The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

45141 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: I was getting to the declaration as Science Evolution establishes, that somehow then mother Nature, has become intelligent through mainly us humans. And now hence Nature is studying itself, in reverse engineering mode. Inquiring about itself.

This would seem like the logic exactly as to what Naturalism means and is saying.

How does anyone here interpret this, in a judicious manner?

I interpret this as you not understanding naturalism. Because no, that is not what naturalism is saying. Even creationists get this; their entire beef is the fact that evolution posits an unguided process, that naturalism + our current data concludes there is no intelligent agent pulling the strings. But you don’t seem to get it (unguidedness).

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

As to USA Politics Presidential Debate #1 - 2016.

Who does anybody think really put their foot in the muck? Or did both of them do it differently?

Personally, I was willing to call it a tie as I think both candidates had a message for different constituent groups and both communicated their messages. However, it now appears that Trump is getting very defensive about the debate - claiming he went easy on Hilary on purpose, complaining about the moderator, etc. - so whatever anyone else’s opinion may be, it appears that Trump thinks Trump lost the debate.

eric said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

As to USA Politics Presidential Debate #1 - 2016.

Who does anybody think really put their foot in the muck? Or did both of them do it differently?

Personally, I was willing to call it a tie as I think both candidates had a message for different constituent groups and both communicated their messages. However, it now appears that Trump is getting very defensive about the debate - claiming he went easy on Hilary on purpose, complaining about the moderator, etc. - so whatever anyone else’s opinion may be, it appears that Trump thinks Trump lost the debate.

Trump did lose the debate. He lied about every single thing while Clinton told the truth. He even tried to deny that he said that climate change was a hoax. In fact, he spent most of his time trying to deny stupid things that he has said over the last year or so. He looked like a duck out of water. You can’t trump reality Donald and you can’t lie about having lied. Everything he says is recorded, the network should have the tape ready to play for him when he claims he didn’t say something. Then he can explain why he didn’t really mean that, even if he really did say it.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

Hi everyone and everybody.

I am back after some re-vamping this end of the line of “neural communications”!

I’m sorry to hear that. I understand shock treatment can be quite painful.

fnxtr said:

I understand shock treatment can be quite painful.

But you probably won’t remember it afterwards. Along with many other things.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

So I will continue with my sharing of thoughts, insight, and what not.

if you must

I was getting to the declaration as Science Evolution establishes, that somehow then mother Nature, has become intelligent through mainly us humans. And now hence Nature is studying itself, in reverse engineering mode. Inquiring about itself.

This would seem like the logic exactly as to what Naturalism means and is saying.

How does anyone here interpret this, in a judicious manner?

i suppose you could describe it that way as a literary convenience. However, you run a considerable risk of extrapolating from your anthropomorphizing of nature rather than from evidence and observed facts.

The description implies a motive behind nature that is not actually in evidence.

DS said:

eric said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

As to USA Politics Presidential Debate #1 - 2016.

Who does anybody think really put their foot in the muck? Or did both of them do it differently?

Personally, I was willing to call it a tie as I think both candidates had a message for different constituent groups and both communicated their messages. However, it now appears that Trump is getting very defensive about the debate - claiming he went easy on Hilary on purpose, complaining about the moderator, etc. - so whatever anyone else’s opinion may be, it appears that Trump thinks Trump lost the debate.

Trump did lose the debate. He lied about every single thing while Clinton told the truth. He even tried to deny that he said that climate change was a hoax. In fact, he spent most of his time trying to deny stupid things that he has said over the last year or so. He looked like a duck out of water. You can’t trump reality Donald and you can’t lie about having lied. Everything he says is recorded, the network should have the tape ready to play for him when he claims he didn’t say something. Then he can explain why he didn’t really mean that, even if he really did say it.

trump is a dangerous idiot and an inveterate liar with a short attention span and a shorter memory. It’s a little bit surprising that he isn’t posting regularly on the bathroom wall denying climate change and evolution.

Yeah, and we don’t want an invertebrate liar running the country!

Robert Byers said:

CJColucci said:

