Jump to
Sections of this page
Other pages on Facebook
Accessibility Help
Press alt + / to open this menu

# Facebook

Recommended for You Nearby

Honda Rincon 650 & Honda 400ex $1 · Southlake, TX | View Details

Nissan 97 $1,850 · Dallas, TX | View Details

Moving sale and garage sale all what you... $1 · Rowlett, TX | View Details

See More on Marketplace

##### Joey Jaco Blakley shared Science Doesn't Care What You Believe's video.

· January 27 at 8:39am ·

Yes!

-0:00
HD
Captions
More Settings
Click for more
Science Doesn't Care What You Believe
5,572,247 Views
Like Show more reactions
share Share
It looks like you may be having problems playing this video. If so, please try restarting your browser.
Close
LikeShow more reactions commentComment Share Close Why We Trust Science In 1 Minute
Posted by Science Doesn't Care What You Believe
5,572,247 Views

- Watch Again
- Share

5,572,247 Views
Science Doesn't Care What You Believe
January 16 at 7:12pm ·

Ricky Gervais #MicDrop

Like Show more reactions
Comment Share
3 1 1 5 Ross John Miller and 4 others

###### Comments

Corey Cheek be careful trusting 2 comedians (they make people laugh for a living) over Jesus Christ
Manage
Like
· Reply · 6d
Hide 16 Replies
Joey Jaco Blakley The thing is.... they make sense and make a phenomenal point, and Jesus is just a character from a book. I'm sticking with the science themes! Of course, this guy says it best: https://youtu.be/XJEYWY1hptA Manage
Sam Harris destroys Islam & Christianity
youtube.com
2 2
Like
· Reply · 3d
Hanlon Miller Very true^ they're not discussing facts or undeniable truths, they're discussing logic and a different way to think about something. It's up to the viewer how to interpret it, not to believe it or not believe it.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek you deny the existence of Jesus Christ?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Ross John Miller you should do some research on the subject. Have you ever read the "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel? He lays the historical evidence out for the existence of Jesus Christ. No serious person who has looked at the historical evidence could deny he lived. You are certainly free to deny his deity, although that's a bad decision too when looking at the historical fact of his resurrection.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley sam harris "destroys" Christianity title always gives me a good laugh. Billions of Christians would be surprised to hear that LOL.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek I'm not impressed by the title but his message rings so true. Have you listened to it?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Hanlon Miller Corey Cheek I don't think anyone's denying the fact that Jesus was a man who lived and had a following. But his divinity is very much up for debate.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek and the existence of Jesus. I'm not a scholar in this historical area, and I do think it's still controversial amongst scholars today. Whether a particular man that the Bible may loosely cover as the character of "Jesus" really existed, i c ouldn't say for sure. I know I'm not compelled by what people say he said or did. And resurrection? Are you telling me there are no other stories of resurrection back in this time of history? That resurrection was something special? And that there's no debate whether or not it really happened? Really, tell me more what this so called legendary resurrection has to do with the subject at hand.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek and yes, he's read the "Case for Christ" and much much more
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley he must not be open to historical evidence then.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Hanlon Miller Joey and Ross deny existence.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek what she's saying is that this post is not discussing whether or not Jesus existed. You've strayed off topic
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek lol! I would LOVE to watch you discuss "evidence" in person with Ross! .... especially The Case for Christ. Now that might be comedic entertainment!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Charles Mills I'll show up to watch/referee that shit!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley happy to if I thought there was a sincere interest.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek well he actually really does have a sincere interest. But I'll let him weigh in on that one and even talk to you privately about scheduling some time.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Write a reply...
Charles Mills Dude YOU make people laugh over Jesus Christ.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Ross John Miller Lee Strobel's book purports to be an investigative reporting of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. I have to admit, it's been years since I read it, though I've listened to hours of Lee's videos that cover the same material. He puts a lot of stock i n "eyewitness" evidence, which is the worst kind as any real investigator knows. It's odd to me that he puts so much emphasis on this easily-faked chicanery, frankly. Resurrection is SO common in the Bible, I just wonder why Lee goes to so much trouble to try to prove Jesus' experience with it. Read Matthew 27:62-66. By the Bible's own "eyewitness" account, Jesus' body was in the tomb for some hours unguarded. "The next day" some priests realized how easy it would be to remove his body, and asked Pilate to post a guard. Gee, ya don't suppose someone actually did that? I.e., steal the body before a guard got there? Then in the next chapter you see the guards accepting a bribe to deny what they've "seen" (Matthew 28:11-15). Right there, in the Holy Bible itself: it admits to deception and bribery. This is why eyewitness evidence sucks. Credit where credit is due, at least Matthew is very open about this. They could have easily left that bit out.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek All that covered in the book. My main point here is it's pretty silly to deny the existence of Jesus and call him just a "character in a book." if that's your belief, so be it, but few agree with you. here's a great quote from the book:
"We have bett er historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion." Edwin Yamauchi, BA in Hebrew & Hellenistics, Masters and Doctorate degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis, 8 fellowships, 71 papers, lectured at Yale, Princeton ... on and on and on and on ...
If you or Joey or Sam Harris or the comedians know more than this guy, thats impressive..
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Hide 55 Replies
Charles Mills As a Buddhist I'm going to raise a point of order. I'm not as well versed as some so I have do somee research to back myself but it's my understanding the existence of Guatama Buddha is extremely well documented.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley And this has no bearing of the point of the post, Corey! His existence, be it so or not, is far from any evidence that he was Devine. And regardless, these "comedians" (not sure why we have to use a label here except to deflect from their point) make an excellent point. If all literature was wiped clean, the laws of science would continue to appear and be true. All of the religious stuff would be gone.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley And so to me, if he's simply a character in a book or a person who's story was inflated to legendary status, it's not relevant. It means nothing more to me than these guys are comedians, or whatever. I like the logical and rational thinking they pointe d out & am no more losing sleep over not believing/trusting Jesus over these guys than you are losing sleep about not believing in Muhammad and Allah and the teachings of Islam. A point that Sam Harris eloquently expresses in the video.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Ross John Miller There's a great bit by the late Christopher Hitchens, wherein he concedes (for the sake of argument) Jesus' existence, the virgin birth, the crucifixion and the resurrection. EVEN IF all that actually happened, that doesn't mean what Jesus said was tru e. You'd still be stuck with the ludicrous and immoral concept of Vicarious Redemption. God confers the forgiveness of sins many, many times in the Bible in ways that do NOT require a blood sacrifice, so the whole Jesus plot was utterly unnecessary from the outset. BTW, the whole blood sacrifice thing is so achingly barbaric and pagan (not to mention the ritualistic cannibalism), I think the average Amazonian headhunter has a more-enlightened worldview by comparison.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Corey Cheek Jesus Christ and billions of humans disagree with you, but so be it. Have a good day.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Scott O'Neal Having been raised in a household where nothing positive about religion was ever uttered - some negative, but mostly nothing at all, I learned who Jesus was through a personal experience long before I ever opened the book, went to a church or trusted o thers to talk about it. I cant quite say the same for Huckleberry Finn, Atticus Finch, Elizabeth Bennet et al. Praying to Gandolf didn't quite work for me - and that book was awesome.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek I'm not seeing evidence in "billions who disagree." I'm wondering what number this number is actually representing & where it came from... I'm wondering how many people agree.... not that these things would be providing any evidence of truth. Which leaves me wondering just how many people used to believe the world was flat? 🤔
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Todd Frank Miller With Corey, it's always difficult to keep up with a scorecard on his attempts at "argumentation", but just in this thread I've noted the following logical fallacies and cognitive bias:
Argument from Authority: "We hav e better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion." Edwin Yamauchi, BA in Hebrew & Hellenistics, Masters and Doctorate degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis, 8 fellowships, 71 papers, lectured at Yale, Princeton ... on and on and on and on ... "
Argument ad Populum: Billions of Christians would be surprised to hear that LOL.
Poisoning the well: Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley he must not be open to historical evidence then.
Whereas the points made by Gervais are valid no matter who speaks them or how they originate.
2 1 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Scott O'Neal You guys know this Corey? I can’t tell.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Scott O'Neal I went to high school with him. The others just like to chime in from time to time as these little confrontations come up 😆
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley And it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, and especially seeing you on here.... it's like a mini reunion 😀
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Todd Frank Miller sorry it's hard for you to keep up. do your homework then come back.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Scott O'Neal yes, you wouldn't think so by the responses, would you. that's what the internet has created -- micro geniuses and tough guys abound. lol
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Todd Frank Miller Corey Cheek "homework"? You'll have to clarify what you're referring to?
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Todd Frank Miller Would you also care to respond to my identifications of your bias and fallacies?
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Ross John Miller Corey Cheek Muhammed and a billion+ humans disagree with you. I imagine that will sway you as much as your prior comment sways me. But thanks, and you have a great dday as well.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Ross John Miller Scott O'Neal None of those characters has anything like the infrastructure Jesus has (or more accurately, the clergy). But if praying gives you a peaceful heart, I think that's great.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek wouldn't think so about what? That these people knew your or didn't know you? Are you one of these "tough guys" or "micro geniuses" you speak of? I think many who knew ross and todd prior to the internet would tell you that their intellect has nothing to do with the internet.... and they're pretty great at knowing how to navigate through it and evaluate scientific and scholarly literature. So not sure what the purposes of your continued attacks are if not more smoke screens😒
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley you don't think there are billions of Christians?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek I don't think I said that. Not understanding your question.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley i'm just counterpunching.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek what I find to me a more interesting bit of information is that there "Muhammad and a billion+humans disagree with you." So I guess we are all kind of waiting for your point.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek and there's no punching. I'm trying to gather more information in order to understand your line of reasoning.... and how we know what these billion people you are talking about really think about Jesus and the Bible, etc...
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek referring to Todd: Todd Frank Miller With Corey, it's always difficult to keep up with a scorecard on his attempts at "argumentation",
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek no big deal. don't care
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek my main point is above: "be careful trusting 2 comedians (they make people laugh for a living) over Jesus Christ" ...
and...See More
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek so here was my point, he is a character in a book to me, even if the character was inspired by some legendary man who existed in history. Billions disagree with your beliefs about invisible sky daddy's and Jesus involvement. And that the fa ct that two people make people laugh for a living has no bearing on the logic they just presented. It doesn't matter to me that this one guy claims to have more evidence about Jesus' existence than any founder of any other ancient religion. I'm just not seeing the relevance to the logic that our scientific laws will still be here and will still be provable if all of the written science was trashed. The laws would still be true. Not true about religious literature and supposed "evidence,"..... I just loved the explanation these men provided to the world about science. That's all.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Todd Frank Miller Hello, Corey?....Corey, are you still there? I must've missed it if you posted a response to my query concerning the logical fallacies and cognitive bias that you employed. It looks like you added some posts to the thread about 3 hours after my query, I'm sorry if you missed my post. Any response?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Corey Cheek i've posted my main points a few times and gave everyone solution - read TCFC by Strobel.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Todd Frank Miller Hi Corey! I don't know if my responses to you somehow got blocked, I keep seeing you post on this common thread, so maybe I can see your posts but you can't see mine. If someone out there is still getting Corey's posts, could you copy the following a nd post it to him and tell them it's from me, Thanks ...I'm still wondering about your responses to my inquiries about your cognitive bias and logical fallacies that I pointed out in your arguments. Like I admitted, I'm kind of slow-witted, so I need your help....thanks in advance!
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Scott O'Neal Ouch. 😞
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Corey Cheek Todd Frank Miller I've replied often above. hope that helps
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Todd Frank Miller Sorry to be slow on the uptake, Corey...but when you say, "I've replied often above. hope that helps," all I've seen is where you repeated your own quotes, which means that you were repeating the bias and fallacies. Does this mean that you're acknowledging that your arguments are specious?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Scott O'Neal More ouch. 😢 It honestly hurts.
Why don’t you just do this right? Grab a few of your debate club friends, get some bats and beat the holy livin’ shit out of this guy in front of the whole junior high? Will that work? Do chicks dig that or just other bullies?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d · Edited
Scott O'Neal I’m not trying to harsh out on you, but jeez...
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Todd Frank Miller I'm lost Scoo, who are you referring to and what "honestly hurts"?
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Joey Jaco Blakley Scott O'Neal uh. Corey often jumps in for the debate. He's an attorney (trained/schooled as such anyway, couldn't say if he practices given other pursuits)... anywhoo, he's a big boy who chooses to engage in debates. There's no beating here. Just holdi ng the conversation to a standard. If someone wants to high jack my post and provide "evidence" and ask for "evidence" and talk about "scholarly," I think addressing logical fallacies and biases is very important. And when the one asserting his argument can't answer for them, it's telling. And it's worth anyone who sees the thread to consider!
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley i'm an attorney. I jumped in to point out the danger of basing you eternal life on some comedians. You and others said no evidence of Jesus. I pointed you otherwise. Todd just wants to hear himself talk. maybe it makes him feel good. hope so.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek it's just that these guys aren't merely comedians. Labels really diminish people. They are men. And they made a great point. And you are attacking their lively hood. This and your other arguments are not valid, and Todd points that out. You telling me (or others) "to be careful" is like me telling you to be careful in believing Jesus and not Mohamed. And the silly thing here is, the comments made in the video are intriguing. It's simply a great way to look at science. I don't even think Jesus commented on such a phenomenon. I was sharing my interest and someone's explanation of logical thinking, & you were wanting to start and argument... fear mongering, attacking, & throwing out smoke screens. Perhaps we do not find those valid/fair ways to communicate in our worldview. As a matter of fact, I find it quite potentially damaging. To encourage people to close their mind to science and to thinking beyond just what you are told is simply a dangerous thing.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller Corey Cheek Awwww....Corey thinks that I just want to hear myself talk, when what I'd like is to hear him acknowledge the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that I was very careful to cite specifically from his own posts...I suppose one can run from the adult discussion by utilizing yet ANOTHER fallacy (the ad hominem), but I was genuinely hoping he'd be honest enough to own up....my bad.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Corey Cheek Todd Frank Miller you started the personal stuff. go look.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek that sounds like nananana boo boo, Corey! "He started it," squeals the preschooler on the playground. Come on, I thought you were better than that. And we don't need to get into the definition of ad hominem. It seems one more deflection. Are you able to address the fallacies and biases or no? Both of you, play nice in the sandbox!
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller Corey Cheek I looked back over the thread and my postings and beyond the 3 or 4 times that I IMPLORED you to respond to my contention of the logical fallacies and cognitive bias that you employed, the closest thing to anything personal that I brought u p was my initial post: 'With Corey, it's always difficult to keep up with a scorecard on his attempts at "argumentation", but just in this thread I've noted the following logical fallacies and cognitive bias...' etc. etc. Here, I made no suggestion of impugning Corey personally, only his arguments. I've never met Corey personally so I have no idea what he's actually like as a person, all that I can go by are his posts. I'd like to keep it impersonal and stick to just the strength of the arguments, but I can't even get Corey to respond to the arguments HE HIMSELF made...
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Corey Cheek Joey Jaco Blakley said with no emotion. just a fact.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Scott O'Neal This is one of the most astonishingly patronizing, arrogant, mean spirited and sanctimonious conversations I’ve ever seen on any subject. The pettiness is off the charts. I have nothing but regret that I have been even a cursory part of this.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Corey Cheek Scott O'Neal agreed. thanks Scott.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek I said what w/o emotion? I'm lost on that point. Are you able to answer the questions/concerns about the logical fallacies and biases in your argument that you brought to my post on science?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Todd Frank Miller I wish you would elaborate on your quote for people like me who are much smaller brained. 😜
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek I'm confused as to why you keep saying 'said without emotion.' Maybe I asked a question somewhere? I can't find it... or am i missing something?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller While I appreciate the implied compliment, as I've mentioned before, you're just as smart as I am, as is Corey and everyone else on this thread. Having an adult argument isn't about who's smarter, it's about who can use reason and logic to make the be st argument.
When I bring up the weaknesses in Corey's arguments, I'm not suggesting that Corey isn't smart or even that his initial assertion is incorrect (I never even ADDRESSED his initial assertion, only his ARGUMENTS for it). It's HOW he argues for his assertion that I cited the problems.
To show how Corey's initial assertion never even entered into my points, I'll use another example:
If Corey asserted, "The sun revolves around the earth!" I might ask, "What are your arguments for that assertion?"
C: "Well, the earth seems still and firm underneath my feet and every day and night I see the sun, planets and the stars rise in the east and set in the west, so they all must be revolving around the earth! It's so obvious, you can see it for yourself! And we've known about this for thousands of years!"
T: "Well, maybe there's another explanation"
C: "No, no, there can't be...MILLIONS of people believe the same thing, so we CAN'T be wrong!" (Argumentum ad Populum aka Argument from Popularity)
T: "Well, there's a new hypothesis that it's the earth itself spinning, so the sun only looks like it's moving"
C: "No, no, can't be...Ptolemy and Aristotle BOTH say the sun, stars and planets revolve around the sun and these are super-smart famous guys that have got a lot of other stuff right, so they HAVE to be right about this too!" (Argument from Authority)
T: "But just because they got some things right doesn't mean they will get everything right"
C: "Todd just likes to hear himself talk..." or "Geez, why is Todd beating me up about this?" (Poisoning the well/ad Hominem)
No where did I impugn his character or the validity of his assertion, only the weaknesses of his arguments. I'd love for him to respond to that aspect, but as far as I can tell, he just dismisses my counter-arguments. But if anyone else would like to point out where my counter-arguments are invalid or where I maligned Corey's character, I'm ready to be schooled!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Todd Frank Miller ha! Actually Todd I wasn't saying that you were smarter than me, though it's true you have more knowledge than I do & have the capacity (or will) to understand things (philosophical, science, etc) on a deeper level. But I was merely wanting to know what you were trying to say by the Emerson quote. I do appreciate the lessons in fallacies/biases, though. I'm always learning and love that!!
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller What I take from the Emerson quote is, "I should not take personal offense just because someone disagrees with my argument, because it does NOT mean that they are picking on me personally"
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Scott O'Neal I literally LOL'd out loud.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Scott O'Neal you're confusing me 🤔
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Write a reply...
Marcy Johnson I’m straying from scientific theory (while that drives my belief) by posting the following link/explanation for which there has been more proof of....rather than what “billions” believe. Not only that....it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than t rue Christianity. Man made control. NOT a bad thing mind you. But still man made belief system non-the-less. Just like every other Intangible belief system not scientifically based. https://www.express.co.uk/.../JESUS-prior-religions...Manage
SHOCK CLAIM: The story of JESUS was 'copied from prior religions to…
express.co.uk
2 2
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek 10,000 books have been written explaining how this is irrelevant.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek is there a list of these 10,000 books. I haven't read this entire article, but I think it's discussing some things that some scholarly folks find relevant.... looking for more on the subject
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Corey Cheek not sure
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Joey Jaco Blakley Corey Cheek how do we know there are 10,000?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Corey Cheek probably close
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Charles Mills Corey Logic = 10000 books means it's all true no matter how full of shit the books are :)
2 1 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Corey Cheek just means that's an old, tired, losing argument.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Write a reply...
Kevin Hicks corey regularly appears as a guest facebook lawyer defending jesus. the result is that he comes across exactly the opposite of who he claims to represent. i thought i blocked him so i didn't have to be exposed to such cancerous interpretations of reali...See More
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
James Graff
Tenor
3 1 4
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Kevin Hicks sorry to disappoint but i blocked him again. ill be damned if i'm gonna let someone infect me with negativity in the name of any god. that's what radical religious extremists from any faith do, and nothing good comes of it. that's how wars start. extreme religious or philosophical views. i'm sure he's a hunter and probably benefits from oil.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Joey Jaco Blakley Kevin Hicks awe.... I hate that he has bothered you so. His post may continue to pop up if there is more on this thread. Just choose not to read them. I simply ignore posts that do not serve me... or read them with a grain of salt. Keep on doing your thing & giving like you do! I wish nothing but health, peace, & happiness for you.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Kevin Hicks Joey Jaco Blakley i blocked him. i don't see anything he says. thank you!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Write a reply...
Patrick Watts
GIPHY
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Hide 64 Replies
Joey Jaco Blakley Because one keeps people from accepting science and scientific advances that help human beings, etc
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Patrick Watts Seems like a gross generalization about belief.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Joey Jaco Blakley Patrick Watts uh, ask Corey. They don't go together under many circumstances. Age of the earth, absolute morality source, Stem cell research? I think that's another conversation!
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Joey Jaco Blakley To name a few things that get in the way
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Patrick Watts
Tenor
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Patrick Watts Science has a source of absolute morality?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Joey Jaco Blakley Patrick Watts religion claims to
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d
Todd Frank Miller Patrick Watts Science doesn't claim to be a source of absolute morality, it is simply a method for investigating our world by discounting as many human biases and limitations as possible. Morality is determined by humans and is typically based on the w ell-being of the species. No faith required...and probably better if it's left out.... "Science and Reason aren't SUFFICIENT to explain everything, but they are both NECESSARY, and critical thinkers will continue to fight against those that deny science and outrage reason"--Christopher Hitchens
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Paul Murray "There is no spoon." -- Keanu Reeves
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray eh?!?! Fork? Knife?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Paul Murray He was only speaking about the spoon. No word on any other utensils, or even dinnerware for that matter.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Hopie FloresWeed Joey Jaco Blakley "I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one cou ld build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."" Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." 16th Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Drake Christensen Another way to look at it is: Theists should look at why they believe in their god and not all the others. And then realize that I do not make any exceptions for theirs. We're really not that far apart. I believe in one fewer gods than they do.
The ot her problem with Lewis is that he set out to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist aka to prove a negative. When he couldn't do that, he leaped to a conclusion.
Personally, I call myself a skeptical agnostic. I can't be certain there is no god. But I'm pretty sure. Everything I know about the universe tells me that no god is needed. And, everything I know about people tells me that all religions are made up to fill psychological and societal needs, aka by humans for humans.
If there is a god, I'll be astounded if it's even slightly similar to anything humans have imagined. And to think that it would care about us any more than the rest of the universe strikes me as incredible hubris.
Edit: this was supposed to follow the post about C. S. Lewis. For some reason it ended up in a completely different spot
3 2 5
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Paul Murray So, science and reason are used to better understand the physical universe, and religion is used to better understand the spiritual universe. And, humans get and have gotten the wrong answer via the use of reasoning to understand both science and reli gion throughout history. Through it all, reasoning and critical thinking were the basis that proved assertions which have since been disproved. In many of those cases, the Bible had it correct before science. In other cases, the Bible's constructs of the history of Earth have been disproved. All of the above involve human understanding.
Whether one believes in science is not critical to its existence. Whether one's religion includes God or its premise is to persuade believers that they are delusional, is also not critical to its existence.
C'est la vie.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Drake Christensen Paul Murray I had a discussion with someone once along similar lines to what you just wrote. She and I agreed on everything up to, "Mankind cannot know everything." She then said, "Therefore, there must be a God who does." And I called her on the no n-sequitur. (Which was hard to do, because I had a crush on her.) Just because there are limits to man's understanding does not, in any way, increase the likelihood of a god.
Science gives you proof without certainty.
Religion gives you certainty without proof.
Science is not about what you believe, but what you can prove. And that is the fundamental difference between religion and science. They are not equal belief systems.
Yes, science is practiced by humans. But, the scientific method has mechanisms built into it that acknowledge human failings, in order to eventually shed theories that don't fit the evidence.
The Bible is already written. Some portions have been disproved. Why should I revere the rest? How do I know what to revere and what not to? And why is Christianity better than Shintoism? Or, the Native American animistic gods? Or, etc. And which sect of Christianity do I follow? Some are very exclusionary, and if I get it wrong then I still burn in Hell.
Some portions of the Bible say that it doesn't matter how you live your life, as long as you believe and follow Jesus Christ, you'll go to Heaven. Other portions say, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you live a moral life. If Christianity is in the ballpark, then obviously I'm hoping the latter sections are correct.
I had a roomie who had a clever twist. Imagine I'm in line behind a Christian as we meet Peter at the Pearly Gates. He says to the Christian, "God gave you the wonderful tools of intelligence and logic and reason, and you chose to ignore them to believe in something for which you had no proof." He shakes his head in disappointment and lets the person in.
He gets to me and says, "You've been honest and a nice guy. Come on in, we're having a good time."
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Paul Murray There are many things science has yet to prove. There are many things religion has yet to prove.
Try this: Prove your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather existed.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Todd Frank Miller Interesting tack, rather than address any of Drake's points, you are simply dismissive of them all and try to somehow equate science and religion by saying both don't have everything worked out...sad.
Even though science hasn't worked everything out, it's done pretty fabulous by extending human life expectency by decades, increasing quality of life and given us everything that we enjoy and depend on every day such as the light illuminating you right now, the a/c keeing you comfortable, the food and clothes that you use, the car you drive and that awesome little thing that your fingers are tickling right now, the computer.
I'd love to see religion's track record during that time, besides good feelings, I mean.
As for proving that my great....grandfather existed, it isn't really necessary. The likelihood is that I have many because that's the only way that has ever been known to produce another human, that is if you don't believe that god waved a magic wand and produced Adam and Eve.
But if you're trying to imply that my believing that I had a distant relative that I've never met or even seen is the same as believing in a deity that you can't prove, the difference is: my belief in my great...grandfather doesn't inform my actions, whereas people's beliefs in deities has lead to uncounted wars, pogroms, and ethnic cleansings as well as standing in the way of reason and scientific progress...my belief in my great...grandfather doesn't lead to any of that.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Drake Christensen Paul Murray Actually, my mother has done her genealogy back 28 generations down one line. So, I have strong evidence that one of them exists to the depth that you just named. :-)
And your example is really specious. You're trying to say that, becaus e I cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for a randomly chosen piece of trivia, that somehow proves... what, exactly?
There are limits to man's ability to define and measure every fact in the universe. I've already conceded that. That still does not elevate the likelihood that the Bible is the revealed Word of God. Nor, that any god exists.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Paul Murray I did not assert such.
I'm just curious how it is that we are here.
Please refresh me on science's explanation of the first human, and I guess the second, as well, just for argument's sake.
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h · Edited
Drake Christensen That's actually a much bigger question than it appears in what you just typed. How far back do you want to go?
The DNA evidence for humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestor is pretty strong. Just one example that I know off the top of my head, chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23. What happened to the extra chromosome pair? Turns out, one of the pairs we have shows strong evidence of being two chromosomes stuck together.
So, that gets us to a primate prior to the first human. Now, you need to define what you mean by "first human." Do you include Neanderthals? Some of the hybrid humanoids? But, generally speaking, basic evolution gets you from there to here.
If you want to go back to the beginning of life, then you need to understand that we'd be discussing cutting edge science. We're not entirely sure. But, we have some ideas. Multiple theories that are being culled by discoveries of new evidence.
Those are the broad strokes. Digging much deeper would be incredibly cumbersome in a Facebook thread. It really needs courses in upper-level biology. Or, at the very least, a crap-ton of individual research.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h · Edited
Paul Murray Todd Frank Miller, I've never met you, but your arguments are extremely confrontational, bordering on offensive. I'm just having a discussion, not trying to prove you wrong. I don't understand why you seem to be in attack mode. BTW, God has a capital G in your above refrain on Adam and Eve.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray Drake, I think you just confirmed that I am talking to the right person. You obviously know a whole lot about the topic.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray My thought is that it would be extremely unlikely that a baby human, theoretically born to chimpanzee parents, would survive. You would think they would most certainly see it as weak, and under a survival of the fittest mentality, let it die. Or, tha t it would die as a result of its own weakness when confronted in the wild. Perhaps I watch a little too much Naked and Afraid, but we don't seem to do to well out in the elements, even as trained survivalist adults.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray Or, how about Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands? He posits that the bird evolved to have access to a food source in the region that, because of the shape of their beaks, only they had access to. Isn't that highly unlikely, because there wouldn't be enough time for evolution to take place before they starved to death? Isn't it more likely that both were placed there at the same time, by design?
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h · Edited
Paul Murray Occam's Razor.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Drake Christensen Paul Murray I'm no expert. Just an informed layman. I've always had an insatiable curiosity. I find a lot of this interesting. The biology portions and the psychology/sociology portions. And cosmology, and computers, and space, etc.
I enjoy Naked and Afraid, too. :-)
You've overlooked the time element. Most evolution is not a huge leap in one generation. It's usually dozens or hundreds of generations.
Survival of the Fittest is an unfortunate phrase to have gained popularity. It's better described as Reproduction of the Good Enough.
You have periods of tranquility, where a population is in an area where it has ample supplies, and many variations can exist alongside each other. Then, a new predator enters, or the weather changes, or a river changes course, etc, and a portion of the population is isolated. Then, many of the population are not fit enough to reproduce, anymore. Some variations can survive in the new conditions and some cannot. A small subset of the original population continues.
That's how the environment applies pressures. There's no goal in mind. Just a population with genetic diversity that suddenly has much of the diversity wiped out. Some locations, one or two traits determine whether the individuals will survive to maturity. In other locations, different traits are most important. Thus, the populations diverge, and you can end up with multiple species.
In our case, some of the sub-populations had less hair and larger brains. This sort of culling probably happened many times. Groups diverged and then encountered each other. For example, most people today have a couple percent of Neanderthal genes in them. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis were similar enough to mate with each other.
It's slow, and choppy, and there are lots of dead ends, and lots of similar species vying with each other, and others living apart. That's why your simple-sounding question is actually the door to a huge chunk of knowledge and research.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray Back to the monkeys, couldn't the chromosome thing be an indicator that they were of the same inventor? And, wouldn't that one-in-a-trillion anomaly have to occur randomly again and again across the Earth for it to have been able to produce a gene pool large enough to get past the first generation?
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Drake Christensen The finch example:
You probably had a pregnant finch, or a breeding pair make it to one of the islands. Its beak was Good Enough to eat some of the seeds. As they mated, and the population grew, they spread out.
Eventually, some end up on another island. Chances are there was not simply a single seed source. Likely, there were many. But, the relative density of Seed A might be lot smaller on Island 2, and there might be a bunch of Seed B, which has a harder shell.
The original population of birds on Island 2 would have enough to eat. Reproduction of the Good Enough. But, over time, there would be variations in beak strength. Those offspring with stronger beaks on Island 2 had access to more food than the offspring with weaker beaks.
Over time, most of the breeding population of Island 2 was made up of strong-beaked birds. There may also be some weak-beak offspring left. And, birds will still fly between islands, occasionally. But, due to the specifics of the food source, the predominant population will have stronger beaks.
And so on, across the rest of the islands.
It's not an all-or-nothing thing. It's almost never a single-generation change. It's a population, breeding multiple generations. Over time, based of food, temperature, predators, etc, you'll end up with some features that show up in essentially the entire population. Those that breed the most are those that utilize the environment the best. But, there is generally variation across the population. You usually won't know what the next important trait will be until something comes along to alter the local ecosystem.
Then, something that was trivial or even ornamental can become paramount.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 22h · Edited
Paul Murray I agree that science is instrumental in all the wonderful things we have become accustomed to, like having access to the NBA in my movie theater any time I want. I disagree that people's beliefs in deities is the cause of countless atrocities. More l ikely greed and the love of power is to blame. Also, without science, the destruction would not be nearly so horrific. I believe nuclear warfare is the invention of science. Is it not?
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Drake Christensen I don't know the specific mechanism that fused those chromosomes together. It could be, that once it happened once, that became a dominant trait. And that first individual became the progenitor to us all. Or, it could be that whatever ancestor produ ced the fused chromosome was actually highly likely to do that often. Enough to produce multiple individuals. I've never dug down deep enough to learn what the current thinking is on how that might have played out.
A "breeding population" can actually start with a single breeding pair. The statistics can be pretty brutal for the offspring, for several generations. But even that is not guaranteed.
I read recently that up into the 19th century, many well-to-do families were very heavily inbred. The viability of the offspring depends greatly on the original pair. That, it can happen that they have few deleterious congenital issues. And that they can produce a lineage that is actually healthier than the average.
If you know statistics and genetics, that's not the way to bet. But, it's not impossible.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray If we call that well-to-do factor the European influence, then it makes sense that white babies are the weakest. White boys, specifically, have the hardest time surviving the NICU.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Drake Christensen Paul Murray Throughout history, religion has been both good and bad for mankind.
For large swaths of time, it was the storehouse of much of human knowledge. Until very recently, I think churches and abbys were where more people learned to write than anywhere else.
But, I think you need to lay the Crusades and the Inquisitions at the feet of Christianity. There are plenty of other examples. Islam is full of them. Any religion that includes human sacrifice.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Paul Murray Drake Christensen I learned from a scholar on the topic that The Crusades at least began as a defensive effort. War ensued, and war is always catastrophic.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 23h
Drake Christensen On the argument against the chromosome thing indicating a single inventor. The way that's worded, I'm not sure which meaning you're getting at. Are you saying that the Inventor fused the chromosomes? Or, that He created a 23 chromosome species that just looks like it came from the 24 chromosome species?
The way I worded those questions should give you an idea of why Occam's Razor doesn't really fit. Not only would they both need to be designed. But, they would need to be purposely designed to fool us into thinking that it came about naturally.
There are so many issues with a god that capricious.
If He's going to fool us, then we can't believe anything we test. Radiometric dating doesn't tell us anything about the age of the planet. He put them there already aged. Light speed doesn't tell us anything about the age of the universe. He put the photons between here and the distant galaxies. Sub-atomic particles. Plate tectonics. Medicine. No field of science is immune to that sort of subterfuge.
And DNA tells us nothing about the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Even when we witness evolution in the laboratory (e. coli evolving to consume sucrose) we can't know that it wasn't the Inventor meddling behind the curtain.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 22h
Todd Frank Miller Paul Murray Classic response, faced with uncomfortable facts, claim the "offended" card.
Confrontational? Or simply challenging? YOU originally chose to post on this thread about Science and Religion. If you simply want to espouse your opinions t o repeat the pattern that you're most comfortable with in some kind of echo chamber, you're SOL, you're going to have to deal with people that don't agree with you that faith and critical thinking are on some equal footing.
Faith is the antithesis of critical thinking. CT is questioning everything, starting with yourself and acknowledging how biased every human is (including me). Science starts by getting rid of as much bias as possible, that's why it ends with truth that everyone can verify for themselves. And there are no authorities in science, anyone can question the most famous successful scientist if they have the one thing faith never had: EVIDENCE.
Faith is giving into your biases and using wishful thinking to imagine a deity exactly as you'd like him to be, and then making him an authority that you can point to that espouses all of your biases. I use a small g god because the traditional capitalization denotes respect.
Yes this post is pretty vitriolic. Normally I'm fairly mild-mannered, but in my 50s, I'm sick of watching science maligned by those who benefit from it. Having people accept some science but deny other parts simply because it doesn't match up with what they'd like to think is a rape of the intellect. And I can't imagine thinking that there is some virtue in imagining some deity that takes care of everything simply because it gives solace.
Maturity is accepting truth even when it makes you miserable. If you simply want to go the route that makes you happy, that's your choice, the rest of us strive for integrity.
As for the "first human", there was none. Every single individual is a transition between their parent and their kids. It's an incredibly small change, undetectable on the order of millennia. But over millions of years the changes add up. Asking when the first human appeared is like asking where does the green color on this spectrum start. There is no one place, it is a gradual transition.Manage
2 1 3
Like
