There will be widescale rioting after Zimmerman verdict. Debunk, please

Joe Newman

Active Member
I'm not here to debate opinions. I guess this bothers Joe.

Not in the least. I am not here to debate with you. I'm not even talking to you. I'm using your replies as a platform in order to talk to others. You can't hear. That's clear. Perhaps they can, perhaps not. But my posts, long as they are, are not for the consumption of those who mock them. They are for all those lurkers who want to learn about stuff but don't want to tangle with the wranglers here. Ever wonder why there are always 10 times more lurkers listed than actual posters? The way you guys mash noobs is why.

Some would rather not go through that for expressing honest doubt. I'm ok with it, so I'm taking their place and opening up stuff so they can see what is going on and decide for themselves instead of you guys making their decisions for them. Contrary opinions are only allowed here as bunkerball practice. Your team unity on every opinion is legendary. Yet you all believe you are freethinkers and come to your own opinions by merely examining the facts. Sounds great inside the tent, but outside the tent folks can see that somehow with all that independence, you all think the same thing.

Even if lurkers disagree with everything I say, they will have a stronger understanding of that which they disagree with, as well as an example of how not to do this debunking shit you folks think you are doing.

My posts are filled with ideas. Your posts are filled with offhand dismissal of those ideas, but no analysis of them to show why they may be wrong. There is no debate because you are incapable of such. It's why your team is so infamous outside the home field disadvantage you think is a shield. It's best expressed in the joke.

What is the only foolproof way to predict where a debunker stands: state your position first.

That's really funny and really sad, but it's really true, to. You guys don't have a position, you only have others' positions to debunk. Beyond that, it's just unexamined slogans and distraction maneuvers.

There's another joke that hits to the heart of it.

Despite fierce denial from skeptics, CT have broken Operation Zebra, proving without dispute that the secret cabal running Operation Zebra not only existed, but who they were specifically and what they had specifically done, all fully documented and verified by independent, unbiased sources.

The first post in response to this story hit the skeptic boards within minutes with the following header. Debunked: Operation Zebra. Surprised at how this could be with such overwhelming evidence clearly supporting the CT, the mystery was cleared up in the body, which said in full:

Do you have any evidence that it was really called Operation Zebra? It could have just been pareidolia. Where is your evidence that it wasn't just an Operation Horse? Can you prove it wasn't?

Debunked.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm here to debate evidence, mostly that based on science. I'm am not here to try and change anyone's opinion on their world view. Sorry you can't see the difference either.
This forum is devoted to the discussion and the debunking of conspiracy theories. The theory presented is entirely valid with evidence to support. Whether or not it's correct, as in not just a theory and an actual conspiracy, remains to be seen. If you're here to debate the evidence, then do so. If you're not, then don't. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then refrain from contributing to the thread. You've flatly stated you have no interest in this subject, so why make needless assertions about the validity of a topic in which you have nothing invested, and don't care to discuss? You seem to be suggesting your personal disinterest with the topic has some bearing on its relevance.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
This forum is devoted to the discussion and the debunking of conspiracy theories. The theory presented is entirely valid with evidence to support. Whether or not it's correct, as in not just a theory and an actual conspiracy, remains to be seen. If you're here to debate the evidence, then do so. If you're not, then don't. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread, then refrain from contributing to the thread. You've flatly stated you have no interest in this subject, so why make needless assertions about the validity of a topic in which you have nothing invested, and don't care to discuss? You seem to be suggesting your personal disinterest with the topic has some bearing on its relevance.

