Sunday, June 5, 2016

Socialism Just Means "Free Stuff" If You're a Sanders Millennial

Even with Venezuela as a perfect example of socialism in action, Sanders packs them in. The rate of complete, cherished ignorance must be phenomenal.

Thomas Sowell:
Testing easy assumptions against facts reveals uncomfortable truths.

Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.

While throngs of young people are cheering loudly for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, socialism has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long lines of people hoping to get food, people complaining that they cannot feed their families.

With national income going down, and prices going up under triple-digit inflation in Venezuela, these complaints are by no means frivolous. But it is doubtful if the young people cheering for Bernie Sanders have even heard of such things, whether in Venezuela or in other countries around the world that have turned their economies over to politicians and bureaucrats to run.

The anti-capitalist policies in Venezuela have worked so well that the number of companies in Venezuela is now a fraction of what it once was. That should certainly reduce capitalist “exploitation,” shouldn’t it?

But people who attribute income inequality to capitalists’ exploiting workers, as Karl Marx claimed, never seem to get around to testing that belief against facts — such as the fact that none of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries. Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of the Left.

What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated.
Testing your assumptions goes directly counter to millennials' worldviews: they were taught the Truth by Leftist educrats, and they don't need actual information, and are traumatized by it. But free stuff sounds rilly rilly good.

44 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

More generalization of ALL millennials as being 'X'. Tell that to yonose and Phoenix, who clearly are on your side... Or what about all these young people who show up at Trump rallies? Or what about the fact that here I am a millenial, on your blog, for several years, with the main intention of challenging my own ideas and get a clearer view of the "other side"? What you are doing is just labeling an entire generation as stupid, basically. This is an irrational position that cannot possible be supported by any fact. Each generation is composed of individuals who are all stupid about at least certain things, and not stupid about others.

However, the real stupid comment here is found in the quote, which compares Bernie Sanders to Karl Marx. This is a common theme among those who don't understand the differences between the 2 extremes: complete unregulated Capitalism and totalitarian Communism. Bernie Sanders is not against Capitalism as a whole; he is not pro-Communism. He is vouching for more regulations regarding Capitalism, among many other things obviously. For a quick summary of the labels and how complicated it can get:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEioGEZ_Qds

Steven Satak said...

Hugo, please. I can't count on you to come up with the same sum twice when it comes to life-and-death issues like abortion. I can't count on you to follow the money when it comes to AGW. I can't count on you to find your way out of the illogical, irrational mess that is Darwinian Evolution.

Why the hell do you expect me to take your opinion on critics of Sanders seriously at *all*?

It's not *that* I disagree with you, Hugo. It *why* I disagree with you. Your thinking becomes baroquely irrational at the drop of a hat, and it appears you will drop the hat yourself from time to time.

Save your keyboard. You have no credibility with me.

Hugo Pelland said...

Why should I care about your opinion of me Steven? I was making an argument regarding the generalization that Stan makes; the usage of personal examples serves to support these arguments. You, prefer to just write random ad hominem. So, again, why are YOU relevant here?

Stan said...

The generalization is not mine. It is the polls' conclusion that millennials in general are lining up for Sanders' promise of free stuff. He claims he got his considerable millions of campaign cash from millennials, 27$ apiece. You don't like that? Tough.

And this is priceless:

" with the main intention of challenging my own ideas and get a clearer view of the "other side"?"

You have not challenged your own ideas... ever, that I can see. All you do is claim that your the only one who understands evolution, and all other ideas that only you are privy to truth about. Including Bernie Sanders, and how stupid people are regarding Communism and "democratic socialism" (almost the same moniker as "national socialism", enforced in a democracy).

...compares Bernie Sanders to Karl Marx. "

Ol' Bernie had his honeymoon in communist USSR. Read his bio, the objective observation of his life of radicalism. And put some substance behind his empty promises. See what it produces.

Hugo Pelland said...

Of course I have challenged my own ideas and, no, of course you have never seen that. For 2 reasons, first you are too self-absord to notice that I do agree with you on so many things. This actually makes no sense to you because you just say over and over again that AtheoLeft-ist worldviews are COMPLETELY irrational, instead of conceding that we just reach different conclusions on certain things. Second, I don't go around telling you what I changed my mind about, and dont comment on every single thing you write, so you cannot even know what ideas I change. It's really interesting to read you, seriously, I really enjoy it and never get annoyed or feel truly insulted. I point out that half what you writr are insults, but I don't mind them. It just makes you look silly...

Here's another thing you don't get, I often defend people like you, or your ideas, in conversations, because I like to show different viewpoints and why people hold them. Some of my friends are more extreme than I am precisely because they DON'T read stuff like your blog, and they thus miss part if the picture.

But you don't care about any of that because you're just some old grumpy old man, at least online, who just want to whine about everything that's changing the wrong way... again, that made you smile I hope? Good, you're welcome, I like to bring smile to people!

Stan said...

Here's a video of Ol' Bern commenting on Fidel Castro. The state murders by Che and the Castros aren't part of Bernie's field of vision.

https://youtu.be/E14lsC4WLV0

Text:
“In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society. You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect – they are certainly not – but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same.”


Yeah. They love him all right. Which is why they ride inner tubes toward Florida.

Bernie also supported the Sandinistas and thought Daniel Ortega was an upright dude:

"Sanders also praised the Sandinista socialist regime in Nicaragua. Not only was the Sandinista government an enemy of the United States, but they had an atrocious human rights record; targeting Jews, Catholics, indigenous peoples, journalists, and any who opposed the regime. Sanders called Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega “an impressive guy,” with “deep convictions.” He then accused the Reagan administration of poisoning public perception of the tyrannical regime."

But sure, ol' Bern is just misunderstood by ignorant people who know nothing.

Stan said...

"...you just say over and over again that AtheoLeft-ist worldviews are COMPLETELY irrational, instead of conceding that we just reach different conclusions on certain things."

What possible meaning would that have, in the context of this blog???

None.

How those conclusions are reached is the whole point. And they are either rational OR they are not.

I'm sure that having the AtheoLeftist ungrounded aggressions against the herd analyzed for what they are, does sound like insults. But you have yet to provide any grounded arguments to the contrary.

Hugo Pelland said...

Of course, how the conclusions are reached is the whole point, and of course, they are rational or not. I was talking about the ENTIRE worldviews, which you label as rational or not. Yours, of course, must be a rational one and others', of course, are not rational. But what's the point of saying that? In reality, it's often not all back-or-white; each individual has a unique worldview and each individual has a combination of rational and irrational ideas. Some of us try harder than others to figure out which one is which. I always thought you were one of these people who do try, but I am not sure anymore.

Your tone has changed a lot, and your dogmatism on certain issues is stronger than ever. What is clear is that there are a few, just a few, things you clearly don't understand, or understand poorly (biology & chemistry apparently!), and that makes you come to wrong conclusions, many wrong conclusions unfortunately, which are then taken as fact to label any other conclusions as irrational, if not evil. But the worst part is that you don't stop there; you continue and label the ENTIRE worldview of the people who disagree with you as irrational and fall into conspiracy-theory-ish thinking by associating all sort of political ideologies to them.

This translates into both valid criticism of the opposition, more often than not I think, but also just pure insult of entire groups of people. So it's not the analysis of the worldviews that is an insult (or analysis of the herd as you put it), it's the generalizations. As I mentioned, I correct my friends too if they are to say things like 'all these old conservatives people from the mid-west are really stupid'. That's not correct, not all of them are stupid and even the ones we strongly disagree with, like you, are not stupid. We just disagree on many things, but it's not true that their entire worldview is irrational. You claim that you read a lot about reason and logic and I have no reason to doubt you. It sucks that you cannot believe that people who disagree with you also do the same, but it does not change anything. The arguments are the same regardless; the positions are either correct, or not, regardless. That's what I have always mainly focused on: the content of the arguments supported your positions.

Stan said...

Three paragraphs of the same ol' same ol'. Here's the falsifier: If you or the Left or the Atheists or the AtheoLeft had actual valid logic to present, then you or they would do so. But it has not been done. So your complaint has no value, at least not to me, because it is purely relativistic and ignores the fact that truth contains no falseness.

For example, you constantly try to convince readers here that I am ignorant because I point out the flaws in your molecular biological evolutionary story telling. That is purely a rhetorical attack, which has no rational value other than the attempt at prejudicial defense. You obviously know that, and you continue it. It reflects on you poorly.

If you actually had data which defeated my analyses of your stories, then you would not have to attempt to impugn my knowledge base - every attempt which fails at the brink of your evidence gap.

Anonymous said...

Socialism and Communism, they are a fraud.

Read "The useless Knowledge" (only in french or spanish) from Jean Francois Revel, or other books, like "Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era", "The Black Book of Communism" or "The Open Society and Its Enemies".

Stan said...

I have the last two, but not the first two...

Hugo Pelland said...

No, I am not saying you are ignorant because you point flaws in molecular biology. It's because of specific statements that you make. You refuse to even consider that 'some' of what you write might be wrong. And that causes you to use these false claims, even if there are very few, and go on and on and on about your faulty conclusions. If you were to just fix some small mistakes here and there, you might actually realize why there is so much bullshit on your blog. And no, this is not a rhetorical attack, not an attack on your character; that's what you do actually, when you say that Millennials cannot question their beliefs for instance, but that's beside the point. What I show are specific examples of FALSE claims that you make.

Here are 2 very specific examples:
1) On the Evolution thread, you asked which of the small dog/little dog scenario is not a canine anymore.
2) On the Abortion thread, you said that living things exhibit some sort of unexplained molecular behaviors that cannot be mapped to the four forces of physics.


These 2 things show that you misunderstand 2 key things in biology. Don't you see what's wrong with these 2 statements? Why do you refuse to retract/correct these statements? Don't you understand the implications of using such false claims to build rational arguments?

Stan said...

”No, I am not saying you are ignorant because you point flaws in molecular biology. It's because of specific statements that you make. You refuse to even consider that 'some' of what you write might be wrong.”

1. I don’t “point to flaws in molecular biology”; I point to misuse of molecular biology for ideological purposes. You completely misunderstand.

2. When any analysis is shown to be in evidential and/or logical error, I will admit it. Will you? You never seem to even acknowledge any error at all.

>And that causes you to use these false claims, even if there are very few, and go on and on and on about your faulty conclusions.”

Except that you are merely complaining because you cannot produce contrary evidence or logic which actually validates your claim of “falseness”. You strongly desire that the analyses are false; you do not prove them false by whining, though; valid logic and objective evidence is required. So now you are attacking me for requiring those elements, obviously because you do not have the ability to produce them. And that is the point.

That is purely the rhetoric of a weak position, unable to deal in the currency of dialectic.

”If you were to just fix some small mistakes here and there, you might actually realize why there is so much bullshit on your blog. And no, this is not a rhetorical attack, not an attack on your character; that's what you do actually, when you say that Millennials cannot question their beliefs for instance, but that's beside the point. What I show are specific examples of FALSE claims that you make.”

You, a professed millennial, have not questioned either of the major topics on this blog: The inherent failure of circularity in Atheism; the lack of objective knowledge via empirical non-falsification which is inherent in evolutionary theories of all types. You have given no indication of any intent of examining the arguments against these in any seriousness whatsoever; you read with the intent of rebuttal only, because of your locked down worldview based in circular Atheism.

Stan said...

"Here are 2 very specific examples:
1) On the Evolution thread, you asked which of the small dog/little dog scenario is not a canine anymore.
2) On the Abortion thread, you said that living things exhibit some sort of unexplained molecular behaviors that cannot be mapped to the four forces of physics.

These 2 things show that you misunderstand 2 key things in biology.


Then prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. All you do is say, “you’re wrong”. “Why don’t you admit that you’re wrong?” See? Here it comes:

“Don't you see what's wrong with these 2 statements? Why do you refuse to retract/correct these statements? Don't you understand the implications of using such false claims to build rational arguments?”

The problem is that you desperately need what you cannot have: justification for your logically erroneous worldview, a justification which is based (or at least gives an appearance of being based – until it is interrogated) in the rationality of objective evidence and/or faultless deductive logic. So when the obvious slaps you in the face, you loudly declare it wrong without either logic or evidence for supporting your claim. You NEED it to be wrong, but you don’t/can’t prove your claim.

Michael Ruse, in the forward to Angus Menuge’s analytical book, “Agents Under Fire; Materialism and the Rationality of Science”, said this:
”I disagree with just about everything that he says, and for that reason I want you to read his book. Partly because I think he is wrong, and I want him refuted. Partly because he makes a good case, and he is worth refuting.”

It is the refutation which counts, not the claim of falseness. (Ruse admits that he, himself, cannot refute Menuge’s logic).

Your persistent claims are without substance and meaning; thus, contra your other claim, they are, in fact, purely rhetoric, with no dialectic content – empty.

What you believe is different from what you can prove – completely and disastrously.

Stan said...

So. Hugo.
Use the next comment box to present your logic/evidence which refutes the two issues you brought up. Then we have something with content to discuss.

Just... Do It.

Hugo Pelland said...

Neither of the 2 things I listed are things that can be 'proven' per se; they refer to concepts that you misrepresented, because you seem to misunderstand them. It's like someone saying that 'addition is darker than multiplication'. How can you prove this wrong? By explaining that addition and multiplication are mathematical operations and that the term 'darker' does not apply, I suppose. But would that satisfy the request of someone insisting that addition is darker and saying 'Prove it! Prove it!'. I don't know, you tell me... because that's what the following explanations are.

1) On the Evolution thread, you asked which of the small dog/little dog scenario is not a canine anymore.

This shows a misunderstanding of Biology, and the Theory of Evolution, as the implication of your comment is that there is possibly such a switch between canine and non-canine and that switch is what would, somehow, make you see this as some evolutionary leap. However, biology tells us that animals of a certain species will always yield a member of their own species. A sudden jump from a canine to a non-canine, with a canine as a common ancestor, would actually go contrary to the Theory of Evolution. Yet, this is exactly what you asked for. You want to know where a canine will become a non-canine; this makes no sense.

2) On the Abortion thread, you said that living things exhibit some sort of unexplained molecular behaviors that cannot be mapped to the four forces of physics.

This shows a misunderstanding of Biology and the underlying Chemistry involved in differentiating living things from non-living things. I already linked on the other thread to a full scientific definition of what it means to be alive, biologically, and this definition is what you are contradicting by claiming that there is some sort of unexplained molecular behavior. The processes are well understood and, put simply, mostly have to do with movement and metabolism. When an organism is alive, it exchanges energy with its environment. When it dies, it stops the exchanges; the metabolism stops. The individual molecules that make up the organism might continue to live, on their own, for some time, but that usually does not last very long as the organism is what the individual cells depend for their survival; they get their energy from the organism. And, it can get tricky, when it comes to things like viruses, but it's not because there are some unexplained chemical reactions happening, nor because there is some magical essence of life; it's because the line between living and non-living things can be difficult to tell when an organism has most, but not all, of the characteristics common to all other living things.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.full
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikbw17vCRT0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8V4zexFn1Y

Hugo Pelland said...

Did that make sense, and was it focused on the points?

On to the rest of the commentary:
"1. I don’t “point to flaws in molecular biology”; I point to misuse of molecular biology for ideological purposes. You completely misunderstand."
Good point, you did say "point out the flaws in your molecular biological evolutionary story telling". This makes more sense actually.

"2. When any analysis is shown to be in evidential and/or logical error, I will admit it. Will you? You never seem to even acknowledge any error at all."
Sure, that sentence above is an example. The 95% of black moths was another good example; it raised good questions, even if I don't agree with conclusions. I also agree that there are some unfounded speculation in evolutionary theories. I also think that you brought a very good defense of the anti-abortion position without referring to spiritual souls that need to be saved, or because of the cuteness of a fetus. These are all things I learn by reading your point of views.

"You strongly desire that the analyses are false"
Can you read minds? Why would I desire something like the Theory of Evolution to be true? Because it supports Atheism? But I already told you, at least a dozen times, that it has nothing to do with Atheism. The Cathloic Church accepts the Theory of Evolution for Christ's sake (pun intended).

"So now you are attacking me for requiring those elements, obviously because you do not have the ability to produce them. "
I am pointing out mistakes that you make; false statements regarding biology. That's all. There is quite a lot that flows from it, but it's not relevant to the truth of these basic facts that you reject clearly because of nothing more than a misunderstanding of the science of biology.

"You, a professed millennial, "
Yes, I profess that I am in my thirties, LOL.

"have not questioned either of the major topics on this blog..."
That's why I am reading your blog... You need to tell that to people who DON'T read anything like your blog. This is ridiculous; you are telling someone who is actively discussing these topics that he is not questioning them, just because you don't like the conclusion I reach. You are wrong; it's not because we disagree and I contradict you all the time that I am doing this just for the sake of contradicting you. Again, can you read mind?

My position changed a lot over time actually; on every single thing you named here.

Stan said...

If you are not expressing your mind, what is it that you are expressing? Motivation is expressible in the direction of illogic.

And again, what is your proof, in disciplined logic and objective empirical evidence, that I am "wrong"? You again claim "wrong" and have nothing to support it. It's like a habit on the one hand, and like an ideological need on the other. Which is it?

Interesting. I could not tell any position change from your approach. What are your new positions, then?

Hugo Pelland said...

I am expressing my mind yes, but you pretended that you know what I am thinking and was wrong on two occasions. You said that (1) I desire the things we discuss here to be true, and (2) I have not questioned either of the major topics of this blog. So, I am telling you: no, that's not what I am thinking. There are things I wish were true; I would love to suddenly make more money or be able to easily learn Bengali and Hindi for instance. And I have questioned the topics of this blog; I told you that's why I am here, reading it, so often, but you had claimed the opposite. So I am simply explaining you what you got wrong in your "mind reading".

Regarding what you are wrong about, I don't know what you don't know. I gave detailed explanations above regarding the 2 specific things you said, which were factually wrong. Which one is not clear to you, should you one to focus on one first? These things are not my opinion, they are not ideology, they are not controversial; they are facts of biology.

Examples of positions that changed would include:
- I used to think that certain restrictions on Free Speech is acceptable, like we have in Canada, I am now more in favor of the American way of not punishing any kind of speech. Ironically, it's the US that we see more backlash from various entities, private or public, regarding free speech.
- I thought that 'social justice' and 'feminism' were de facto good things and that anyone trying to work for them is doing something good. I realized that's it'a way more complicated than that and that there is a huge conflict not only between the so-called SJW and other Liberals, but also between Conservatives who are more or less libertarians.
- I did not know of any rational argumentation against abortion at any moment starting at conception. I still reject those arguments, but my position used to be that there is not even an argument at all. I thought the only arguments were the "easy" ones of showing pictures of 4-month old fetus and saying 'omg look it's a baby, why are you killing it'.
- I thought everyone who rejected evolution was necessarily a creationist, or a proponent of some form of intelligent design; I now understand that there is an agnostic position in the middle. Again, that's not really changing my position here, but it's a change nonetheless, one that does influence my own position.
- My position on Islam has changed. I used to think it was just like the other religions; I now see several differences and think it's by far the worse, out of the big popular religions. Your blog had a big impact on that one I think, but I am not sure if it's actually more because of Sam Harris' commentaries on the topic.
- I changed my opinion of what it means to be a Conservative in the USA. It is not as tied to religion as I used to think. Your blog and I think especially what you link to made me understand that there are more groups within that large group.
- And thinking of Atheism in general, way way back, several years ago, I was not a Philosophical Materialist at all. I thought it was silly to claim that non-material things don't exist. That's not how I see it anymore; I think that was the wrong way of seeing Materialism. I changed that position in part because of your blog, but not in the direction that you advocate for. But again, it's still a change, a questioning of my position because of what I read here. There are lots of smaller details that could be listed too but that's the general idea.

Stan said...

interesting, and thanks.

Stan said...

So as for Atheism and evolution, your positions have not changed, then? It appears that you have fortified them, if anything. What is your current justification for each?

Stan said...

I say, "want them to be true", because you accept them based on no objective, empirical falsifiable evidence. In order to do that, you would have to want them to be true. The benefits are plentiful and material. The detriment is in having a worldview that's not based in falsifiable rationality. There are trade-offs to everything; that's the Atheist/evolution trade-off.

Hugo Pelland said...

Great, I'm glad you asked about which of my positions changed over time, and that I could give some examples.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi, for the next two comments:

Stan said...
"So as for Atheism and evolution, your positions have not changed, then? It appears that you have fortified them, if anything. What is your current justification for each?"

That's a bit of an unfair question, isn't it? We had hours of discussions on the topics, you have an entire blog dedicated to the topic of Atheism, though you write probably 95% of the time about other things, so there is no short answer to such open ended questions. If you have something specific, please ask, but I am almost done here.

That being said, the short answer to each of these 1-line question is:

- I don't consider that I "believe" in evolution; my position is one of knowledge. There are so many things that we know about evolution that we cannot un-learn them. I know you see this as dogma, or as an insult, but if you were to just learn more about it, you would certainly change your mind. And it would have absolutely no impact on any of your other beliefs, as evolution cannot be used as an argument to disprove God. It only proves Young-Earth Creationism wrong.

- I do believe pretty strongly that there are no gods. But I would never ever pretend that I know there is no god, nor that it's impossible for any gods to exist. I was raised Catholic and progressively realized that I was never given any reasons to believe; things were the way they were, just because. I remember my parents for instance mentioning how we believe that Jesus is the son of God, but Jews don't believe that. It struck me one day, I don't know when, that this thing of 'we believe' was actually just some sort of social construct that we are taught. At the same time, or before, or after, I don't remember honestly, I started to use the internet a lot more on my own, around the year 2002 I believe. I always loved science stuff so I was looking at Youtube videos on scientific topics an noticed the debates regarding religion in the comment sections.

I never thought that religion could be such in conflict with science. I got curious about it, slowly realized that my religion did not stood up to scrutiny and slowly realized that I actually did not really believe God existed. After 15 year of reading on the topic, all I found was arguments supporting that feeling that was very awkward at first, but now seems so obvious. It's too bad because, unlike what you imply, I think it would great if there were a god of some sort, as it usually implies that there is some sort of afterlife too. But I just don't see any reason to believe that. It sucks, I wish it was the case. Maybe that's why I keep reading so much about it. I am kind of obsessed about the fact that I would love to be proven wrong. I really wish it was true that there is a God!

Hugo Pelland said...

"I say, "want them to be true", because you accept them based on. In order to do that, you would have to want them to be true. The benefits are plentiful and material. The detriment is in having a worldview that's not based in falsifiable rationality. There are trade-offs to everything; that's the Atheist/evolution trade-off."

So, I think the above might explain why this is meaningless to me. I did not base my Atheism on anything; it's really just because I am not convinced by the arguments I hear. At the same time, one thing you convinced me of Stan, is that it's not fair for Atheists to stop there every single time. When there is an opportunity to engage, we should take it and acknowledge that there are arguments out there, there is evidence presented. I just don't think it adds up. And, I know it sounds arrogant, but I am a very rational and logical person, too much sometimes, so the fact that I am not convinced after trying so hard is getting me very close to the point where I say 'that's it, I am done with this, nothing will ever convince me'. Since I have to stop commenting/reading blogs very soon, this might happen within the next month...

As for the benefits, I am not sure what they are. I guess there is the notion that when we don't believe in God, we can argue that anything we do in secret, as long as we don't get caught, is fine. But that's what people who believe in God do too all the time... Plus, I do believe there is such a thing as an objective morality. Things are either good or evil, with some shades in between in many cases. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether what I do is being watched by a morality giver or not, I know that some things I do are bad, and I know that some things I do are good. I also know that I don't know whether some things are good or bad, just like I don't know if everything I think is true, really is true. Just like anyone else, I am trying to figure it out. And one way is to talk to people like you Stan, even if you are so infuriating at times, hehehe :)

And since you wrote "Atheist/evolution trade-off", I must say that I really don't get what the benefits of accepting evolutions are, except if you are a biologist wanting to work in the field without being laughed at... Again, this is not an opinion, this is not a belief, what we know about evolution is knowledge, for sure; there are details that are unclear, some mechanisms that are unknown, some hierarchy that are not complete, and so on, but the basic premises have been proven and cannot possibly get reversed anymore. The proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit will never be found, if you know what I am referring to.

But I would like to know what you really think Stan, behind all of these claims of dogma and beliefs based on nothing, on no objective, empirical falsifiable evidence. Because I do get it, to a certain extent, for Atheism. Nothing can prove that there is no God so you are possible right. However, for Evolution, the only thing I heard you say is "I don't know". Don't you think it's time to know? What do you have to lose exactly?

Steven Satak said...

Hugo, you're full of it. Admit it for once. This place is your entertainment, where you go running in circles and pulling chairs in front of Stan.

You look like a fool, and a delusional fool at that. I know you think insults = rational argument, because I've watched you dancing for the past 25 comments.

I don't expect you to act like a man for five seconds, based on what I say. But I DO want others reading this to understand that there are people who read this blog who recognize your nonsense for what it is, Hugo.

It isn't hard to do.

Stan said...

” I don't consider that I "believe" in evolution; my position is one of knowledge. There are so many things that we know about evolution that we cannot un-learn them. I know you see this as dogma, or as an insult, but if you were to just learn more about it, you would certainly change your mind.”

You come from a position of complete ignorance regarding my position, which you say you read, yet you never comment on or address – it’s like the plague: don’t touch. Here it is for the N^Pth time:

1. If a premise regarding material existence is not falsifiable, replicable and both not falsified and is replicated with open data including all procedures – only then, and no other time, is that premise robust enough to be considered “contingent fact”. NOT “fact”; ”contingent fact.

2. I have asked repeatedly for such a premise (as in #1) for evolution, which supports any, ANY type of evolution which produces an all-new organ, limb, or other member, which is beneficial to the living entity which produced it, including the knowledge of the molecular change, the exact product of that molecular change, the proof that the product of that change produced the new organ/limb/member which is useful and selectable.

3. None of that is forthcoming, not from you or from anywhere. All – ALL – of the purported evidence is falsely asserted as valid evidence which, as you indicate, cannot be denied. Well, of course it can be denied because it has no evidentiary strength in terms of objective knowledge. It is all a house of cards. Maybe it’s a large house of cards, but that’s all it is, nonetheless.

4. As always, your claim of my ignorance is a claim of ignorance on your part – ignorance of what is involved in claims of Truth – especially attached to ideologies.

5. the challenge to you has always been: provide Objective Evidence to support your claims. You have not done so, because there is none.

6. Therefore, what you accept as undeniable, is not only deniable, it has no actual substance.

” It's too bad because, unlike what you imply, I think it would great if there were a god of some sort, as it usually implies that there is some sort of afterlife too. But I just don't see any reason to believe that."

”So, I think the above might explain why this is meaningless to me. I did not base my Atheism on anything; it's really just because I am not convinced by the arguments I hear.”


[…]

”I am not convinced after trying so hard is getting me very close to the point where I say 'that's it, I am done with this, nothing will ever convince me'.”

Stan said...

That might be the final case for you. If you have no reasons or reasoning for rejecting arguments, and require none, then that would be your natural conclusion.

”As for the benefits, I am not sure what they are.

Sure you do. You get to be the ultimate moral authority for whatever you decide your morals are. That’s why I am certain that Obama is an Atheist. He said the equivalent of that very thing. Regardless, that benefit allows the Atheist to never, ever be anything but morally correct. In your case, you are convinced that you have the moral authority of deciding which humans to dehumanize for the purpose of eradication. You claim that my dissent from that position is irrational. That is the logic you use. There is logic and there is Aristotelian, disciplined, tested, grounded logic. Two different animals.

”I guess there is the notion that when we don't believe in God, we can argue that anything we do in secret, as long as we don't get caught, is fine. But that's what people who believe in God do too all the time... “

First you can’t pull a Tu Quoque like that here. Second, it is not true; it is a false generalization.

Plus, I do believe there is such a thing as an objective morality. Things are either good or evil, with some shades in between in many cases.

That is a two sentence contradiction: a type II paradox. If there is no objective morality, then there is no good or evil, except as you, personally define them. That means that it is subjective, relative and in no manner applicable to anyone but yourself.

”Therefore, it doesn't matter whether what I do is being watched by a morality giver or not, I know that some things I do are bad, and I know that some things I do are good.”

By whose standards are they good/bad? Your own? If not your own, then sez who?

”I also know that I don't know whether some things are good or bad, just like I don't know if everything I think is true, really is true.”

Truth has a logical definition, and a logical path, with grounding, not circularity toward Appeal to Self.

”Just like anyone else, I am trying to figure it out. And one way is to talk to people like you Stan, even if you are so infuriating at times, hehehe :)”

I’m glad to infuriate you… Any ol’ time, just log in.

”And since you wrote "Atheist/evolution trade-off", I must say that I really don't get what the benefits of accepting evolutions are, except if you are a biologist wanting to work in the field without being laughed at...”

Actually, it’s almost impossible for a vocal opponent of evolution to get employment as a biologist. Need documentation?

The benefits include the elitism of Dawkins, who said that evolution makes Atheism … how did that go? Hang on, gotta look it up.

Dawkins: ” Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

Without Darwinism, Atheism has no creation story, and the Big Bang acts as a falsifier for Atheism as Einstein found out, so he gave it up.

Stan said...

”Again, this is not an opinion, this is not a belief, what we know about evolution is knowledge, for sure; there are details that are unclear, some mechanisms that are unknown, some hierarchy that are not complete, and so on, but the basic premises have been proven and cannot possibly get reversed anymore. The proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit will never be found, if you know what I am referring to.

And yet, neither you nor anyone has provided a single mote of objective falsifiable empirical fact. And in terms of the hierarchies, none of them are complete, all of them have dotted lines (assumptions of relationships which do not actually exist in the fossil record).

”But I would like to know what you really think Stan, behind all of these claims of dogma and beliefs based on nothing, on no objective, empirical falsifiable evidence.

It is not necessary to have an opinion when there is not enough valid, credible evidence to support a conclusion. It cannot be known with anything resembling objective knowledge, and that is the honest answer based on the state of “evolution”. The fact that all anomalies are explained away with evermore complex excuses should be a clue that there is something wrong with the Dawkins fever pitch claims of TRUTH beyond questioning except by fools, ignoranti, and criminals. Ever more epicycles.

” Because I do get it, to a certain extent, for Atheism. Nothing can prove that there is no God so you are possible right.”

OK. Sounds like agnosticism to me.

”However, for Evolution, the only thing I heard you say is "I don't know". Don't you think it's time to know? What do you have to lose exactly?”

Why should I sacrifice my intellectual integrity to make claims which cannot possibly contain any truth value? That’s precisely what I fight against. ”…it’s time to know?” Consider how absurd that sounds. It is asking me to accept a non-objective dogma as knowledge, not to find truth… a commodity which is not available for the unfalsifiable claims of Darwin and Dawkins and their evolutionary cohorts.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan,

There were 3 things brought up in your last comment essentially.

1) Atheism. You are correct, it is mostly a case of Agnosticism; I don't know whether gods, or God, or some other God, exist. And I don't believe people who claim there is a God, so I am an Atheist. There are tons and tons of reasons and arguments to support that position.

2) Morality. Since I believe in an objective morality, it means, by definition, that I don't think I am to decide what is right or wrong. Yet, you keep insisting the exact opposite. Unless you can agree on the fact that we do agree on that, there is no further comment possible on that topic.

3) Evolution. I read these requests before. The problem is that they are not valid. It's the same as the statement regarding canines that I mentioned above. You have still not addressed that; you made a false statement. Why are you not acknowledging that? Either try to explain why you think you were right, or try to understand why you were wrong. You expressed neither, so I don't even know where you stand.

More specifically:
"I have asked repeatedly for such a premise (as in #1) for evolution, which supports any, ANY type of evolution which produces an all-new organ, limb, or other member, which is beneficial to the living entity which produced it, including the knowledge of the molecular change, the exact product of that molecular change, the proof that the product of that change produced the new organ/limb/member which is useful and selectable."

Why should the field of biology submits itself to YOUR desires for what YOU consider to be proof? What you are asking is (almost) impossible to give; we don't even have the technology to do so, and mutations are not that clear cut. The genome of organism is constantly changing a little by little so it's hard to pinpoint exactly that 1 molecular change that caused that 1 deformed limb to grow. Plus, huge jumps such as an "all-new organ, limb, or other member" are extremely rare, if not just downright never happening, depending on how significant the change you are looking for needs to be.

Hugo Pelland said...

The example of the black moth was actually very close to what you asked; but because of that 5% of the time where the gene was not found, you concluded that there is a giant conspiracy of dumb scientists reaching false conclusions. Someone replied to my comment by the way, and it made me realize that I was wrong; the hypothesis of convergent evolution is actually also very probable given mutations tend to 'break' something rather than 'fix' something. Hence, it makes sense that, assuming the color white is the "working" conditions, there would be other mutations that "broke" that condition and caused the moths to turn black. It's a simpler solution actually; not more complex as you claimed.

The bigger issue though is that we don't need to prove the kind of things you are asking about, in order to know that mutations do cause "all-new organ, limb, or other members" to appear over time. Here's the very simple deduction:
1) 'A' has a tail
2) 'B' does not have a tail
3) 'C' is a common ancestor to both 'A' and 'B'
4) 'C' does not have a tail
5) Hence, some genetic mutation caused a tail so grow on some descendants of 'C'
The logic is sound and the challenge is thus to prove Premise #3; that's the hard part. Proving what the exact molecular change to yield a tail is meaningless. Yet, that's what you keep insisting on. OTH, even if it's difficult, we do have solid evidence of common ancestry between millions and millions of species, for tons of different reasons. The last time I brought this up, it was here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245#c906302534183366384

" Why should I sacrifice my intellectual integrity to make claims which cannot possibly contain any truth value? That’s precisely what I fight against. ”…it’s time to know?” Consider how absurd that sounds. It is asking me to accept a non-objective dogma as knowledge, not to find truth… a commodity which is not available for the unfalsifiable claims of Darwin and Dawkins and their evolutionary cohorts."

Of course, that's the right approach. But the Theory of Evolution IS based on empirical, objective, falsifiable scientific facts. You are sacrificing your intellectual integrity by not doing yourself the favor of actually learning about the facts of biological evolutions and how they are put together in the Theory of Evolution. Again, I must bring back this thing with the canine. This is an example of a FACT of evolution, of biology, which you misrepresented, because you just don't understand, it seems. If you don't understand that fact, you cannot possible accept the rest of the facts nor the theory. Hence, why aren't you correcting these demonstrably false beliefs? Where's your intellectual integrity.

Stan said...



”More specifically:
"I have asked repeatedly for such a premise (as in #1) for evolution, which supports any, ANY type of evolution which produces an all-new organ, limb, or other member, which is beneficial to the living entity which produced it, including the knowledge of the molecular change, the exact product of that molecular change, the proof that the product of that change produced the new organ/limb/member which is useful and selectable."

Why should the field of biology submits itself to YOUR desires for what YOU consider to be proof?”


PERFECT ANSWER! In Evolution, the definition of validity and proof are totally and completely relative, aren’t they? No stinking standards are required. If you have no actual material, testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, then you make the claim that those “nicety” things such as actual empirical standards are NO LONGER REQUIRED, and that the standards are now all-new and Darwinian opinion-based: OPINION=TRUTH. And furthermore, that is the new definition of “science” and “empirical”. It’s the modern update to science. The old way is so… in the way of declaring TRUTH. You have nailed it!!

And note this: Modern Biology absolutely DOES accept direct testing and non-falsification as its standard, with the notable exception of EVOLUTIONARY biology which is not even real biology, it is pretend anthropology for historical life: it should not be called biology at all. It should be called evolupology. It is exactly rhetorical apologetics for the fossil record, based only on extrapolations and subjective opinion and not on the standards used by reputable sciences.

Stan said...

”2) Morality. Since I believe in an objective morality, it means, by definition, that I don't think I am to decide what is right or wrong. Yet, you keep insisting the exact opposite.”

What I ask you, again, is what is the material object that is the “object-ive” source of your morality? And why is it not obvious to all who see that object? Or if it is not an object, then what is it and how is it to be considered “object-ive”? And what are those “object-ive” moral principles???

”3) Evolution. I read these requests before. The problem is that they are not valid. It's the same as the statement regarding canines that I mentioned above. You have still not addressed that; you made a false statement.”

The requests are perfectly valid; every theory of scientific fact, except for evolution and cosmology, absolutely require direct testing of the hypothesis, and non-falsification. If you reject direct testing and non-falsification of the hypothesis, then you are rejecting Objective Knowledge. All of Einstein’s hypotheses have been tested and non-falsified. That IS the process. There is no direct testing of the hypotheses of mutation as it “caused” the fossil record. There is no direct testing of the rise of the first living thing from dead minerals. There is no direct testing of the mutation in the common ancestor which caused the Cambrian Explosion. There is no direct testing of any evolutionary Just So Story. They are all fiction; all of them. It is patently obvious. It is self-evident. No direct testing means no objective knowledge – only subjective opinion, based loosely on modern biology.

I asked a question, which you take as a statement, and call it false. The question remains: Which of the two is not a dog? You claim this is false. A question cannot be false; a conclusion can be false. You’re definition of what is true and valid vs. what is false, is far outside the bounds of logic and rational thought. But it is in keeping with evolutionary principles of thought and fact. So answer the question.

” Why are you not acknowledging that? Either try to explain why you think you were right, or try to understand why you were wrong.” You expressed neither, so I don't even know where you stand.

Then, if you don’t know, why do you constantly say that I’m wrong and ignorant? Why don’t YOU answer the question? That way we would have a CONCLUSION to discuss. Are they dogs or not? If not what are they? You claim it’s false because you have no answer? That’s the obvious take-away.

Stan said...

”More specifically:
"I have asked repeatedly for such a premise (as in #1) for evolution, which supports any, ANY type of evolution which produces an all-new organ, limb, or other member, which is beneficial to the living entity which produced it, including the knowledge of the molecular change, the exact product of that molecular change, the proof that the product of that change produced the new organ/limb/member which is useful and selectable."

Why should the field of biology submits itself to YOUR desires for what YOU consider to be proof?”


PERFECT ANSWER! In Evolution, the definition of validity and proof are totally and completely relative, aren’t they? No stinking standards are required. If you have no actual material, testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence, then you make the claim that those “nicety” things such as actual empirical standards are NO LONGER REQUIRED, and that the standards are now all-new and Darwinian opinion-based: OPINION=TRUTH. And furthermore, that is the new definition of “science” and “empirical”. It’s the modern update to science. The old way is so… in the way of declaring TRUTH. You have nailed it!!

And note this: Modern Biology absolutely DOES accept direct testing and non-falsification as its standard, with the notable exception of EVOLUTIONARY biology which is not even real biology, it is pretend anthropology for historical life: it should not be called biology at all. It should be called evolupology. It is exactly rhetorical apologetics for the fossil record, based only on extrapolations and subjective opinion and not on the standards used by reputable sciences.

”What you are asking is (almost) impossible to give; we don't even have the technology to do so, and mutations are not that clear cut.”

Of course! Now you’re getting (closer to) it! Congrats!
Only by redefining “knowledge” away from, “Objective empirical generation of contingent knowledge”, to now be Special Pleading for the new definition of knowledge, which is: “opinion” can evolution be falsely leveraged into “knowledge”.

Stan said...

”The genome of organism is constantly changing a little by little so it's hard to pinpoint exactly that 1 molecular change that caused that 1 deformed limb to grow.”

Deformed limbs do not have any applicability to evolutionary claims: they are anti-evolutionary because the entropy overcomes any possibility of selectable complex changes occurring due to mutation collections in amino acids or morphology instructions. The deleterious mutations outnumber the neutral mutation so significantly that virtually none are saved; the deleterious mutations outnumber the beneficial mutations by roughly infinity to 1. We’ve been through this before.

”Plus, huge jumps such as an "all-new organ, limb, or other member" are extremely rare, if not just downright never happening…”

Not so. That’s precisely the reason that the Cambrian Explosion falsifies the whole shebang: Many, many complexities arising very rapidly from a single mutated cell. Probability = indiscernible from zero.

”depending on how significant the change you are looking for needs to be.”

I ask only for what the fossil record shows.

”The example of the black moth was actually very close to what you asked; but because of that 5% of the time where the gene was not found, you concluded that there is a giant conspiracy of dumb scientists reaching false conclusions.”

What I actually conclude is that so much of science demands the “big find” and “Hot papers” giving the institution visibility and funding, that the temptation to disregard actual material limitations to those data presented by the existing facts is frequently violated – especially in an environment where “story telling as TRUTH”, where the conclusion is always presupposed automatically anyway. Dishonesty begets dishonesty in a dishonest culture which rewards dishonesty and regards dishonesty as scientific TRUTH. It’s a cultural defect within Darwinian institutional structures.

” Someone replied to my comment by the way, and it made me realize that I was wrong; the hypothesis of convergent evolution is actually also very probable given mutations tend to 'break' something rather than 'fix' something.”

Good grief. Show the probability calculations, please. NO. nononono. Show the actual mutation, what it actually did between molecular change and consequence chain, and on to the final effect, and then show what the 5% actually did molecularly to accomplish the same thing without the presumptive necessary mutation found in the 95%. Anything else, like claiming “probability” with no calculation based on known phenomena, is just blather.

Stan said...

”Hence, it makes sense”

This phrase is always followed by a rationalization, and never by facts, especially not non-falsified objective test results producing objective knowledge.

”… that, assuming the color white is the "working" conditions, there would be other mutations that "broke" that condition and caused the moths to turn black. It's a simpler solution actually; not more complex as you claimed.”

Additional conditions fabricated to fill in the missing data always add complexity. And the additions never add to actual knowledge of the actual process: from molecular cause to observed final effect.

”The bigger issue though is that we don't need to prove the kind of things you are asking about, in order to know that mutations do cause "all-new organ, limb, or other members" to appear over time. Here's the very simple deduction:
1) 'A' has a tail
2) 'B' does not have a tail
3) 'C' is a common ancestor to both 'A' and 'B'
4) 'C' does not have a tail
5) Hence, some genetic mutation caused a tail so grow on some descendants of 'C'
The logic is sound and the challenge is thus to prove Premise #3; that's the hard part.”


It’s good that you now acknowledge “hard”. Next let’s shoot for “impossible”. But you won’t because of this complete lapse:

”Proving what the exact molecular change to yield a tail is meaningless.”

So the precise cause for the effect has no meaning?? I think you have put your finger on the theory of evolution in its entirety! Cause/Effect is meaningless. Therefore: evolution.

Stan said...

” Yet, that's what you keep insisting on. OTH, even if it's difficult, we do have solid evidence of common ancestry between millions and millions of species, for tons of different reasons. The last time I brought this up, it was here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245#c906302534183366384”


Then why are ALL lineages on reputable trees-of-life all connected with dotted lines, indicating unknown connections? And why do common feature sets in complex animals indicate the incredible fortuitousness of magical (undefinable in terms of material process) “convergent evolution”? In actuality, the randomness of mutation (undirected and non-teleological by definition, of course, not by factual elimination) would absolutely preclude any similar path to massive complexity in completely isolated environs. Unless, of course, teleology is allowed, but it is not, by diktat.

”" Why should I sacrifice my intellectual integrity to make claims which cannot possibly contain any truth value? That’s precisely what I fight against. ”…it’s time to know?” Consider how absurd that sounds. It is asking me to accept a non-objective dogma as knowledge, not to find truth… a commodity which is not available for the unfalsifiable claims of Darwin and Dawkins and their evolutionary cohorts."

Of course, that's the right approach. But the Theory of Evolution IS based on empirical, objective, falsifiable scientific facts.”


That is demonstrably false. Any such facts relate purely to the existing biology of modern life. There are no equivalents in evolutionary theory, only extrapolations based on opinion.

”You are sacrificing your intellectual integrity by not doing yourself the favor of actually learning about the facts of biological evolutions and how they are put together in the Theory of Evolution.”

I have been researching evolution, biology and microbiology since way before you got out of puberty. I counter-claim that you accept internal contradictions, extrapolations and outright fabrications as TRUTH, and you have no qualms about it. Further, no matter what “evidence” you have presented here, I was able to refute outright, because none of it – none – stands up to the scrutiny of the demands of disciplined empirical science for production of actual knowledge rather than opinion.

It is your opinion that opinion is TRUTH; it obviously is not.

So your persistent claims of my ignorance need to stop right here. You have produced NO objective knowledge; you have produced only your OPINION that you have some, somewhere, not here of course, but somewhere, and if I could find it, THEN I would understand why opinion is TRUTH.

” Again, I must bring back this thing with the canine. This is an example of a FACT of evolution, of biology, which you misrepresented, because you just don't understand, it seems.

Just shut up with this crap and answer the question: are they dogs or not, and if not, then what are they? Say out loud what they are if they are not dogs. WHAT ARE THEY?

”If you don't understand that fact, you cannot possible accept the rest of the facts nor the theory.”

It is not a fact. You have said exactly nothing. There is no fact even stated. You have not said whether the animals are still dogs, or if not, exactly what they are. Nor have you said anything which provides objective knowledge that genetic drift within a given genome produces new organs, limbs, or significant changes outside the existing genome. Until you can show that, empirically, objectively, falsifiably, then you are merely engaging in rhetoric – as above. In fact, that is what evolution amounts to: a large body of rhetoric, sans dialectic.

Hence, why aren't you correcting these demonstrably false beliefs? Where's your intellectual integrity.

Because they aren’t beliefs; they are observable, replicable, falsifiable facts and questions about supposed “facts”. That’s what I base my personal intellectual integrity upon.

Stan said...

I'm pretty sue that you don't really believe the stuff that you say. You go directly against the need for falsifiable validation of claims in order to believe them. You did it so blatantly that if you actually believe that, then you are certifiably irrational. You also claim that you believe evolution because of its undeniable truth, and that to deny its undeniable truth is, itself, irrational or ignorant. You produce no valid proof, yourself, never a deduction which you haven't debunked on your own, never any molecular evidence of historical evolution. You even know that it can't be done. Yet you persist in charges of ignorance for pointing out the entirely obvious and self-evident.

Why not go ahead and admit at this point that you consider yourself a clever troll? There seems to be no other explanation. Denying the very definition of Objective knowledge in order to preserve evolution is a serious deviation from rationality.

I'm serious. Why not admit that you're just messing with us/me?

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan, I believe everything I write here. I am using my real name and even share bits and pieces of my personal life sometimes. The main problem is one of communication I believe. As I often repeat, we don't even agree on what we disagree on. Two of the clearest example came with your last set of comments.

1) You asked: "what is the material object that is the “object-ive” source of your morality? And why is it not obvious to all who see that object?" All this time you thought I was talking about morality based on an 'object'? But what I said was that objective morality contrasts with subjective morality in that it does not depend on the subjective opinion of anyone. Nothing to do with an 'object'; everything to do with objectivity-vs-subjectivity. Moral relativists think that morality is subjective, subjected to the whim of the people involved. I think the opposite; there is such a thing as moral truths, just like truths in general, which are not influenced by people's opinions. So, it's a communication issue; we were not talking about the same thing.

2) After I asked why should biology submit to your requests, you answered: " PERFECT ANSWER! In Evolution, the definition of validity and proof are totally and completely relative, aren’t they? No stinking standards are required." So this is another communication issue; I implied exactly the opposite: there are standards of validity and facts are not relative to our opinions. But you insist on asking for a specific proof which cannot be made, hence I am trying to explain why 'your' request, yours Stan, what you defined, is a subjective view that does not fit with the objective contingent facts of biology.

I would love to understand what can be done to conclude this conversation on a more civilized note. If you are not interested, no problem. And I insist that the only thing I would argue you should absolutely change your mind on is the Theory of Evolution.

Stan said...

”I think the opposite; there is such a thing as moral truths, just like truths in general, which are not influenced by people's opinions.”

I referred to “object-ive” morals, because in your universe, everything is material. Period. That is what Materialism is. So any moral Objective “Truth” must be, in fact, a physical entity which is available to everyone to see, touch, feel, and know exists. Otherwise it is merely someone’s opinion.

This is why I think your comments are suspect: the dots remain unconnected. Whether this is on purpose, I can’t say.

For example, for all my talk about moral authority, you do not present any overarching moral authority by which these principles are called objective truths. If there is no moral source which is recognizable by everyone, a source with the capability to declare universal truths AND to enforce those truths with consequences, then there is no reason to think that these “truths” are anything other than personal ethical opinions: subjective.

And further, you do not present a list of these objective moral principles which you perceive to be Truths.

Stan said...

”there are standards of validity and facts are not relative to our opinions. But you insist on asking for a specific proof which cannot be made, hence I am trying to explain why 'your' request, yours Stan, what you defined, is a subjective view that does not fit with the objective contingent facts of biology.”

The standards for Objective Knowledge are not mine; they have been produced by John Locke, David Hume, Francis Bacon, and multitudes of other philosophers of science, including the originators of the Enlightenment. What you claim to be my personal issue is in fact the issue of the entire body of the empirical sciences vs non-empirical, opinion-based non-science: primarily evolution. And when you and your co-evolutionists declare Special Pleading for your beliefs that evolution has “facts” which don’t meet the standards for actual fact, you demonstrate the irrationality of the Ideology which evolution has become – or rather as it was created by its icon, Charles Darwin. Darwin made it acceptable to pervert the scientific method by creating deductions that are necessarily stillborn, unable to proceed to the necessary process of validation and non-falsification, with replicable processes and data for objective verification. AND it is forever based in narrative only, not in actual cause/effect.

That, THAT, is what evolution proponents call fact. And you are wrong about the biology: evolution is NOT biology. Evolution is a pretense of USING biology in the creation of science fiction. Modern biology, from Linnaeus and Mendel onward used empirical methods which carry forward to Modern Biology of today. Evolution DOES NOT. It cannot. It will not – ever.

Evolution is sacred as the Atheist creation story; that is why it is protected BY LAW against other insurgencies. That is legal Special Pleading for a declared status of “science” for what is actually a non-science. Your Special Pleading is obvious above: evolution just cannot produce any actual evidence. But it is “fact”, anyway.

That this not only doesn’t bother you, no matter how many times it is pointed out, plus the defense you make that empirical scientific requirements are a) unfair, b) just Stan’s personal subjective requirements, c) are compatible with real, Modern Biology, demonstrates volumes about your thought process and deeply held ideological dogmatic beliefs.

And despite all this, you “insist” that I change my mind on evolution. Evolution is without content. It is without cause and effect. It is totally without hope of falsification. The probabilities are functionally zero. That’s what you insist that I accept.

You go ahead and believe without me.
I'll stick with rational conclusions.

Stan said...

I'm moving my last comment over to the evolution discussion, left hand column. Let's continue there.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan said...

"I referred to “object-ive” morals, because in your universe, everything is material. Period. That is what Materialism is."

No, that's not accurate. Abstract things exist under Materialism. They are not material in the sense you imply here, made clear in the next sentence:

"So any moral Objective “Truth” must be, in fact, a physical entity which is available to everyone to see, touch, feel, and know exists."

Truth is abstract; you cannot see, touch feel it, yet we know it exists. It does not contradict Materialism.

"Otherwise it is merely someone’s opinion."

Opinions and fact are both non-material; that's not against Materialism.

"This is why I think your comments are suspect: the dots remain unconnected. Whether this is on purpose, I can’t say."

That's because we disagree on what it means for moral truths to be objective. However, we do agree what it means for truths, in general to be objective. At least I think... Don't you agree that:
- Subjective opinions depend on the person holding the opinion; it's their personal preference/choice/position.
- Objective facts are the logical opposite, they are non-subjective; facts are what they are regardless of the person's opinion, of any person's opinion.
?

These are definitions that I thought we agree on, that everybody agrees on actually.

However, when it comes to morality, you present a different picture:

Hugo Pelland said...

"you do not present any overarching moral authority by which these principles are called objective truths. If there is no moral source which is recognizable by everyone, a source with the capability to declare universal truths AND to enforce those truths with consequences, then there is no reason to think that these “truths” are anything other than personal ethical opinions: subjective. "

The beginning is correct; I do not present any 'moral authority' because that directly goes against the notion of objectivity. Presumably, when you mention 'authority', you are referring to a kind of 'person', or a body of 'people'. At least, that's what an 'authority' is in our everyday lives... is it different here? It seems to me that it must be different because, if there were some authority deciding what is morally right, then morality would be what this authority's opinion is. It would be subjective.

Moreover, you mention that this source should be 'recognizable by everyone'. This also goes against the notion of objectivity since objective truths don't depend on 'everyone' or 'anyone' at all. Objective truths don't depend on anybody's opinion; they don't need to be recognizable by everyone, by definition. They are what they are, regardless of anyone. They are actually true regardless of whether anyone even exist.

"And further, you do not present a list of these objective moral principles which you perceive to be Truths"

Objective moral principles are based on objective concepts such as justice, fairness, equality, correctness, empathy, compassion, responsibilities, etc... and contrast with other concepts such as revenge, selfishness, abuse, manipulations, exploitation, hypocrisy,

Atheists and Theists can agree on these principles and both agree that there are objective moral truths based on exactly the same source. The difference is that Theists will either (1) claim that this source is what God wants, as an authority, which make it subjective and kills the argument instantly, like you did. Or, (2) Theists will claim that God is justice, is fairness, etc... and that these objective concepts are what they are because they reflect God's nature. I think that second option is a pretty clever way of putting it, and it creates a common ground to work with. But, why do you pick option (1)?

For example, both the Atheist and Theist can try to figure out what is Justice, as whole, or whether an action is just or not, under certain circumstances. The Atheist who accepts the existence of objective moral truths is trying to find what Justice is in the context of our natural existence, period. The Theist also tries to figure out what's Justice in the context of our natural existence, but as a comparison to what Justice is as part of God's character. The Atheist claims that Justice is what it is because of the natural world existence; the Theist claims it it was it is because of God's nature and tries to figure out what in the natural world matches that nature.