· Reply · 9h · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray I don't know this reference ... 🤔
Edit: omg, why is this response WHAT down here? It was to the whole utensil issue many posts back 🙄
Manage
Like
· Reply · 17h · Edited
Paul Murray Todd Frank Miller, you're a real gem. First you accuse me of playing a card, then you excuse your abusive behavior, then you bring into question my maturity and integrity. On top of that, you credit science with all the wonderful inventions known to humankind, and hang all the bad things in the history of the world on religion. I really don't want any more of your religion, Pastor Miller. Nice meeting you, by the way.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 20h
Joey Jaco Blakley Todd Frank Miller well said!!!! I think I got chills and a tad ready-eyed! Loved it.... and hear no distain for any person only a compassion for learning and the well being of mankind. I think for those who feel offended, I'll have to have them circle back around to the Emerson quote.... and have them take some time on just why they would feel such anger from your words. Anger often, of not always, hides some of our scariest emotions we aren't yet ready to face! Again, love those words!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 19h
Drake Christensen Todd Frank Miller Sorry, Toad. The geek in me couldn't resist. The green started 32 pixels in from the left edge (using the eydropper tool) ;-)
But, the concept is generally correct. As I mentioned above, the "first human" depends on how you define the term. Unlike this digital image, there is no objective way to say that "This hominid is human." and "That hominid in the same population is not human."
As scientists have declared several times, if you dressed a Neanderthal in regular clothes and walked him down the street, he probably wouldn't turn any heads. Is he human? Kind of...
(I don't upload images on Facebook very often. I'm not sure if the white line I drew is going to show up.)Manage
1 1 2
Like
· Reply · 19h · Edited
Ross John Miller I can only imagine the frustration Todd must feel when he is called "confrontational" and "abusive" for simply demanding a laser-like focus on the truth, feelings be damned. Brother, your last post was absolutely the finest thing I think I've ever seen you write. Makes me really look forward to your book!
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Paul Murray Okay. One last try. It is unquestionably true that both science and religion have benefited people, and both have harmed people, as well. Why is it so critical to your religion that you disprove and disrespect God? And, why is it that my questioning science equates to maligning science? I thought you were all about the questioning, seeking truth, and all that other fine literature you just spouted.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray I'll let the others answer most of your question, but I do want to point out that first of all, atheism amd/or skeptical agnosticism are not religions. There is no dogma. Those statements are only used because religion is such a strong forc e in our society, labels have been created. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist means without belief. What would you call someone who didn't believe in unicorns? Secondly, Todd is a great guy. Genuine and authentic. Loves thinking and the study of it and research, logic, etc. There's nothing mean spirited about what he's sharing or asking. It's genuine. Lastly, i, nor todd nor ross nor drake has ever said we are out to disprove your god. And we are not. We simply do not see any evidence for it and see a lot of harm the belief can bring. And there's no respect or disrespect for this god because none of us believe or suspect your specifically defined god is real. Your belief may be real. But we don't believe the god is real. It's not a matter of distract, it's a matter of concern and pointing out flaws and dangers of such beliefs. You have to really hear that Todd is genuine when he quotes Emerson. Just because he doesn't believe what you believe.... it's not personal. YOU are not being persecuted. I will say... what's important to all of us is that people learn to think more critically. We all see how religious keeps that from happening. And Todd has pointed out some great concepts to think on and from which to learn that help us all to be better thinkers
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h · Edited
Paul Murray You don't see it, and that's okay. Thank you for your input. BTW, there's no anger on my part, as you indicated above.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Drake Christensen I'm not going to speak for Toad. Personally, I think his tone is too harsh. You've been asking sincere questions, and I've enjoyed our discussion.
I am going to take issue with calling science a religion. I discussed that above. Science is not abo ut what you believe, but what you can prove. Faith, by definition, is belief in the unproveable. That makes them fundamentally different.
Speaking of C. S. Lewis, wasn't it the queen in Alice in Wonderland who believes in six impossible things every morning?
For a creative type, that's a fine way to start the creative process. Even in a tech field.
But, for making important decisions, and weighing facts, especially those that have a profound effect on lives, I think it is a foolish way to approach that sort of issue. Training yourself to believe things that Just Aren't True leads to sloppy thinking.
And, I'll say this again:
Science gives you proof without certainty.
Religion gives you certainty without proof.
Think about what those mean. A scientist is okay with admitting that he doesn't know, for certain. But, here is the best we have, so far.
Religion trains people to treat their beliefs as existentially important. As a group, they tend to be extremely uncomfortable with the concept that some things are known by nobody. And there is no "god" to take up that slack.
Look at relationships. People who cling onto a really bad relationship. "He's really a good guy, deep down." Usually, no, he's not. But, people have an amazing ability to treat their imagination as more real than reality. I contend, that is reinforced by religious teachings.
So, for me, that is the goal of pointing out the logical flaws in religious texts. To point out the consistency flaws. To point out the contradictions to the real world. To remove the emotional crutch.
I want people to learn to recognize where they've jumped to a conclusion. To admit when they have reached the limit of their knowledge. (I use that phrase in conversation fairly regularly.) Then, they're on their way to learning to deal with the actual real world.
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h · Edited
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray I don't see what?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray you also took Todd's take on logic and reason very personal... you seemed a bit upset in your post, especially when you said, "i really dont want any more of your religion, pastor Miller." I may have misread.... but it had a tone of... well, if not anger, then what?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Drake Christensen Let me put the contrast between science and religion another way.
You have faith in your religion.
I have confidence in science.
There's a fundamental difference between faith and confidence.
I don't have faith that science will explain everything, nor solve the world's problems. But, the mechanism of the scientific method tends towards a more thorough and less biased understanding of the universe. My suspicion is that will lead to making life better for more people than religion and faith-based reasoning is capable of.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Paul Murray Frustration from the attack.
No worries. You don't see it that way. I tried to join in the discussion with an open mind in a non-offensive manner. I really appreciate Drake's take on things, and was enjoying the discussion.
Good luck, y'all.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 18h
Joey Jaco Blakley Paul Murray I enjoy drakes conversation as well. He really explains things in a way that makes the discussion relevant for many of us. Todd started out on a different topic... he's discussing HOW we can present biased and flawed arguments, without real ly understanding how we are doing that or how invalid those justifications for evidence are. His response was harsh, but very honest. He was attacked and called nasty names for simply trying to have a discussion about fair and effective argumentation (or crap, I could be saying that wrong).... but he's so on point for thinking. Drake is just so far a great example of how a more tame, but logical and less biased conversation may go. They both have their strengths, as do you! You've posed great questions!!! I've enjoyed the conversation and have learned from it, as I know others have.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 17h · Edited
Scott O'Neal This is the most incredible circle jerk I’ve ever witnessed in my life. You guys are gleefully celebrating behavior you should be flat out ashamed of. There is not an ounce of virtue in anything going on here. This conversation does not serve scienc e. It does not serve humanity. It does not represent you or your families in a way that is congruent with how I know you in any other circumstance. Do you want your kids to read this stuff?
I absolutely do not care at all what the subject of the conversation is here. It’s no longer even relevant. Willingness to treat other human beings like worthless piles of shit (for the particularly ignoble goal of elevating your own relative stature) does not even begin to describe what’s going on here. You are actively bating and cajoling people into situations with no other goal then to create an environment in which you can publicly insult and belittle them while still maintaining (the thinnest possible veil of) plausible deniability. What you are engaged in are common tactics for both abusers and narcissists.
You need to stop.
You need to reevaluate why you seek out and foster these “conversations” in the first place. There is a word for those who derive pleasure by causing pain in others. That word should never be allowed to be used to describe people of your character.
Everything I’m seeing in this conversation not only allows it, demands it.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 8h
Ross John Miller I'm confused. Scott O'Neal is one of the smartest, nicest and funniest guys I know. So when he speaks (or writes) I listen. And Scott, your last post didn't jibe in my mind with this thread. Can you cite a specific quote or two to illustrate what you found so egregious in this exchange? To my mind, it's been civil. Who is abusing? Who is a narcissist? I'm genuinely curious and at a loss. I love you, man!
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 8h
Todd Frank Miller Paul Murray A "gem"?...Yeah, probably lapis lazuli (e.g. the blue parts of the famous Tutankhamun burial mask) because it's said to represent truth, wisdom and awareness. Of course, I chose that example because of my OWN biases...see how easy that is to do?
"abusive behavior"? You'll have to go into more detail on that one. From my point of view (yes, my bias...) I was asking a fellow adult to support their reasoning, and when they totally side-stepped that, I pressed them on it rather than let them ignore it...bad Todd...
"bring into question my maturity and integrity"
I wrote, "Maturity is accepting truth even when it makes you miserable. If you simply want to go the route that makes you happy, that's your choice, the rest of us strive for integrity."
I didn't say you'd already chosen that route, I said, "If."
If you start your search for truth with the conclusion that you ultimately desire already in mind, (i.e. whatever you read and learn about and think up yourself has GOT to lead you back to your belief in god) then your pattern-seeking mind will spin all that information to that effect. The human brain is most adept at maximizing the convenience of its beliefs.
As the great abolitionist and suffragette Susan B. Anthony said, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Pretty sharp for a lady who wasn't even allowed to vote and abhorred slavery (both allowed/mandated in holy scripture)!
Should you question the validity of science including evolution and Big Bang cosmology?....YES!!....rather, HELL YES!! Bring it on!! Scientists can make mistakes, they INVITE questions and doubt; only by finding their mistakes and correcting them can progress ever be made. But DENY science, evolution and cosmology just because some parts of them don't square with your beliefs or because, without enough information/education you simply can't imagine it being that way? That IS a lack of integrity.
If there is ANY aspect of science that you accept and maintain confidence in (your computer, cell phone, food, clothes, medicine, A/C, the materials in your house and car), but then you come across an aspect of science that you question (e.g. evolution), by all means you can remain skeptical; skepticism only means withholding your judgment for now, your possible future acceptance will be provisional on adequate evidence. Skepticism does NOT mean denial (which is not accepting the science even when there IS sufficient evidence).
But when the evidence is given (e.g. for evolution, the evidence has been apparent for the last couple of millennia, and the so-far best explanation or Theory, Natural Selection, has been known for the last 150 years) and you don't have any better explanation (i.e. you simply want to hold onto your own belief because you're more comfortable that way) and you STILL deny it, that shows a lack of integrity.
"My religion"? Uhhhhh....no. You are ALWAYS free to question my assertions and point out the flaws in my arguments, like any other biased human, I NEED that (though sadly, rather than address my points, you seem more comfortable in simply dismissing them).
Science is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
I too would probably prefer to interact with Drake than me. He is never confrontational and patient in the extreme. He embodies calm contemplation, reflection and interaction. The most riled that I ever saw him was when he raised his eyebrow....chilling.
I used to be of the philosophy, "Let people believe what they want to believe, just as long as it doesn't affect me." But if someone is willing to accept some "truth" without evidence in one aspect of their life (e.g. religion), they are very likely to use that mindset in other aspects of their life (such as accepting or denying some aspect of science without evidence). And then, after looking a little closer, I realized that it did affect me, and all humanity. That when the part of the brain capable of critical thinking was willfully turned off, it had huge consequences for all of us. That is sort of an answer to Patrick Watts's original post, "Why can't we have both?" That's part of the reason why I probably come across so ascerbic and demagogic. When I see the damage from that throughout history and in the present day, I just can't stay silent any more.
I'm not angry or frustrated at you personally, Paul, I am angry and frustrated with the mindset, and you are hardly the only person with it. There are billions on this planet, and always have been, that have approached the search for truth this way. I am one of them, and I still have to fight my biases EVERY SINGLE DAY, even EVERY HOUR, because it's how my brain is wired and how every human's is wired that has ever lived. The brain gives us our biases, but it doesn't mean that we can't fight back. Peace.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 8h
Scott O'Neal Ross John Miller I appreciate that beyond words. I will get back to you on that. I've got some on the clock stuff to do. Thanks for asking.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5h · Edited
Scott O'Neal Drake Christensen
Drake,
I’m so glad you’re here and actual conversation has arisen!
For the record – and it’s sad I’m having to say this. I’m writing not to prove you wrong, but to give you some insight on how our two different points of view and sets of life experiences result in our using the same words differently.
Faith. From the perspective of a Christian, the way you used the word faith above would be more like the we would use “hope” or some word that means “unsubstantiated belief”. For us, that’s really not it.
I’ll try to come up with an analogy. My boys have complete faith that I have their best interest in mind at all times and even that I put their best interest (as judged by me of course - that’s important if we’re going to be honest) in front of my own. There is no scientific evidence for this. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but even that could be easily disproven, if that was the goal, by citing a lifetime of individual circumstances (“Not now, Daddy’s busy”, “After the game is over”, “Tell me later when I have more time”, “I would, but I have to work”). See the Kramer vs Kramer court scene for how that world work. Now imagine we take in Bob, the foster kid, who came from a horrible situation. I’m the same guy. My kids are the same guys. No facts have changed at all, but Bob would have absolutely no faith in me whatsoever - nor should he.
Here’s where the analogy ties faith and the church (not God/Jesus) together. Even if a social worker (representing “clergy”) tells Bob all about me, Bob will still not have the faith in me that my sons have built through their own experiences. It’s impossible. Now, if Bob and Steve the social worker have a great relationship and have built some trust, Bob would have fewer barriers to trust (faith). However, if I were to act contrary to how the social worker described me, Bob would never build faith in me – no matter what words the social worker used. In fact, the relationship between Bob and Steve would likely be damaged.
Faith is always built through personal experiences – never on someone else’s (or some book’s) words. I used always and never very deliberately.
In the real world, the faith/clergy/believer relationship is almost entirely inverted from how non believers often describe it. People on the outside use the word “clergy” like there’s some some sort of dystopian hegemony controlling our thoughts. I don’t know a single Christian who uses the word “clergy”. I mean not one. We use words like “Tim” and “Nancy” – those are actual people I know personally. They are friends of mine.
Wrapping it up with our analogy, Bob (potential believer) would/could never have faith in me (God – YES! ) because the clergy (Steve) told him too. It just doesn’t work that way. In fact, just the opposite is true. Even if Steve, promotes, advocates, and encourages Bob to have faith in me all day long, it will add up to nothing unless Bob and I develop a relationship and I DEMONSTRATE (actions not words) that I am worthy of his faith.
That and faith and science are not mutually exclusive in any way :-)
Manage
Like
· Reply · 6h
Drake Christensen Interesting that you chose to focus on the word faith. I started to type something on that in one of my previous posts, but pulled it to retain focus on my point at the time. But, I agree with your post that it is important to clearly define our terms, here.
Often when watching TV, maybe as often as once a week, I hear a character say, "I have faith in you." And it bugs the hell out of me :-) "No!" I scream in my head. They have *confidence* in the person! They *trust* the person!
There was one TV scene that I think encapsulates the difference nearly perfectly. In the House episode "House vs God" at the end of the episode, the spiritual healer kid didn't want to be examined, It was the father's decision on whether to allow it. The kid implores his dad, "Dad, please have faith in me!" The father thinks a second, and says, "I have faith in God. You, I trust. As much as a father can trust his 15-yr-old son."
That's the difference. You can trust people. You can have confidence in them. But, trust cannot be given. (Rather, it's foolish to give it freely.) It should be earned.
Faith is the belief in the unproveable. So, by definition, it cannot be earned. That's why it is appropriate for use in religion. And, that is why it is inappropriate for use in ones expectations from a human.
In my minuscule opinion.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3h · Edited
Drake Christensen Let me see if I can help Todd, Joey and Ross understand just how abrasive Todd's posts come across. I'll start with a joke:
Q: How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian?
A: They fucking tell you!
That's kind of how Toad is coming across, lately. He is a Critical Thinker, with capital letters. In fact, he's often a CRITICAL THINKER!!! It has become a calling. It really has become as important as a religion.
He wants everyone to know that he's trying to question everything. But, if you don't agree with something he considers scientifically established fact, then, oh, boy. You better ready for the tsunami of intense emotion.
He will set out to attack your reasoning skills. If you get upset, he'll attack that. If you get frustrated, he'll attack that.
Toad. Dude. You need to take a step back.
There's a time and a place to attack. And, those times really don't come up very often in everyday life. The vast majority of the time, you need to just make clear what your position on the actual subject is. Withhold your critique of their approach unless it is to clarify what you're saying. Two examples above: Where I asked Paul what he meant in the chromosome thing. And, when Scoo and I are defining our terms, precisely.
Stop aggrandizing yourself out loud about thinking critically. Back off a little, closer to where you were when you felt people should believe what they want to believe. This is America. One of the big advantages is that it's okay if the people over in the next town believe something completely ridiculous. For a couple of reasons.
One, life is miserable for you and for everyone around you if so many encounters become opportunities for an attack. And if you can't attack, then massive stress.
And, B) because nobody has all the answers. If you do manage to get everyone around you to conform to one mindset, chances are you're going to devolve into groupthink. You will become more and more xenophobic to different approaches to situations. Different mindsets can sometimes complement each other, not conflict.
Pick your battles. Most of the time, look for opportunities where the other person is open to examining some of their beliefs. Where they admit that they need some information, by asking questions. If they're not ready, haughtily pointing that out to them is likely not going to make them any more ready.
Andy Laska had an anecdote he shared with me. At one place he worked, there was a pretty religious guy. The guy knew Andy was an atheist. They interacted some during the day. Andy knew he was sharp, but also knew that he was pretty devout. Andy said that when religion came up in the normal conversation, that he could tell the guy was poised to defend his position. Andy didn't hide his thoughts, but he didn't set out to confront him. After some weeks, when they'd gotten to know each other and respect each other, the guy started asking questions. That was the opportunity for Andy to make an impression. Apparently, it became a semi-regular thing for them.
I don't think Andy said he "turned" the guy. But, he got him to think. Hopefully, got him to check himself, occasionally, when dismissing something that superficially contradicted his beliefs. Hopefully, asked himself whether he really did have enough information to dismiss it out of hand. (Obviously, this is wishful thinking on my part, here.)
Point being, wait for the person to be ready. Pounding them with a sledgehammer is rarely going to produce a positive result.
And, just calm down about it in general. Life's too short. You're causing yourself a lot of stress. Look for places you agree and enjoy those. They'll be more willing to share their perspective on all kinds of things, and you'll often be surprised by insights they'll spark in you.
And when they're ready, it will be a much more pleasant conversation.
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3h
Todd Frank Miller I appreciate what Drake is trying to do here, and I fully realize that my posts on this thread have been uncomfortable for some.
Has critical thinking become my calling? Arguably, one of them. CT and reason and logic and science. I've just finis hed writing a book on the need for them. Why did I write it? Because of the potential I see in every person, everyone has a brain that can do wonderful things. But on the flipside, every man-made problem that mankind has ever faced has also originated in a human brain: Racism, Sexism, slavery, torture, genocide, war, all originated in a brain that didn't utilize all of these disciplines.
In Ancient Egypt (so as not to upset "the natural order" that gave them everything that they needed), no one dared suggest any new way of thinking, so there was no particular advancement....for 3000 years. In the Dark Ages/Middle Ages, various innovative ways of thinking were often punished by torture and execution; and another 1000+ years of progress were slowed to a snail's pace. Considering how quickly we've advanced in the last 100 years (not just technologically, but sociologically in the areas of human rights, equality and justice), it's mind-boggling to imagine where we'd already be today, having had an extra 4000 years of ever-accelerating progress behind us. We all have that potential within us, but we can only realize it fully by getting out of our comfortable ways of thinking and questioning how we use our minds.
Maybe this post is how I should have responded to Paul's post. Lesson learned.
I'll go away now.
1 1 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2h
Scott O'Neal Todd Frank Miller Please stay! But have this Todd stay! Wrap everything you are passionate about above in the same love and kindness that so effortlessly flows from you in so many other situations.
You cannot do a kindness to soon, for you never know when it will be too late.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
2 1 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2h
Scott O'Neal Btw - I will be buying your book the moment I get the opportunity. I sincerely look forward to the edification.
3 3
Manage
Like
· Reply · 2h
Drake Christensen Todd Frank Miller It's not just here. The last couple of times we've had lunch, you would swerve onto your topic, and the emotion and intensity level would climb quickly. I didn't point it out at the time, and you're probably only vaguely aware of it. Fair warning, I might start gently doing that in the future. (When I visit my mom' I scold her precisely one time each visit when she lights up a cigarette. I try to make it funny, like telling the dog to tell her to stop. Once, with my uncle, I came running in the room with a fire extinguisher when he lit up.)
Passion is fine. But, when you get yourself worked up like that, you're not really sharing what you know. You decree how things should be. That's where it gets uncomfortable.
The other bit in your attacks that slipped my mind when I typed it above. In addition to attacking critical thinking skills, you belittle people by implying immaturity, and accuse them of using victim cards and tacks. It really comes across as condescending. Often extremely so.
When you do that, you're not changing them for the better. You're hardening them, as they turn away and ignore you. Exactly the opposite effect from what you're going for.
I understand that this has been on your mind, because of your talk, and writing your book. But it's time to dial it back a little, and cut people some slack.
I certainly don't want to shut you down completely. Just suggesting you prime yourself to look more for common ground to build from, rather than flaws in logic to tear down. (Sorry. Couldn't help myself going for the cheesy metaphor)
2 2
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1h
Joey Jaco Blakley Drake Christensen I hate chiming in because, Drake, you're such a great communicator and demonstrate how to put all of these things we've talked about in practice. I have to say, we have a history with Corey who initially posted on my post. And I think people looking in might need to understand that history. I typically get one or persons messaging me privately for defending a position against him because his are typically very hurtful and shameful in the name of religion. He calls us all out and then runs. I hear what you are saying to Todd, and agree... you've also probably said enough 😉 Thank you! But in his defense, I think Paul and others have simply gotten caught in the crossfire! Though yes, Todd is a bit hyper focused on these thinking concepts.... and as a friend, I just get that. Others don't know that. And great catch.... gotta back off a bit from pushing this information onto people for it becomes to seem a bit dogmatic! Glad friends on his thread are easing back away from ledge, so to speak, and maybe this conversation could continue in a loving space off line 😘
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1h
Drake Christensen Joey Jaco Blakley You're right. I picked up a little on that, skimming the earlier messages. I should have followed my own advice and cut Todd Frank Miller a little slack. The thought flitted across my mind a coupla times. But because I hadn't read those thoroughly, I lost it. Poor excuse, but that's how it processed in my brain.
Sorry, Todd, if I came on too strong.
1 1
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1h
Patrick Watts And now we have come full circle...Manage
GIPHY
Like
· Reply · 1h
Paul Murray Amen.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 32m
Write a reply...
Someone is typing a comment...
What do you think?
Facebook © 2018

- English (US)
- Español
- Français (France)
- 中文(简体)
- العربية
- Português (Brasil)
- Italiano
- 한국어
- Deutsch
- हिन्दी
- 日本語

Show edit history
Chat (43)
Chat

New notification from Todd Frank Miller
Close popup and return