can you say "circular reasoning?"
Now, maybe you ave to explain this to me again, but unless you say that vestigal organs have no purpose so a designer would have created them, what is the evidence for evolution from vestigal organs?

And are you talking about blind cave fish? They are so closely realted to seeing cave fish that they are considered to be the same species. So they may have lost their sight after they were create, not all that long ago.

And Ksil:

You are at it again, making assertions without any evidence.

And what exactly would be the naturalistic explanation for the Universe, life, etc. etc. etc.?
Nothing? We don't know? Why does that make mnore sense than G-d?
And what is wrong with books? What should G-d do? Do you know?

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Did you know that Stephen Hawking writes in his new book "The Grand Design" that with his beand new theory, (that no-one seems to understand) that we can explain the universe without G-d. That means that before hos new theory, we did need G-d.

But I forget, you don't need evidence. Your beliefs are entirely faith based. Evidence and logic don't matter.

natschuster said...

I was just thinking about how exquisitely designed the eye of the blind mole rat is. It gives it enough light for its needs, but it is covered by skin to protect it from dirt underground. Perfect.

SJ said...

lol so JP what would your opinion be on my kind of anonymous blogging? XD I tend to not sensationalize stuff with personal anecdotes and only discuss issues that are at hand.

jewish philosopher said...

I haven't read your blog much I believe.

I think unpious.com has more writers claiming, anonymously, to be this or that.

NC said...

JP:

"There is no reason to presume that scientists are any more or less honest and objective than businessmen or politicians."

That's were you have the whole thing wrong, JP.
Because in the scientific world transparency and replication are required, frauds are exposed. This serves as a strong incentive to keep individual scientists honest, regardless of their personal integrity. A single person's "discovery" is of no value unless somebody else can reproduce it. Of course there are still the occasional scams, as we have seen.

There is also a difference between scientists being wrong about something then revising it because of better data, and fraud on an individual level. The varicocele issue was not a scam or conspiracy, just better data was collected that changed the way doctors practice.

So something is wrong with your thinking, the way you put things out of proportion. Yes, sometimes science gets something wrong. But this is a small minority of things, yet you are willing to throw out science as "scam". So, for example, because some police are corrupt, you'll never call the police? You won't go to the doctor? I wonder if you give your kids vaccines. Now there's a big conspiracy, right? Shame on you if you don't!

Ksil--

The fun of commenting on this blog is sharpening my rhetorical skills, not to convince NS or JP.

"what is the evidence for evolution from vestigal organs?"

Nathan-- not withstanding what I just said to ksil, I'll explain it one more time.
vestigiality==special case of homology. When you add the time element (as evidenced in dating of fossils/skeletons) you see a directionality, a flow. Certain forms appear earlier, and disappear later, being replaced by other forms. It doesn't rely on the structure being "useless" or bad design as JP says.

But you could still say "god did it that way" and I have no answer for that. That's theology, as you say. God piled up piles of fossils and skeletons, in different places and layers, just to keep us busy, I suppose. Say whatever you want. He put tree rings making the world look much older than 6000 years to fool us, or test us.

You could believe JP's midrashic lost worlds, but that still doesn't jive with the biblical account of the oceans, sun, moon and stars being created just 6000 years ago. Sure, astronomers can see light signals arriving at earth now, from sources long extinguished millions of years ago. But god just planted those light sources to fool us, to make it look like the universe is billions of years old.

You can drink that Kool-Aid if you want, but I'll pass.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm afraid you are, perhaps deliberately, a little naive NC. Businessmen and politicians also are supposedly monitored by all sorts of government agencies, watchdogs, whistleblowers, journalists, etc but we know how perfectly that works.

Data is seldom cut and dry, unless we are looking at clearly repeatable, exact laboratory experiments. Just like at a crime scene for example. Different investigators can come up with radically different scenarios of what happened, especially if they are very biased. Likewise two people can look at the appendix or the Archaeopteryx and reach entirely different conclusions. Scientists have a strong vested interest in supporting evolution because evolution eliminated the authority of the clergy and made scientists preeminent. That's the real "battle between science and religion"; it's the battle for power between clergy and scientists as I have mentioned here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Anonymous said...

"Judaism will still probably make me a happier and nicer person."

When in the future do you think the happiness and niceness will kick in?

natschuster said...

NC:

Again, how do you know that the organs are homologous unless you assume evolution already?

Eyes showed up in trilobites and 40 other phyla fully formed. Arthopods hind limbs just like modern arthropods back in the Cambrian. Same thing with just about every organ, system, structure or function. The Archaeopteryx showed up in the fossil record with fully formed feathers, that are not homologous, according to plaleantologists, to reptile scales. I don't see that much directionality.
if you are talking about things like similarities, that would be a competent designer reusing prexisting parts as per good design practise. Its called modularity. And if similaritiies are evidence for evolution, then differences should be evidence against evolution.

natschuster said...