For the benefit of Mr. Byers and others who may be confused about the issue, there is no constitutional obligation that public schools teach “the truth” or “both sides” or afford “equal time” or “fairness.” The only constitutional issue is whether we teach religion. We can legally teach any sort of nonsense as long as we are not teaching religion as such. (We can teach about religion, as an academic subject, and probably should. But nobody wants that, either because we’ll make a hash of it or because that would involve exposing the youngsters to different religious ideas, or, even worse, to the very idea that there are different religious ideas, which would result in some of the youngsters actually thinking about them as ideas and evaluating them accordingly.) We see politically-motivated interventions in social studies all the time, and all perfectly legal. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a public school from teaching, as a fact, as my school did, that the Civil War was not about slavery. Nothing in the Constitution prevents pushing “politically correct” history, whether it is about the virtues of American capitalism, the way we refer to the Turkish massacre of Armenians, or whatever. There are practical differences with science. Even though nothing in the Constitution prevents public schools from teaching phlogiston chemistry, or other bad science, we usually don’t do that because we don’t want our chemical plants to blow up and we like our smartphones. Until the Koch brothers start bribing schools to teach climate science denialism, we won’t see bad science taught for secular reasons. As a matter of notorious historical fact, we interfere with science teaching only because it upsets someone’s religious beliefs. It would be perfectly Constitutional to satisfy these people by not teaching science at all, but we can’t do it by teaching their religious views. And since, as a matter of fact, that is all claims for equal time or fairness ever amount to, they lose.

Its not really the thread for this but since you brought it up. the constitution is not the government. it has nothing to say or dictate except on what it says. Education is up to the people. Education is about truth. about accuracy. Subjects are presented with the goal, expressed, for accuracy and truth. its the moral and intellectual right of a people to demand truth in education. The people agree with this everywhere. Therefore in subjects that cross boundaries of truth relative to religion then its not just the right to truth and so creationism. Its actually illegal top censor creationism. for since the subject is dedicated to the truth then censoring the God/Genesis idea is THE SAME thing as the state saying its not true. the state is not to say religion is not true. THATS in the constitution. the state and church are to be separate. saying religion is false is not separate but a full partisan. The constitution says nothing about education. it was not funding education when made. it says nothing about truth prohibition. it says nothing about censoring the bible or evolution. its up to the people to decide. Creationism has the winning case.

Poor old Robert Byers.

He’s so dumb he can barely tie his shoes, much less argue constitutional law. He’s mentally impaired.

That’s why, whenever he’s faced with the assertion that his beliefs are loony, that they are insane, he just shuts up and runs away. Just like Flawdly, just like IBIG, he’s a simple-minded victim of religious delusion, and he knows he cannot defend himself against the charge of insanity.

He can no more defend his delusional beliefs than he fart himself into orbit. He’s too incompetent.

eric said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: I was getting to the declaration as Science Evolution establishes, that somehow then mother Nature, has become intelligent through mainly us humans. And now hence Nature is studying itself, in reverse engineering mode. Inquiring about itself.

This would seem like the logic exactly as to what Naturalism means and is saying.

How does anyone here interpret this, in a judicious manner?

I interpret this as you not understanding naturalism. Because no, that is not what naturalism is saying. Even creationists get this; their entire beef is the fact that evolution posits an unguided process, that naturalism + our current data concludes there is no intelligent agent pulling the strings. But you don’t seem to get it (unguidedness).

Hellouuu…!

I do not find any statement in my comment mentioning “guided” or “unguided”.

So.

I do not understand “naturalism”?

I said: Nature/Energy has acquired “intelligence and consciousness(thought/creativity)” mainly through us humans, “naturally”, with some existing functional Laws of matter.

Does anybody agree or disagree, of the “naturalistic” School of thought?

This is clear English. Unless you have a normal thought processing problem.

For Naturalism: no Agent pulling the strings is not entirely correct of course!

As indicated there exists all the Laws and functioning of matter.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

For Naturalism: no Agent pulling the strings is not entirely correct of course!

As indicated there exists all the Laws and functioning of matter.

Gods you’re dumb, Fathead.

The metaphor of pulling strings is based on puppetry. There is no puppet master, no one pulling the strings. The laws of nature do not suggest any such thing. It is entirely correct to say that there is no agent pulling the strings. You’re just too stupid to understand the metaphor.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

I said: Nature/Energy has acquired “intelligence and consciousness(thought/creativity)” mainly through us humans, “naturally”, with some existing functional Laws of matter.

Does anybody agree or disagree, of the “naturalistic” School of thought?

This is clear English. Unless you have a normal thought processing problem.

Well, it would be clearer English if you didn’t use ‘slashed’ words, like “Nature/Energy” and “thought/creativity”, and if you didn’t capitalize random words, like “Energy”, “Laws”, and “School”.

Just Bob said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said:

I said: Nature/Energy has acquired “intelligence and consciousness(thought/creativity)” mainly through us humans, “naturally”, with some existing functional Laws of matter.

Does anybody agree or disagree, of the “naturalistic” School of thought?

This is clear English. Unless you have a normal thought processing problem.

Well, it would be clearer English if you didn’t use ‘slashed’ words, like “Nature/Energy” and “thought/creativity”, and if you didn’t capitalize random words, like “Energy”, “Laws”, and “School”.