I gave my opinion, to Mick actually, and Joe replied to that post and gave his opinion, along with reading into what I said way too much. I don't find this debate very interesting and I tried to explain to Joe that I do not owe him anything by way of debate. I'm only suggesting that Joe try and debate with someone else who wishes to discuss this topic. My disinterest has zero relevance on this debate, except people keep responding to my posts thinking I owe them some type of rebuttal to their opinion. Go back and read the exchange from the start.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...merman-verdict-debunk-please.1969/#post-53848
And then here.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...merman-verdict-debunk-please.1969/#post-53899
I'm not sure what he is even talking about, since I had only posted two times and was only responding to a question he asked. He seems to think from that point on I owe him some type of debunk. Sorry I was just posting the psa cause I thought others might think it pertained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
White riot, I wanna riot, white riot, a riot of my own
Black man gotta lot a problems, but they don't mind throwing a brick
White people go to school, where they teach you how to be thick
And everybody's doin', just what they're told to
And nobody wants to go to jail
White riot, I wanna riot, white riot a riot of my own....

How to make a fascist dictatorship do a u-turn. The London Poll Tax riots (take no notice of the lying Biased Bullshit Corporation commentary - the police got a beating and the 'government' backed down) - it's the only language they understand, apparently.


Speak back to the establishment in their own language, the language of organised violence - and you get their attention.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Maybe this is a bit closer to the mark, re: the Zimmerman case. The esteemed writer and media commentator, Darcus Howe, on the Uk riots of last summer - just a little taster of what's just round the corner - coming to a neighbourhood near you soon! More from the Bullshit Corp. (quite stunning corpohackery here - she can't even get the man's name right). But Mr Howe understands what's going on - the trigger of the murder by police of Mark Duggan (a young black man), who was pinned to the ground and executed with four shots to his head from a Heckler and Koch MP5 semi-automatic - I know it, Darcus knows it, the community where Duggan lived knows it. Quite appalling treatment of Darcus from the establishment hackette - with all the usual ignorance of the corporate media. Shame they cut him off - she was just about to get a proper telling off.


The pigs got their arses kicked properly, too.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Not in the least. I am not here to debate with you. I'm not even talking to you. I'm using your replies as a platform in order to talk to others. You can't hear. That's clear. Perhaps they can, perhaps not. But my posts, long as they are, are not for the consumption of those who mock them. They are for all those lurkers who want to learn about stuff but don't want to tangle with the wranglers here. Ever wonder why there are always 10 times more lurkers listed than actual posters? The way you guys mash noobs is why.

Some would rather not go through that for expressing honest doubt. I'm ok with it, so I'm taking their place and opening up stuff so they can see what is going on and decide for themselves instead of you guys making their decisions for them. Contrary opinions are only allowed here as bunkerball practice. Your team unity on every opinion is legendary. Yet you all believe you are freethinkers and come to your own opinions by merely examining the facts. Sounds great inside the tent, but outside the tent folks can see that somehow with all that independence, you all think the same thing.

Even if lurkers disagree with everything I say, they will have a stronger understanding of that which they disagree with, as well as an example of how not to do this debunking shit you folks think you are doing.

My posts are filled with ideas. Your posts are filled with offhand dismissal of those ideas, but no analysis of them to show why they may be wrong. There is no debate because you are incapable of such. It's why your team is so infamous outside the home field disadvantage you think is a shield. It's best expressed in the joke.

What is the only foolproof way to predict where a debunker stands: state your position first.

That's really funny and really sad, but it's really true, to. You guys don't have a position, you only have others' positions to debunk. Beyond that, it's just unexamined slogans and distraction maneuvers.

There's another joke that hits to the heart of it.

Despite fierce denial from skeptics, CT have broken Operation Zebra, proving without dispute that the secret cabal running Operation Zebra not only existed, but who they were specifically and what they had specifically done, all fully documented and verified by independent, unbiased sources.

The first post in response to this story hit the skeptic boards within minutes with the following header. Debunked: Operation Zebra. Surprised at how this could be with such overwhelming evidence clearly supporting the CT, the mystery was cleared up in the body, which said in full:

Do you have any evidence that it was really called Operation Zebra? It could have just been pareidolia. Where is your evidence that it wasn't just an Operation Horse? Can you prove it wasn't?

Debunked.

Well said. But Joe, Operation Donkey, surely? Welcome to MB, mate!

ps maybe that should be Operation Ass?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
That's really funny and really sad, but it's really true, to. You guys don't have a position, you only have others' positions to debunk. Beyond that, it's just unexamined slogans and distraction maneuvers.

You keep throwing this "you guys" out there. Please stop assuming everyone here who agrees with removing bunk all have the same opinions or positions on every matter. You will find that is not the case. I don't make those assumptions about people that believe in conspiracies. I think you will find it much easier to debate people here if you stop the assumptions.

If you don't like that I don't want to give you more of my opinion or that my opinion is not sufficient enough to satisfy you then too bad.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You keep throwing this "you guys" out there. Please stop assuming everyone here who agrees with removing bunk all have the same opinions or positions on every matter. You will find that is not the case. I don't make those assumptions about people that believe in conspiracies. I think you will find it much easier to debate people here if you stop the assumptions.

If you don't like that I don't want to give you more of my opinion or that my opinion is not sufficient enough to satisfy you then too bad.


Please stop assuming everyone here who agrees with removing bunk all have the same opinions or positions on every matter.

Evidence to the contrary? Lol

You will find that is not the case

Where?

I don't make those assumptions about people that believe in conspiracies

Lol

I think you will find it much easier to debate people here if you stop the assumptions

Oh, please stop! Haven't laughed so much in ages, ta.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
I gave my opinion, to Mick actually, and Joe replied to that post and gave his opinion, along with reading into what I said way too much.

He didn't read too much, he just read what was there.

I'm not sure what he is even talking about, since I had only posted two times and was only responding to a question he asked. He seems to think from that point on I owe him some type of debunk. Sorry I was just posting the psa cause I thought others might think it pertained.

Right, which is why he read what he read. For he had not only already linked to that psa, but had been discussing what it was about and had referred to it maybe three times before you dropped it in sans even watching it, as if you had added something new.

When he said stop throwing shit at him, he meant deal with what has already been presented. Skipping over evidence completely only to just ask for more evidence is an old and wearying game. It never ends because it's the only one played by many.

Joe doesn't know you. Joe doesn't know anyone here. Joe only knows that the picture presented here is false because while its parts contain truth, it's whole cannot stand on its own power. It must be propped up with dogma and ideology. It is not science. It has merely attached itself to science in a power grab, seeking to appropriate the luster of real science and use it for an untenable philosophy that it mistakes for science.

This is why you guys cannot argue your own side, but only against the other side, whatever it is. You have no side to argue--just an untenable philosophy based on evidence so flimsy that you would never accept the same from anyone. No evidence against your position is ever strong enough to carry the day, no evidence for your position to weak that it will not be accepted.

This is not the fault of anyone here or on any other skeptic board. You've all been sold a load of shit from your handlers that don't really exist. You have been used as a tool and your foundation is false. Not because there is no truth in it, but because it is incomplete. This is unknown to you guys, but it is known to others. This is how tools are forged.

I have no more to say to you and I do not wish you ill. You are not the enemy, for you know not what you do nor whom you serve. And everything you could possibly think in rebuttal here were you to actually do so would be wholly off the mark. You do not know the truth because you have yet to discern the lie. I do not wholly know the truth, either. But I have seen through most of the lie.

It has taken an extreme amount of work over many years and it only has been possible to make what progress I have made by jettisoning ALL preconceived notions. I took all the pieces and swept them off the board and started from scratch to see which ones could return to the board shorn of the false supports of dogma and ideology. I have had my beliefs burned to ashes and have had my ground of being vanish under my feet. It is painful and it is not for the meek. One must be very courageous or very stupid to take such a journey. I am both, except when I am neither. Paradox Found.

Others who actually find it important to know when they are being lied to may find what I have to say of use. It will not contain the full truth. It will contain enough evidence of the lie to allow people to explore the issue if that is their interest. I will not know who they are. I will only know who they are not: the people who endlessly demand more evidence in a dodge around learning how to develop and sustain an exploration of an issue.

Swinging from tree to tree hither and yon chasing factlets and playing bunkerball is fun frolic for those who enjoy such. But it of little use to those who wish to understand we where they are in the forest or even understand that there is a forest. In the larger world, a beach is a beach. In de bunker, there are only isolated pieces of sand with no evidence that they constitute a beach.

Life's a beach.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Evidence to the contrary? Lol



Where?



Lol



Oh, please stop! Haven't laughed so much in ages, ta.

So you view then is that all skeptics/debunkers all agree, on everything and /or about everything within a topic and people that believe one conspiracy believe them all?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
When he said stop throwing shit at him, he meant deal with what has already been presented. Skipping over evidence completely only to just ask for more evidence is an old and wearying game. It never ends because it's the only one played by many.

Joe doesn't know you. Joe doesn't know anyone here. Joe only knows that the picture presented here is false because while its parts contain truth, it's whole cannot stand on its own power. It must be propped up with dogma and ideology. It is not science. It has merely attached itself to science in a power grab, seeking to appropriate the luster of real science and use it for an untenable philosophy that it mistakes for science.


Who are we talking to exactly or are you now going to refer to yourself in 3rd person?


I didn't skip over any evidence, I skipped over opinion, speculation and assumptions. I did ask once if there was any evidence but I didn't get any so I decided this post was not for me.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
All of your concerns Joe seem to end up being about the epistemology of debunking or knowing - how do you know, what constitutes proof, how much evidence is enough? etc.
The simple point is this is a materialist box. It doesn't mean everyone here is a materialist outside that box, only that they have chosen to examine things according to that model while in this box.
It is a deliberate position. Anything based on speculation and intuition and how 'awake' you believe you are, cannot really be validly concluded about either way, so has no place here. Well except as general off-topic conversation and sharing of views.
(Although I like what you said about having your 'ground of being' swept away, as having a personal interest in zen buddhist enlightenment it sounds familiar; I don't know if this is what you meant though)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I did ask once if there was any evidence...

Evidence of what? That it's likely there will be riots? Already widely admitted to.

That there's a conspiracy? Smoked filled rooms filled with nefarious master minds vs. supposedly well meaning but bumbling fools making PSAs and all that, by chance? Depends on what you are imagining a conspiracy to consist of as opposed to a coincidence, I suppose. Do weaker predators conspire against stronger predators intellectually or based on instinct by "coincidence"?

I don't have much use for coincidence theorists. It's easy to say or imagine that nothing is the cause of something. So instead I try to imagine based on knowledge and science (as far as that goes) that nothing is really a coincidence and a coincidence, pretty much nothing... but you could still try to imagine a coincidence. So don't let anyone stop you from trying to imagine how this event, as well as all others, ultimately come about purely by happenstance. That's the purely objective thing to do, right? And after all... this is your opportunity to get out some imaginary playing cards or start flipping imaginary coins and so forth, if you like. Aren't those the memes that have been marketed to you by Dawkins and other leaders of the scientific community/tribe?

Or perhaps I'm mistaken in my assumptions, due to an imaginary solar flare impacting my brain events and other series of events that I can only imagine. That might be illuminating, by happenstance.

In any event, what are the chances of rioting evolving and emerging from the bowels of the body politic in this case? 100%, in retrospect. So let's wait and see. And it's all caused by natural selection too, no doubt. After all, the chances of an unnatural selection are 0%. Apparently this is as it must be, from some retro* perspectives.

*Thanks Darwin... of course, he and his cabal were actually the lunatics. Just saying.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
The simple point is this is a materialist box. It doesn't mean everyone here is a materialist outside that box, only that they have chosen to examine things according to that model while in this box.

If that's the rule for imagining things and so forth, then how do you imagine riots and the behaviors typical to living, breathing, knowing and therefore "conspiring" organisms coming about or evolving?

Your model doesn't seem like a useful heuristic for people interested in reality.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Evidence of what? That it's likely there will be riots? Already widely admitted to.

That there's a conspiracy? Smoked filled rooms filled with nefarious master minds vs. supposedly well meaning but bumbling fools making PSAs and all that, by chance? Depends on what you are imagining a conspiracy to consist of as opposed to a coincidence, I suppose. Do weaker predators conspire against stronger predators intellectually or based on instinct by "coincidence"?

I don't have much use for coincidence theorists. It's easy to say or imagine that nothing is the cause of something. So instead I try to imagine based on knowledge and science (as far as that goes) that nothing is really a coincidence and a coincidence, pretty much nothing... but you could still try to imagine a coincidence. So don't let anyone stop you from trying to imagine how this event, as well as all others, ultimately come about purely by happenstance. That's the purely objective thing to do, right? And after all... this is your opportunity to get out some imaginary playing cards or start flipping imaginary coins and so forth, if you like. Aren't those the memes that have been marketed to you by Dawkins and other leaders of the scientific community/tribe?

Or perhaps I'm mistaken in my assumptions, due to an imaginary solar flare impacting my brain events and other series of events that I can only imagine. That might be illuminating, by happenstance.

In any event, what are the chances of rioting evolving and emerging from the bowels of the body politic in this case? 100%, in retrospect. So let's wait and see. And it's all caused by natural selection too, no doubt. After all, the chances of an unnatural selection are 0%. Apparently this is as it must be, from some retro* perspectives.

*Thanks Darwin... of course, he and his cabal were actually the lunatics. Just saying.

'Evolution' is the biz when it comes to finches and fecund fruit flies - but given a human brain doubling in size in no time flat, and it's at a loss. Always made me smile, that. That the organ that originated The Origin of Species, can't explain itself! Good one!
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
I had a chat with four CHIPS last night about the possibility of riots, probing without leading questions in order to see where they were coming from, not to tell them where I was coming from. Data collection.

They said they hadn't been paying that much attention and hadn't heard much of anything beyond probable activity in LA. One guy said he wasn't worried about it, though, because all he knew was that if anything goes off it won't last. He later said it again and added that it wasn't going to be like Rodney King. I asked why not and he said all he knew is that if it went, it would be "squelched immediately."

Some may take comfort with that assurance, others might wonder what was behind his confidence. My guess is a plan and lots of hardware to carry out that plan. It's called contingency planning and situational contain. Some do it, others don't.

The police in Broward County do so, and they have added another interesting aspect. The plan to flood twitter with anti-riot messages. Anyone who takes comfort in that, really hasn't been paying attention to what is going on or how things work. Like I said about the psa, though it still hasn't penetrated for some, everything you see as a positive is meant to be that way for you. For the kids, everything you see as a positive is a negative because they view it from the opposite pov. They hate the cops and they know full well that the cops hate them. They take absolutely no succor in seeing those cops file in in front of them and being told they have their back. They have far too much familiarity with the way that rolls in their world. The only time to police have their back is when it is in their scope while lining up a shot.

People have a funny way of reacting when the folks they hate the most are flooding their twurf with tweets telling them what not to do. It's a call out and a direct challenge to their pride and identity. You may not see it that way, but anyone who speaks street knows just what I'm talking about. It's a different world with different rules. You don't know the rules, but they do. And so do the cops.

If it jumps, people will roll out the usual "mistakes were made" boilerplate, but nobody can get it so wrong while appearing to get it so right without knowing how to do so. It's an art. One that's been fooling you for a long time just as it has fooled me and others.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
'Evolution' is the biz when it comes to finches and fecund fruit flies - but given a human brain doubling in size in no time flat, and it's at a loss. Always made me smile, that. That the organ that originated The Origin of Species, can't explain itself! Good one!
So tell me what your explanation is? Tell me how evolution can occur on a microscopic level, but somehow cannot occur at the macro level.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The proposed conspiracy is that riots are a predetermined event, intentionally incited by creating a preemptive atmosphere of stark polarization around the outcome of the trial and promoting through repitition the notion of outrage and even violence in response to it on both sides. That this conspiracy theory addresses a current and ongoing event instead of a past one makes it no less a conspiracy theory.



I see, so now we're debunking events that have not happened that may not happen. If they don't happen does the debate go on?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

Your model doesn't seem like a useful heuristic for people interested in reality.
Basing conclusions on material facts doesn't seem like a useful heuristic for knowing reality? What is then? Channelling alien consciousnesses?
(the point being, it's not supposed to be a heuristic - that's the point)
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Basing conclusions on material facts doesn't seem like a useful heuristic for knowing reality? What is then? Channelling alien consciousnesses?
Heuristic (Template:(IPAc-en); Greek: "Εὑρίσκω", "find" or "discover") refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that gives a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, or common sense.

Trouble is, P, that all 'facts' (esp. the 'scientific' ones), are limited by a factor of time - and then supplanted by 'new' 'fact' to update the model. That's science - the same 'science' that held the world was flat and blood-letting cured ailments. Mutability - that's science in motion. Take into account, but don't invest everything.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Trouble is, P, that all 'facts' (esp. the 'scientific' ones), are limited by a factor of time - and then supplanted by 'new' 'fact' to update the model. That's science - the same 'science' that held the world was flat and blood-letting cured ailments.

except that wasn't the "same science" as is practiced today- it was fundamentally different in approach and results.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Trouble is, P, that all 'facts' (esp. the 'scientific' ones), are limited by a factor of time - and then supplanted by 'new' 'fact' to update the model. That's science - the same 'science' that held the world was flat and blood-letting cured ailments. Mutability - that's science in motion. Take into account, but don't invest everything.
When was there ever a scientific consensus that said the world was flat?

(also, those would be prime examples of 'heuristic' reasoning. Scientific materialist reasoning could never properly support those beliefs.)
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
The simple point is this is a materialist box.

Thank you for saying so, Pete. It is just that, a materialist box.

It doesn't mean everyone here is a materialist outside that box, only that they have chosen to examine things according to that model while in this box.

Yes. But some are materialists outside this box because they have been led to believe that this box encompasses the whole ball of wax. It doesn't. I just feel that those who haven't yet learned that should get a larger view and decide for themselves instead of singing off the same sheet music because they believe it's the One True Song, as it is so often portrayed.

It is a deliberate position. Anything based on speculation and intuition and how 'awake' you believe you are, cannot really be validly concluded about either way, so has no place here. Well except as general off-topic conversation and sharing of views.

I know it is deliberate. I'm not claiming to be awake, as I find such talk fatuous. I do know the materialist model is a house of cards. Forget validating my stuff. The point underlying everything I'm on about here and in the Parsons thread I've been wanting to get to is that the box is broken and cannot stand on its own weight. It's has to be propped up. The immediate and automatic response of course is "prove it." That's because you guys can't support it because it's foundation is based on bullshit. The only thing that you can do is attack anyone who is pointing out that bullshit, hence the never ending cries of "where's your evidence?"

Folks have been dumping the evidential dirt on this zombie for a couple of hundred years. You could fill a small library with the books that have repeatedly shown it doesn't hold up to even its own standards of evidence. It is not at all supported by the only standard you recognize as valid in all cases--science and reason. That howling irony has been pointed out over and over, but instead of defending against the charge by proving your case, that killshot is routinely breezed by and it's back to the invasion of the Is not/Prove It bots.

(Although I like what you said about having your 'ground of being' swept away, as having a personal interest in zen buddhist enlightenment it sounds familiar; I don't know if this is what you meant though)

Heh. Glad to hear it. I'm going to see if I can swing it into the Parsons thread, but suffice to say, for now, the bottom line is the ground ain't ground. That is, it isn't material.[/quote]
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
You keep throwing this "you guys" out there. Please stop assuming everyone here who agrees with removing bunk all have the same opinions or positions on every matter. You will find that is not the case.
The next example I see of someone sneaking out of choir practice in order to argue against the sheet music the choir is singing from, well, it will be the first one I've ever seen.

I say "you guys" because you all believe the same materialist model and your stance is based upon it. There may be those who don't, but they are not in your club by virtue of lacking the proper materialist gene. I may be new here, but I know the drill back and forth. I can make a list of questions, write out the rebuttals that will follow and then give you the questions. Except for the wording, I am sure I would ace it.

The sheet music never changes because it's locked into a limited box with artificial parameters that have been placed there for ideological reasons. It cannot be any way but this way because the boundaries are set beforehand. Thou shalt not pass matter.

The box you have chosen to camp out in is just that. A box. The world does not fit in your box, which is why you have so much debunking to do in order to cram stuff into it in a way that fits the established dogma.

Problem is, too much doesn't fit and all the "it could just be" isn't enough to paper over the gaping holes that have been repeatedly pointed out since the Romantic era, which was a direct revolt against the materialist model.

It's not that everything that comprises the model is false, because that is certainly not true. It's not the science that is the problem. But the conclusions based upon the data don't follow because they are a priori and you guys work ass backwards by using the evidence and data to fit the model when it's supposed to be the other way around.

If it doesn't fit the parameters, it's bunk as a default and gets dismissed out of hand. Any explanation that can be at all possible if it is from your box is all it takes. I have seen so many ludicrous ideas put forth with a straight face on documentaries that it makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Fundies got nothing on you guys when it comes to make-believe. But as long as it keeps them out of the game, it's a go. No matter inane.

For an example, start and stop right in the same place. The pyramids. I have no idea how they got there, when, or by who. None at all. The only thing I do know is that the bit with the rollers and chisels and rubbing stones is out and out bullshit. It just isn't supported by the evidence. But it doesn't matter because nothing else can be considered and isn't. Because the your case is so airtight? Please. It has to be that way because to admit anything at all outside your model is the camel under the tent and opens the door for all that God shit we cannot have. ABG is the core of the model. Anything but God.

We keep hearing that the study of consciousness is in its infancy. Yes, it is. Because of the ABG restriction you have to make it be a product of matter has criminally stunted its growth. There isn't a single iota of evidence to support this idea, but everything outside the box is instantly dismissed. Not because it is wrong, but because if it were right there goes the materialist model and the ABG clause evaporates. That is what the war is about, keeping God out of the game.

This ideology has stunted the study of consciousness by decades. It is only in the last 15-20 years that it has been studied at all on its terms as opposed to being wholly seen as a epiphenomenon of the only thing that is really real: matter.

This is seen as a given in the box, but the truth of the matter is you don't even know what consciousness is or why it is there in the first place. And absolutely nothing in your model explains why we even have it in the first place. That's why it is called the "hard" problem in the field. All the amazing advances in neurosciences that have taken place over the last few decades, all that endless progress on understanding the brain, and there has not been any movement at all on the hard question of what the shit is doing there in the first place. None.

Yet this hasn't shaken the faith that it is a material phenom generated by the brain. That's still the given even though there is no evidence to support it. And the tons of alternate data and ideas are still instantly dismissed out of hand. Why? ABG. That's it. Take that one restriction out of the game and the board would change immediately.

What is natural today would have been seen as supernatural 150 years ago. Quantum is as supernatural as anyone could ask for going by Newtonian physics. Now, not a problem. It's natural as well. Everything that can be explained is natural and anything that can't is supernatural.

If it comes to be understood, it doesn't mean that anything supernatural exists. It means this is too is natural. You just grab it and claim it for your model. Then you go right back to claiming there is nothing supernatural that exists.

Well, I agree 100%. I don't believe in the supernatural. I have no idea what it even means. It's just a bullshit marker. It has no meaning based upon science and reason. Just the dogma of materialism that you guys keep insisting doesn't exist while you can't deviate from it by a centimeter.

I know you don't have a reply so don't sweat it. This wasn't for you. It was for the folks honestly investigating where the evidence goes, instead of what you guys do. Make it come to you or let it lie.
 

Related Articles

Top