There id plenty of basis in the Torah canon for a world that is older than 6000 years. These modrashim are based on a very careful reading of the Bible. That's how Midrash works. So they do correspond to the text of the Torah.

natschuster said...

I"m currently readng "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. He writes that all the good positions in Physics are held by partisans of String Theory. Anyone who questions String Theory quickly finds himself without a job. He also describes a great deal of racism, sexism, and macho posturing in the Physics community. So scientists are not above bias, careerism, etc.

SJ said...

I never really bothered with Unpious.com. lol

jewish philosopher said...

"When in the future do you think the happiness and niceness will kick in?"

When you drop dead.

NC said...

JP, this power struggle you describe is imagined. I seriously doubt any scientist today is worried about losing his job to a priest, or vice versa.

If it were real, then you should be at least as suspicious of the rabbis as clergy, who have a strong vested interest in promoting religion to maintain THEIR power over the people.

As far as your distrust of the establishment, I think that the FDA and the CDC do a reasonable job, notwithstanding politics. So does the National Academy of Sciences. I would be interested in hearing your learned critique.

Nathan, since you, too, have a disproportionate distrust of science, I would like to hear if you have any CURRENT and specific examples, besides evolution, where you believe science to be currently WRONG and you are right (using JP's duck test or whatever). You seem to have great foresight and deep knowledge to knowing when science is wrong and when it is right. You're very certain the scientists have it all wrong about evolution, but please give some other examples, not some stupid AFTER THE FACT case which anybody can do using 20/20 hindsight. Then if you can prove that YOU have a track record in identifying when scientists are just fooling us (BEFORE it is discovered publicly), then you will have gained some credibility. Again, NOT EVOLUTION. SOMETHING ELSE. Then, I would like to know how you know that the scientists are lying in that particular case.

Otherwise (nothing personal) you just sound like a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about and pretends to be an expert on something thats over his head. I'll go with somebody with a better track record.

You can keep criticising and quoting mistakes, but I'll go with the track record.

NC said...

"I don't see that much directionality. "

Hmm. You sound like an expert. Is this statement based on your extensive critical overview of the zoological fossil record and geological data?

Because I think you have a truly revolutionary assertion, that should be submitted to a respected journal. Hey! Guess what I found out? You guys got it all wrong! Humans and apes where there along with the trilobytes millions of years ago!

jewish philosopher said...

"I seriously doubt any scientist today is worried about losing his job to a priest, or vice versa."

I wouldn't be too sure, considering the ferocity of people like Dawkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

Interestingly, not long before his death Einstein wrote to a friend "I add this lest you think that weakened by old age I have fallen into the hands of priests."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jaki/absolute.htm

Regarding your rock solid certitude about scientific honesty, I'm afraid that's truly a case of special pleading. The scientists and those agencies supervising them are not different than Wall Street bankers or Washington politicians. Of course even President Obama cannot convincingly claim that he has paid off the national debt and brought peace on earth, but he can spin the facts a bit to claim that the recession is entirely over and we have won the war on terror; any inconvenient details to the contrary can be explained away, perhaps as a right wing conspiracy. That's what evolution is analogous to. Anyone who questions it is a moronic hillbilly.

And I don't automatically trust the rabbis either. When have I argued "Well, if atheists are right then why don't they just explain that to the rabbis in Israel and settle the matter once and for all!"

natschuster said...

NC:

If yuo study paleantology, and read some of the works by S.J. Gould, you will find that all phyla of animals showed uop in the Cambrian. Between the Cambrian and the Devonian, invertebrates havenot evolved at all, beyond mre cosmetic tinkering. Only vertebratea have done much evolving.

And I don't assume scientists are always mistaken or lying, but they don't have a very good track record, especially when it comes to things like origins. When they apply trial and error to develop new technology, they seem to do okay.

Given this, when they say something that doesn't make any sense, like evolution, which is based on metaphysics and theology, as much as on evidence, I don't feel bad about questioning it.

As far as examples are ocncerned, I'm pretty sure global warming isn't happening. I'm old enough to remember when all the scientists were talking about acid rain. All the trees and frogs where dying. You don'r hear about that anymore. And then there was the depletion of the ozone layer. The lamas were going and we were all going to die of skin cancer. I'm not sure where that went.

NC said...

"but they don't have a very good track record, especially when it comes to things like origins."

How can you determine their track record on that, in comparison to other fields of scientific inquiry? I mean, scientists got things wrong in the past about many things. How far back do you go?

"As far as examples are ocncerned, I'm pretty sure global warming isn't happening. "

At least you're being honest. Personally, I don't think its a conspiracy. I do think that politics have entered the fray, in terms of what we can or should do about it. I also don't think realistically we can do anything about it, except adapt technologically. China and India are certainly not going to give up fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.

Regarding acid rain, the favorable outcome is precisely because there was effective intervention. Same with greenhouse gases. And skin cancer incidence is increasing. Nathan, I see a distortion in your thinking, whereby something is "all or nothing". Something like JP's back and white thinking about religion.