Even if Fathead could speak clear English, he still couldn’t make sense.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: I said: Nature/Energy has acquired “intelligence and consciousness(thought/creativity)” mainly through us humans, “naturally”, with some existing functional Laws of matter.

You said ‘mother nature has become intelligent.’ If you mean: humans are intelligent, and are part of nature, therefore one part of nature has intelligence, then okay, that’s correct. Its also irrelevant to the question of how life on Earth has evolved (except for maybe the past 50,000 years), since humans weren’t around for the first 3.4999 billion years life was on this planet.

OTOH, if you mean: some bits of the natural world other than humans have become intelligent - such as the laws of nature or something - then no, that is not correct. And it certainly isn’t an assumption or premise of naturalism.

This is clear English. Unless you have a normal thought processing problem.

Well I must have a thought processing problem, because to me, “mother nature” is not the same thing as “humans”. So the claim “mother nature became intelligent” is not the same claim as “humans became intelligent.” But if you can refer me to a dictionary where the entry for “humans” says “also called, ‘mother nature’”, that would help me with my thought processing problem.

eric said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: I said: Nature/Energy has acquired “intelligence and consciousness(thought/creativity)” mainly through us humans, “naturally”, with some existing functional Laws of matter.

You said ‘mother nature has become intelligent.’ If you mean: humans are intelligent, and are part of nature, therefore one part of nature has intelligence, then okay, that’s correct… OTOH, if you mean: some bits of the natural world other than humans have become intelligent - such as the laws of nature or something - then no, that is not correct.

That’s one problem with Fathead: it’s impossible to tell what he means. I don’t think he knows himself. But his English is so bad that you can’t tell.

But if you can refer me to a dictionary where the entry for “humans” says “also called, ‘mother nature’”, that would help me with my thought processing problem.

That’s only humans who have acted as spokespeople for fake butter products.

When someone’s native language assigns gender to inanimate objects, I wonder if that encourages anthropomorphism, and makes it more difficult to think in terms of an unguided natural process such as evolution. Maybe this be part of GFT Broadhead’s difficulty.

Oldnsenile said:

When someone’s native language assigns gender to inanimate objects, I wonder if that encourages anthropomorphism, and makes it more difficult to think in terms of an unguided natural process such as evolution. Maybe this be part of GFT Broadhead’s difficulty.

In my first language Dutch nouns have (remnants of) gender. For instance ‘steen’ (stone) is a masculin word, ‘evolutie’ (evolution) feminine and ‘water’ neuter. Of Dutch speakers only the Flemish consistently treat masculin and feminine words differently, but the neuter gender is very much alive. I’m not aware that grammatical gender encourages anthropomorphism.

Henry Skinner said:

Oldnsenile said:

When someone’s native language assigns gender to inanimate objects, I wonder if that encourages anthropomorphism, and makes it more difficult to think in terms of an unguided natural process such as evolution. Maybe this be part of GFT Broadhead’s difficulty.

In my first language Dutch nouns have (remnants of) gender. For instance ‘steen’ (stone) is a masculin word, ‘evolutie’ (evolution) feminine and ‘water’ neuter. Of Dutch speakers only the Flemish consistently treat masculin and feminine words differently, but the neuter gender is very much alive. I’m not aware that grammatical gender encourages anthropomorphism.

Yes. While I’m a native (and solely) English speaker, it is my understanding that the ‘gender’ of words in other languages doesn’t really correspond to the English concept of ‘gender’ in the biological sense, so it doesn’t carry any implication that would go along with that usage. Same word (gender), but two different meanings. Just like describing verb as having a tense doesn’t cause anyone to think verbs have feelings.

eric said:

Henry Skinner said:

Oldnsenile said:

When someone’s native language assigns gender to inanimate objects, I wonder if that encourages anthropomorphism, and makes it more difficult to think in terms of an unguided natural process such as evolution. Maybe this be part of GFT Broadhead’s difficulty.

In my first language Dutch nouns have (remnants of) gender. For instance ‘steen’ (stone) is a masculin word, ‘evolutie’ (evolution) feminine and ‘water’ neuter. Of Dutch speakers only the Flemish consistently treat masculin and feminine words differently, but the neuter gender is very much alive. I’m not aware that grammatical gender encourages anthropomorphism.

Yes. While I’m a native (and solely) English speaker, it is my understanding that the ‘gender’ of words in other languages doesn’t really correspond to the English concept of ‘gender’ in the biological sense, so it doesn’t carry any implication that would go along with that usage. Same word (gender), but two different meanings. Just like describing verb as having a tense doesn’t cause anyone to think verbs have feelings.

I had a roommate, a young woman new to feminism, who went off at great length about how in some European language, French, I think, “computer” is masculine and “washing machine” is feminine. It’s easy to conflate grammatical gender with biological.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter