spotlight wrote:I suspect Franktalk feeds his body just fine.
We all make decisions for ourselves. Problems arise when we try and force others to do what we wish them to do. The whole pack of you telling others to conform to your ways is just wrong.
Sure, Frank. You preaching scriptures that are full of "you telling others to conform to your ways" is just wrong. That pack of Gospel writers, always trying to force others to do what they wish them to do.
Franktalk wrote:We all make decisions for ourselves. Problems arise when we try and force others to do what we wish them to do. The whole pack of you telling others to conform to your ways is just wrong.
Franktalk attempts to justify his anti-educational stance.
"If the earth indeed orbits the sun, let each make that determination for themselves." Hello and welcome back to the dark ages - brought to you by Franktalk.
spotlight wrote:Franktalk attempts to justify his anti-educational stance.
Spotlight attempts to justify being a bully and trying to force his will on others.
I bet you thought your school teachers were bullies, too. How dare they try to teach little Frank something! It's abuse, I tell you!
My hat's off to you, Frank. I've never seen a human being so proud of their ignorance before. You're an inspiration to fundamentalists and Luddites everywhere.
Franktalk wrote:Spotlight attempts to justify being a bully and trying to force his will on others.
Rather than laugh here I'll simply relate again that I wanted science to be wrong and the church (the Joseph Fielding Smith / Bruce Reed McConkie version) to be true. I got a degree in order to take down nuclear dating (yeah that's the kind of damage that religion can do to someone right there). I went down swinging. But I went down. I am glad for my present vantage point I admit that. But I did not want it to be true any more than I want to die though I can accept reality now.
What you refer to as my will is simply the reality revealed to us by science in our day and age Frank. Yes reality is a big bully isn't it Frank?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Here's a snippet from The Soul Fallacy by Julien Musolino that seems apropos here.
A few years ago, Spike TV launched a new kind of reality game show called Pros vs. Joes, in which opposing teams of amateur athletes (the Joes) and retired professional athletes (the Pros) competed. The idea itself is hilarious because we all know what would happen in a real face-off between, say, a professional tennis player and a regular person who enjoys a good game of tennis on the weekend. How could someone with average athletic abilities and even a moderate amount of experience possibly compete against someone with exceptional athletic abilities who has dedicated his entire life to the sport? When it comes to science, there are Pros and Joes too. The Joes are most people, and the Pros are those who have dedicated their lives to the profession; gone to graduate school; received postdoctoral training; learned to master complex statistical, computational, or mathematical techniques; managed to get their ideas published in peer reviewed journals; received competitive funding from federal agencies; and been awarded tenure at research universities. The difference between a professional biologist with an established academic career and an average person who may have taken a few biology courses in college would be equivalent to the difference between an internationally ranked player and a weekend tennis enthusiast.
Not surprisingly, the people who decide whether there is evidence that tobacco causes cancer, whether global warming is real, whether vaccination causes autism, or whether the human mind works this way or that way, are trained scientists in the relevant disciplines. The opinions of nonscientists in settling scientific matters simply do not count. It would make about as much sense to let nonscientists weigh in on scientific issues as it would to give me a spot to play against Roger Federer in the US Open finals. If what I am telling you reeks of elitism, consider the following proposition: The next time someone in your family requires surgery, I'll offer my services and tell you that I can remove your daughter's appendix. I'll of course admit to having no medical training whatsoever, but I will add that I have always been a big fan of the show ER. If you need to fly somewhere, I'll volunteer to be your pilot, and assure you that I have a very good flight simulator on my new PlayStation system at home. Would you take me up on those well-intentioned offers if the lives of your loved ones were at stake?
Sadly, the difference between serious professional science and pseudoscientific fluff is often blurred today, courtesy of the media and their obsession with "fairness." Take for example the case of actress Jenny McCarthy, a fervent believer in the thoroughly discredited idea that vaccination causes autism. In 2007, McCarthy was given a national platform to broadcast her views on autism when she appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show. McCarthy dismissed the opinions of medical professionals and told Oprah that her decisions were informed by "a little voice" and her "mommy instincts." She also appeared on Larry King Live and Good Morning America. Amazingly, Larry King had her debate a doctor, as though McCarthy's views were equivalent to those of a trained professional representing an entire field. When Oprah asked her about her credentials, McCarthy replied that she graduated from "the University of Google." In July 2013, the Nation published a scathing piece called "Jenny McCarthy's Vaccination Fear-Mongering and the Cult of False Equivalence." The title says it all.
As we learned in the previous chapter, the claim that human beings are ensouled is a scientific one. Consequently, it is up to professional scientists to decide whether there is evidence supporting such a claim. The cult of false equivalence would have us believe that the opinions of celebrities, priests, and politicians count when it comes to the soul. But why should that be so? What could these people possibly know about human biology, psychology, or neurophysiology that professional scientists do not know? If priests and politicians want to make claims about the nature and functioning of the human mind, then they clearly missed their calling - they should be psychologists or neuroscientists. The consensus in the sciences of the mind, as we discovered in chapter 2, is that the soul is a figment of our imaginations. I certainly do not want to imply that the scientific consensus is infallible, or try to sell you a version of the argument from authority. The reason we should trust science is not because its practitioners use Latin words and have advanced degrees, but critically, because the currency in science is evidence. Generally speaking, it is evidence that compels scientists to converge on a particular set of conclusions. We know that species are not immutable, that smoking causes cancer, and that anthropogenic climate change is real, because the best scientific evidence has convinced the over whelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields that these conclusions are true. What I will show you in the next two chapters is that it is also evidence and reason that have led mainstream scientists to abandon the soul.
This is not to say that the scientific establishment never gets things wrong. However, at any given point in time, the scientific consensus remains the best measure of truth at our collective disposal. If what physicists tell us about the physical world turns out to be wrong, who but future generations of physicists would be in a position to know better? The Pros remain the Pros and the Joes remain the Joes. The conclusion that science isn't perfect shouldn't be an open door to substitute evidence with "little voices," "mommy instincts," or other forms of irrational conjecture. What is needed to correct faulty scientific conclusions is better science, not uninformed speculation. As Albert Einstein reminded us, our science may be primitive and childlike, but it is the most precious thing we have.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Very well said, Spotlight! What a contrast between you and Kurt Wise who got advanced degrees in paleontology and geology, even studying under the great Stephen Jay Gould, only to reject the very idea of basing one's convictions on empirical evidence and sound reason because reality could not be reconciled with what he preferred to believe.
Kurt Wise wrote:Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?] Here I must stand.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 12, 2016 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
spotlight wrote:What you refer to as my will is simply the reality revealed to us by science in our day and age Frank. Yes reality is a big bully isn't it Frank?
I may be way off but it seems to me you are very angry. It seems you are hurt by what happened to you. I have seen this in many people. Does it seem odd that what you now embrace has turned you into what you now are? You were a product of what you believed and now are a product of what you believe. Real truth lets you alone, it does not work on the ego like any belief of the world. It is an ego crusher. My mind is not driven by this world anymore. So I am free to be who I am. The layers of control this world had over me are gone.
I am still in this world but I am not of this world anymore. I am much more tolerant of people now than in the past. We all have a path to take and it is not my place to interfere with another's path. In the greater sense we are all equal and we all accept real truth. But our avatar can be taken over by the ego and can become lost in this world. The link to our greater self can be crushed by the mind and ego of this world. For most of my life that was me, lost in the world and driven by my environment. I was a shinning example of Darwin's theory at work. So I embraced the theory because I lived it. It was real to me. But a day came in which I cast it all aside and let truth find me in my own mind. This took years and as a result my ego diminished and the cares of this world evaporated. Now ask yourself if truth should set you free or should it rule over you?
Of course the old me would read what I just wrote and think it came from a crazy man. This is why I feel safe writing these posts. In essence what I write will not interfere with another's choice unless they wish it to.
The most hilarious part of Franktalk's last post is this:
This took years and as a result my ego diminished and the cares of this world evaporated. Now ask yourself if truth should set you free or should it rule over you?
Diminshed ego my Aunt Thelma's fundament! He thinks his inner, unsupported convictions Trump all the best evidence and reason accumulated over the centuries by the most brilliant scientists and thinkers who ever lived, and then claims to have a diminished ego! On the contrary! His is one of the most colossally inflated egos I have ever heard of!
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 12, 2016 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
That pack of Gospel writers, always trying to force others to do what they wish them to do. 