JP, I don't have "rock solid certitude" about anything, and that is the difference between a rationalist and a believer. I go with the odds. If I'm in a path of a hurricane, I'll take cover, given the good but not perfect track record of the weather forecasters. Same with vaccines, etc, etc.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, let me give you a perfect example.

The United States government recommends that you and I consume three cups of dairy products per day.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/dairy_amount.aspx

I assume that this is the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion.

However, just last night, I was reading a book entitled "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating" by Walter C. Willett

http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-Harvard/dp/0743266420/

Willet is Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition Chair, Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/walter-willett/

He argues that little if any dairy would be preferable and he suggests that the government guidelines are influenced by the financial interests of the huge US dairy industry.

He is not a crazy conspiracy theorist and he doesn't think science is evil. He is a prominent scientist.

However he takes for granted something you cannot believe - that where there are strong practical interests involved, the scientific community is perfectly capable of interpreting data in a biased way which supports those interests.

And the scientific community, with good reason, is terrified of losing power and influence to the clergy. From the 1860 Oxford evolution debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate

to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District lawsuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

the battle very much still rages.

Therefore, I am not at all impressed by the consensus of scientific opinion in and of itself. I want answers I can understand or I'm not believing this "we are really zombies created by blind chance" nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"When you drop dead."

Such a perfect and representative example of Jewish morality and ethics.

natschuster said...

Scientist used to believe in an etermal universe, and spntaneous generation. Now they know that it is wrong.

And there's been plenty of timnes science got it wrong in medicine. Drugs get recalled all the time.

A fun excercise is to Google "scientific fraud" see how many hits you get. If you do more serious research, you will find that there has been a lot of fraud in science. There still is.

And I'm not sure where I'm demonstrating black and white thinking. I don't assume scientists are always lying. It's just that when they say something that doesn't make sense, and is based on theological reasoning as much as on empirical evidence, I get skeptical. I think I know as much about theology as any scientist.

jewish philosopher said...

"Such a perfect and representative example of Jewish morality and ethics."

Do feel for some reason that you can be rude to me however I am not allowed to reciprocate? Is rudeness some special atheist privilege? My belief is that it goes both ways.

If anyone can, please correct me if I'm wrong, however I have rarely if ever been more rude to someone than they are to me, regardless of how completely and vehemently I may disagree with their beliefs.

ksil said...

believer: science is all well and good and does and explains great things that i appreciate like gravity and lightning and space travel and cell phones and computers and I believe all of it....

EXCEPT WHEN IT ENCHROACHES ON MY BELIEF IN RABBINIC JUDAISM OR THE BIBLICAL GOD. (or global warming for some strange reason)

thats where I draw the line.

LOL. good stuff. consistent.

jewish philosopher said...

science is all well and good and does and explains great things that i appreciate like gravity and lightning and space travel and cell phones and computers and I believe all of it.... when it's based on solid evidence and not just somebody calling himself a scientist and making stuff up

Lol

Just by the way, gravity and lightening aren't too well understood. And manned spaced flight is just about dead. And cell phones don't always work and computers crash. I'm just saying.

Anonymous said...

People die. They're born sick or deformed. They have mental illness. They have any number of irrational beliefs and religions. Volcanoes erupt. Comets strike. Stars die.

God's batting average pretty much stinks. Just saying.

jewish philosopher said...

Death was caused by man's sin, not God's batting average. Genesis 3:19.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm#19

But I guess denying responsibility and blaming someone else is always easier.

Anonymous said...

"But I guess denying responsibility and blaming someone else is always easier."

Technically I disbelieve in gods, so perhaps in your case it was easier to deny responsibility and invent someone else.

jewish philosopher said...

No, I accept responsibility for my many sins while you imagine yourself to be a zombie who is responsible for nothing.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/zombies-and-atheism.html

Anonymous said...

No, I accept responsibility for my shortcomings, while you imagine yourself to be favored among all humanity and all life, and across all the universe.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

The only time science encroaches on my belief in Rabbinic Judaism is when they say something silly, like evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

"No, I accept responsibility for my shortcomings,"

Because they are a result of your free will? Which comes from what, your God given soul? But you don't believe in God. Sounds like there is some mental confusion here.

NC said...

"while you imagine yourself to be a zombie who is responsible for nothing."

Its that YOU can't imagine NOT being a zombie if there is no god. Oh no, what will I do if there's no man in the sky telling me how to eat and run my life?? I'm a zombie, boo hoo!

We're already discussed that there are alternatives.

"The only time science encroaches on my belief in Rabbinic Judaism is when they say something silly, like evolution."

Or as silly as quantum physics. What, something can be at two places at once? Everybody knows thats impossible. What were they thinking, those stupid scientists? Perhaps about losing their jobs to rabbis.

jewish philosopher said...

"Its that YOU can't imagine NOT being a zombie if there is no god."

Well, let's think about this for a second.

According to atheists, our universe, which is fine tuned for life to exist and which provides the non-random natural selector which Darwin required, itself came into existence as a result of blind chance.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

Then life on earth came about as a result of these non-designed "natural laws" and more random chance

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

Life continued to evolved through a combination of random chance and natural selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

So you are simply a cluster of particles resulting from a possibly endless chain of random chance events, nothing more and nothing less. No divine spark, no higher meaning or purpose, nothing more than a pile of junk hit by a tornado which, after infinite tornadoes, happens to appear to be purposeful.

This is what we could call a "zombie" in Hollywood terminology.

nc said...

"This is what we could call a "zombie" in Hollywood terminology."

Is a dog or a horse a "zombie" too? I am curious. Do you find that as difficult to believe as a human being a "zombie"?

jewish philosopher said...

Animals do have a level of self consciousness apparently, however not really free will. If they did have free will they would logically be held responsible for their behavior and subject to criminal prosecution.

However again, from the atheist point of view, a human, however apparently beautifully designed, unimaginably complex, freely choosing and self conscious, is simply an accidental cluster of particles resulting from an endless chain of random chance events, nothing more. You are a soulless Frankenstein created by endless tornadoes hitting endless junkyards.

NC said...

Please clarify something.

Do you find your human zombie description absurd because it is so unbelievably unlikely, or because you believe it leads to negative consequences?

Because your "zombie" animals (which they are in your definition since they have no soul) seem to fare quite well, in fact, somewhat better than humans, who, despite their "soul" (or maybe because of it) have a penchant for violence against other people for lots of stupid reasons. For example, because of their beliefs. Or their sexual orientation. Or their cartoon drawings. Or their skin color.

Animals, on the other hand, seem to kill most often only to survive. Their soul-free existence doesn't seem so bad. Some animals are quite peaceful, notwithstanding their lacking a soul.

Please clarify what you mean.

natschuster said...

NC:

I guess I ama little skeptical about quantum physics. So was Einstein.

Now, quantum physics is based on the assumption that the laws we are familiar with don't apply at the quantum level. So it might be hard to understand, but it isn't silly.

Evolution claims that the complexity of life can be explained by the classical laws of nature. That's just silly.

Anonymous said...

"Because they are a result of your free will?"

No, not because of any fictitious "free will." Why would you even say such a thing?

jewish philosopher said...

The concept that humans lack free will fundamentally contradicts the way everyone, including atheists, perceive themselves and others. 

To illustrate this, a former dean of Harvard Law School Roscoe Pound wrote in his introduction to "Cases on Criminal Law" by Francis B. Sayre (1927): "Historically, our substantive criminal law is based upon a theory of punishing the vicious will. It postulates a free agent confronted with a choice between doing right and doing wrong and choosing freely to do wrong."

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/05/crime-and-punishment.html

I have not yet heard even the most radical atheists advocate the abolition of criminal law, although they should believe that it has no theoretical basis.

I assert that no one really believes that we are zombies just as no one really believes in evolution.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-are-ye-fearful-o-ye-of-little-faith.html

This demonstrates that atheism is merely an elaborate rationalization for things like addiction disorders or mass murder, however it does not stand up to rigorous logical examination.

And by the way animals, particularly not neutered male mammals, tend to be pretty dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee)

jewish philosopher said...

"No, not because of any fictitious "free will." "

So your a soulless zombie, controlled by your brain chemistry and responsible for nothing.

NC said...

"And by the way animals, particularly not neutered male mammals, tend to be pretty dangerous."

All I have to do is demonstrate to you just one "souless" creature to disprove your notion that the soul is what stands in the way of mass murder and addiction. And I shall. The Monarch butterfly of your previous post.

This selfless (yet souless) creature dedicates its life to having baby butterflies. It flies thousands of miles to migrate, cooperating with other butterflies to make the trip. It seemingly has no desire to rape or kill other butterflies, nor steal other butterfly's food. It does not watch porn and masturbate, either. It just doggedly perseveres in its mission, taking from nature only what it needs to survive.

Giraffes are another example of a well behaved, gentle animal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe

In many species "violators" of social rules are punished, in order to maintain social cohesion.

So the presence of a soul is not required in order to maintain social order and peaceful behavior. Neither in humans or animals. Your ranting about a criminal justice system and rape and pillage is thus exposed as nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"So your a soulless zombie, controlled by your brain chemistry and responsible for nothing."

Not sure why you say 'zombie,' but sure. You are, too.

Can people be held culpable for their behavior if there is no free will? Maybe not. Can people be held accountable and either rewarded or punished? Yes, certainly. The reason is that there's something else that contributes to behavior: environment. People don't just act on the spur of the moment at every second of the day. They learn, and they learn to modulate behavior to circumstance.

Anyway, I don't find the arguments for free will compelling. Too many arguments present no evidence and focus instead of the supposed incoherence or horror of a world without human free will.

On the other hand, the arguments that jettison free will make perfect sense, proving that the concept of free will has more to do with maintaining a sense of human exceptionalism.

So, here, JP: You are special. You're a special guy. There's no one else in the universe just like you. And God loves you. He has a special invisible place in his invisible heart for you and for all other people who believe that he is real and who don't eat bacon. You and these people are the favorite life forms in all the universe of the most powerful and wonderful entity ever. Hallelujah.

Totally serious, Not being rude at all. You're just special. I hope this affirmation helps you fill the void.

NC said...

And, the converse:

A 2 year old child, who presumably has a soul, is not responsible for his actions. We do use behavioral methods to teach him good behavior, but it requires no assumption of "free will".

So, it turns out, that the soul is neither necessary nor sufficient for "moral", peaceful and gentle behavior.

This isn't an argument about whether or not the soul exists, its about what you say it supposedly gives people.

When a pack animal is "punished" for antisocial behavior, does the pack check to see if he had free will and a soul?

jewish philosopher said...

"All I have to do is demonstrate to you just one "souless" creature to disprove your notion that the soul is what stands in the way of mass murder and addiction"

Where did I say that?? Hitler had had a soul.

Law enforcement and the fear of God stand in the way of mass murder and addiction.  

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/god-save-king-why-we-need-both.html

"People don't just act on the spur of the moment at every second of the day. They learn, and they learn to modulate behavior to circumstance."

So law enforcement should act according to the same rules used by animal control officers - troublesome people should be trained to behave properly and failing that destroyed.

"A 2 year old child, who presumably has a soul, is not responsible for his actions. We do use behavioral methods to teach him good behavior, but it requires no assumption of "free will"."

Which is why courts don't prosecute 2 year old offenders.

NC said...

"Where did I say that?? Hitler had had a soul."

In your previous comment:

"This demonstrates that atheism is merely an elaborate rationalization for things like addiction disorders or mass murder, however it does not stand up to rigorous logical examination."

"So your a soulless zombie, controlled by your brain chemistry and responsible for nothing."

In other words, you believe that without a soul, we would addicted mass murderers wacking off all day in front of the computer monitor. So, there must be a soul. Yet animals neither have a soul nor believe in one.

"Which is why courts don't prosecute 2 year old offenders."

And animals treat their young differently that adults. No soul required. No imagined "free will", either.

nc said...

I'll make this easier by summarizing so far.

People perceive self awareness, and feel the freedom to choose. However, this does not correspond to a soul, as illustrated by the examples of a baby or a comatose person. So, the feeling of free choice is not equivalent to a soul.

Now, you assert that a soul (and the belief that one exists) is what makes us behave (from your soulless bag of chemicals comment) . Yet my animal examples show us clearly that no soul or belief in one is required for good behavior. So we have no reason to believe that a soul is what makes us behave. Therefore our belief in a soul should have nothing to do with whether we pursue justice.

So neither the existence of a soul, nor a belief in one, should have anything to do with behavior.

natschuster said...

NC:

People who deny the soul do hve a marked tendency to become mass murderers. There's Stalin, MaO, Pol Pot, Mussolini, etc. etc. etc. Maybe you're onto something.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, what I'm actually saying is the following:


According to atheism, the belief in free will and the soul are delusions. The feeling of free will and self consciousness are hallucinations. The truth is that we are zombies.

I would say that anyone really believing the above nonsense would probably lose his sanity, which I suspect is what happened to Nietzsche.

The concept that humans lack free will fundamentally contradicts the way everyone, including atheists, perceive themselves and others.

To illustrate this, a former dean of Harvard Law School Roscoe Pound wrote in his introduction to "Cases on Criminal Law" by Francis B. Sayre (1927): "Historically, our substantive criminal law is based upon a theory of punishing the vicious will. It postulates a free agent confronted with a choice between doing right and doing wrong and choosing freely to do wrong."

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/05/crime-and-punishment.html

I have not yet heard even the most radical atheists advocate the abolition of criminal law, although they should believe that it has no theoretical basis.

NC said...

Lets establish that we can agree on a few things.

1. That the perception of free will is not equivalent to a soul. (baby, comatose person) It proves only that we perceive ourselves.

2. That we can perceive things that are wrong, like the ocean being blue.

3. That a soul is not required for gentle and benign behavior (as demonstrated by my previous 2 comments)

4. That a soul does not guarantee good behavior (Hitler).

5. There is no credible direct evidence for a soul that exists independently of a living body.

Given this, the "soul" adds nothing to our understanding of the world and ourselves.

So why have a criminal justice system? Because it is necessary and it works (to varying degrees). Its an extension of behavioral control in the animal world, using our more advanced cognitive abilities.

jewish philosopher said...

"Because it is necessary and it works"

Wrong. According to you, it's irrational and unnecessary.

We should have an animal control system;remember - man is the naked ape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape_(book)

not a criminal justice system.

Law enforcement and justice make no sense when dealing with zombies. Rather, something along the lines of National Animal Control Association Guidelines should be used instead.

http://www.nacanet.org/guidelines.html

NC said...

You are confusing our valuing of human life with the need for a justice system. Our empathy is what gives us the former. [I can only assume that an elephant values the life of members of its herd and family, above that of a mouse it might step on. So this would not be unique to humans.]

The justice system is needed to maintain social order, but it is constrained by our empathy and value for human life. So we take life only in extreme cases. We don't execute hackers and pickpockets. We don't hang apostate bloggers.

Only a psychopath could not see this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Perceptual.2Femotional_recognition_deficits

Am I onto something, JP? As long as we're diagnosing each other:) why not try taking this checklist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

Let me know how you score.

jewish philosopher said...

So rather than base government on reason, and reason tells us that humans are merely animals who should therefore be controlled using the same methods used to control cats and dogs, instead government should be based on emotion.

Psychologists and anthropologists may tell you that people naturally feel little empathy towards those whose melanocyte activity level

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanogenesis#Human_differences

is far higher than their own.

Apparently you would agree that the law should reflect this and darker pigmented people should be punished more severely and based on less evidence than lighter pigmented people.

"We don't execute hackers and pickpockets. We don't hang apostate bloggers."

Who is "we"? Some people would.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8181192.stm

And if you believe law should be based on emotion and sentiment not reason, who are you to criticize anyone else's emotions? Who made you the ultimate universal lawgiver?

Of course, I believe that such a Lawgiver does exist, however He is God, not an anonymous Internet user.

ksil said...

"The only time science encroaches on my belief in Rabbinic Judaism is when they say something silly, like evolution."

thank you for proving my point!

NC said...

"So rather than base government on reason, ....instead government should be based on emotion."

Well, that is in fact what happens. Different countries, communities, societies pass their own laws based on their culture, which, yes, includes emotions.

Your being surprised by this reinforces my suspicions, JP. Did you take the PCL-R?

"Apparently you would agree that the law should reflect this and darker pigmented people should be punished more severely and based on less evidence than lighter pigmented people."

Thats what happened until the civil rights movement. Then society decided otherwise. What changed, reason? Did they get smarter?

"Who made you the ultimate universal lawgiver?"

Nobody. Each society decides for itself, based on its culture, values, ethnic makeup, etc. That what governments do--make laws to reflect the values of their populations.

NC said...

So tell us if the following describes you:

You can be charming, are pretty intelligent, but have a "mean streak". Although you do have some personal attachments, (such as your wife and children) you have a history of broken relationships because of your striking lack of empathy and people's inability to trust you. You have managed, as some psychopaths do, to avoid criminal entanglement. However, your lack of conscience, remorse and empathy occasionally gets you in troublesome situations that bring harm upon yourself. You have trouble with impulse control, and also have difficulty taking responsibility for the negative consequences of your actions.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, so you fully condone the Nuremberg Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Apartheid Legislation in South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_legislation_in_South_Africa

And Islamic law in Saudi Arabia 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Law should be based on whatever wacky idea a sovereign government wants it to be based on, not logic or reason.

Any special reason for this attitude?

Based on your firm belief in the infallibility of scientists, man is merely an animal, a naked ape.

Darwin wrote in Descent of Man Chapter VI

"Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual 
powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms, 
the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus giving to man a separate 
kingdom. (1. Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire gives a detailed account of the 
position assigned to man by various naturalists in their classifications: 
'Hist. Nat. Gen.' tom. ii. 1859, pp. 170-189.) Spiritual powers cannot be 
compared or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I 
have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not 
differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, 
however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom"

http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Descent_Of_Man/8.html 

Based upon this, the supervision of society should logically be turned over to animal control officers. At the same time, human reproduction should be overseen by the department of agriculture.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/manuals/dealer/requirements.pdf

Many low income and minority neighborhoods should probably be shut down as puppy mills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_mill

Your beliefs are more full of more illogical contradictions than the most devout Catholic.

And NC, as far as my character goes, only the words "saintly" and "perfect" come to mind. That's why I care about stopping maniacs like you from further ruining the human race. 

NC said...

"as far as my character goes, only the words "saintly" and "perfect" come to mind. That's why I care about stopping maniacs like you from further ruining the human race. "

Looks like you score high on that checklist....can I take your lack of denial as a confirmation?

"NC, so you fully condone the Nuremberg Laws...."

Are you OK with the genocides/mass murders in the bible? Did God tell you Apartheid was bad? Maybe he agreed with it.

Your examples are simply illustrations of the imperfection of man, and that shit happens. With or without God. Why, God had to even destroy everybody and start over. What does that prove?

Also good stuff happens. Democracy. Freedom. Emancipation. And the Nazi laws came about due to lack of empathy, not because of it. Its part of being human, I can live with than, because I have no choice.

You, on the other hand, cannot imagine how people can possibly be "good" without an imagined man in the sky threatening them with eternal excrement. Because, perhaps, of who you are.

jewish philosopher said...

I've referred to biblical genocide here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html

If God created men, it's His right to uncreate them too.

"And the Nazi laws came about due to lack of empathy"

All "empathy" is very selective and fickle. Do Americans really give a hoot about starving Africans? Or even about their own families in many cases?

NC said...

"If God created men, it's His right to uncreate them too."

OK, but do you have any moral instinct telling you that it is bad thing?

"All "empathy" is very selective and fickle. Do Americans really give a hoot about starving Africans? Or even about their own families in many cases?"

We generally value people closest to us the most. Very natural. Sorry, JP, that is what law is based on. I don't believe a soul is mentioned anywhere in the constitution. What stopped slavery, BTW? Was there some new insight into the fact that blacks had souls, too? Some new fact or discovery? Some undiscovered biblical commandment? What brought the change? EMPATHY

Please tell me, JP, what was wrong with Apartheid, and how you know it was wrong.

NC said...

Everything is making sense now, JP. Since you don't feel empathy, you have a hard time imagining others that do. And you think that those that do have empathy are weak and inferior.

You are closer to being a Nazi (many of whose leaders were psychopaths) than you think. In your world, only the True Believers are worthy of living. Apostates, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists should all be eliminated. [Nazi ideology was just as pure, but had different targets]. And you feel that you have this special mission. You're not a mass murderer, but you wouldn't mind if somebody else did the job on God's behalf. Like the Nazis that did God's work. Do you deny this?

I am also wondering if all of your ranting about sex, pornography and addiction, comes from a little experience. Am I wrong?

ksil said...

"uncreate"

funny

NC said...

I notice another thread in your posts. The ones that aren't attacking, that are positive, praise all kinds of things, Torah, Talmud, self restraint, God, but I have not seen a positive post about......PEOPLE.
I guess you don't like them that much, or don't have much use for them.

jewish philosopher said...

Check into the history a little and you'll discover that slavery in the United States was abolished because, between about 1800 and 1860, most Americans could not reconcile slavery with the Declaration of Independence: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

In other word, abolishment was based on that primitive, superstitious idea called creationism.      

NC said...

And what made them arrive at that "discovery", almost 100 years after independence? Where does it say in the Bible that all men are created equal?

And the Declaration of Independence is not a document of law.

ksil said...

man, NC....that was brutal!

fantastic

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Are you agreeing with me that evolution is silly?

NC:

People can be good without G-d, but they have no reason to be good. Ans believing in G-d sure helps. Just look at the atheist prediliction or mass murder.

natschuster said...

NC:

How do you know that apartheid was wrong?

natschuster said...

Lots of while people in America lack empathy for Black people. So is it okay for these people to enslave Black people?

Anonymous said...

"Just look at the atheist prediliction or mass murder."

This is true. I am an atheist and I was just out mass murdering last Tuesday. In fact, I ran into another atheist who was also mass murdering. We decided to have gay sex and do drugs right then and there, and later we "friended" on Facebook.

Sometimes I think about how all religious people are not murderers and do such great things while atheists don't do anything but snort cocaine. Maybe I'll go back to shul and get all weepy when the man opens the dresser door to reveal the magic paper roll. Maybe I'll quiver in fear when the Cohenim give all of us the super-duper Star Trek sign.

Hmm. It's a pickle, this life.

jewish philosopher said...

"And what made them arrive at that "discovery", almost 100 years after independence? Where does it say in the Bible that all men are created equal?And the Declaration of Independence is not a document of law."

It started with a few Quakers even before independence, and sort of gradually caught on. I think the industrial revolution also cut back on the demand for slave labor in the north. In any case, the abolishment movement was based on that statement.

Nc said...

"In any case, the abolishment movement was based on that statement."

But where did they get the idea? From God or human reason and empathy?

ksil said...

"Are you agreeing with me that evolution is silly?"

jeez you are a moron.

you pick and choose the science you want to accept.

that makes no sense

Anonymous said...

"you pick and choose the science you want to accept.

that makes no sense"

It makes perfect sense if one is trying to make an argument. Less sense if one is trying to understand the big picture.

jewish philosopher said...

"praise all kinds of things, Torah, Talmud, self restraint, God, but I have not seen a positive post about......PEOPLE."

I do it sometimes.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/judaism-to-rescue.html

However, if you look around the Hebrew Bible a little, you'll notice a lot more self criticism than self praise.

"But where did they get the idea? From God or human reason and empathy?"

I think it's based on an interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)#Biography

natschuster said...

Ksil:

When scientists say something that makes sense, I accept it. When they say something silly like evolution, then I get a little skeptical. I pick what makes sense. And much of the evidence for evolution is based on theology and metaphysics, not science. I think I know theology as well as most scientists. Your the same thing with religion. You accept what is convenient, and reject what makes you feel guilty. Can you say "hypocrasy?"

And Anonymous at 3:02

Whenever I point out to atheists, that if history is any indication, if they succeed in amking the world atheistic, then we can expect a marked increase in mass murder, they respond that it is okay because the motivating factor driving all the mass murder committed by atheists isn't atheism. This means that atheists are okay with mass murder, as long as it isn't motivatd by atheism. I find that a little bit scary.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Are yuo picking or rejecting cold fusion? Are you picking or rejecting the theory that vaccinations cause autism? What about the Piltdown man? All this was SCIENCE. How do you decide what to what to accept or reject? Do you side with S.J. Gould or Dawkins on evolution rates? Are you a partisan of String Theory, or are yuo among the many scientists who are unhappy with it? Do you believe in the Big Bang? Or do yuo pick and choose PanSpermia as per Hoyle and Crick?
Its all science. What is your criteria for picking and choosing? Og, I keep on forgetting. Your beliefs are based on pure, simple faith. I guess you just follow your heart. I like to think about things, and weigh the evidence.

natschuster said...

Anonymous at 3:47:

By the "Big Picture" do you mean something like a (pardon my German) a Veltanshung? That would like a religion. So am I correct in assuming that your religion is science? That gives you the "Big Picture?" I'm always so amazed and impressed by the pure, childlike faith of atheists. I'm jealous. But I'm too much of a realist.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, the fact is that this is just getting pathetic.

First you try an appeal to authority.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/atheism-myth_13.html?showComment=1307989913960#c7465484603976987557

Next, an appeal to the people

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/miracle-of-butterfly.html?showComment=1308854701864#c9102953479729768574

This sounds like an appeal to ridicule

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/dont-trust-anonymous-bloggers.html?showComment=1309199066247#c1386129305812730913

Then an ad hominem

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/06/dont-trust-anonymous-bloggers.html?showComment=1309448294277#c8177741680519014607

Irrational thinking is universal in addiction disorders, but you’re really running out of logical fallacies. I think you may have to either give up or, more likely, start recycling.

Avi Bitterman said...

Okay. Here's a bit of ego stroking that's verifiable.

I'm a skeptic jewish blogger.

I work in a research facility with viruses.

I tutor calculus 1 and 2, physics 1 and 2, gen chem 1 and 2, organic chemistry 1 and 2, bio 1 and 2, cell biology and computational ecology, thermodynamics, physical chemistry, and genetics, all at the college level.

I scored in the top 95th percentile or higher in all my science classes (resembling an average sample size of 150 students per class), many of which are the 100th percentile.

Oh and my flat bench is 250, incline bench 225, my pullups are with 50lbs on a weight belt, and my barbell squat is 315. (all 6-8 reps clean form)

I am also not anonymous. You can even meet me and verify all of this information yourself conveniently, as you don't live that far away from me. Would you like to meet up?

jewish philosopher said...

The title of this post is "Don't Trust the Anonymous Bloggers"

Apparently, you aren't anonymous, however I'm not sure how much of your CV makes your opinions about Judaism any more or less impressive than anyone else's.

It does make me wonder if you might be an expert on "fitness supplements". ;-)

Anonymous said...

There is a logical fallacy known as an 'Appeal to Authority'. This is where you require me to put my experience on the line, and then you place your own against it, rather than tackling the argument.

It doesn't matter who says what, it matters what is said.

Anonymous said...

Argument from Authority:

What you're doing is asking for anonymous to reveal it's experience with such matters, and the weighing your own experience against it, rather than tackling the arguments at hand.

It's a logical fallacy.

Alex said...

"Anything they write about themselves to increase their credibility may be complete fiction. In fact, I would guarantee it is."

The first sentence is true. But it was a mistake saying that you can guarantee that they're lying.

Alex said...

What? No rebuttal?

jewish philosopher said...

You can have your opinion.

Avi Bitterman said...

It does make me wonder if you might be an expert on "fitness supplements". ;-)

Sure, what supplements would you like to learn about?

jewish philosopher said...

Nah, I'm not into that.

Michael said...

"Okay. Here's a bit of ego stroking that's verifiable."

Probably not as bright as this guy, whose attitude towards belief in God, and religion in general appears to be a bit more charitable than yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Additionally, there are a lot of overachievers amongst us Jews. Unlike JP, I don't see the value in having my identity splashed across the internet, but your CV is no more impressive than mine, and most of the courses you tutor were handled just fine by a substantial chunk of med school graduates (including myself).

So what if you're a Jewish skeptic?

taon said...

I dont get involved in blogs anymore (i came across this while doing research), but i wused to, and i should mention one old blogger who was famous for being a ggenius ec-yeshiva guy, would write questions he claimed to have posed to Roshei Yeshivos and they couldnt answer them. I was able to find answers in basic sources. either im a super-genius, or...