Ted Cruz picks a fight with Wikipedia, accusing platform of left-wing bias

Cruz sends letter demanding answers from Wikimedia Foundation.

See full article...

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

No. That's not how science works. You state that, "...a theist scientist still firmly believes in things that don't exist - an afterlife, and, typically, gods and devils..." which a scientist cannot use science to say. A theist believes in things, and a scientist proves things. Your statement about "things that don't exist" can't be proven, at least currently. To my knowledge, all a scientist can currently say is that science cannot prove or disprove anything about whether the afterlife or any god(s) exist. We don't have any way to test the hypotheses that "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" or the afterlife either. You're making an assumption that they don't exist and then stating it as true.

Fallacious premise. No, "god" is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
The existence of such an entity - omnipotent, omniscient, utterly undetectable in any way shape or form - is still an extraordinary claim. Which means that unless you can produce evidence to support it's existence, you should assume it does not exist.

That's the most basic foundation of the scientific framework - logic.

You don't need to falsify the existence of the tooth fairy either for science to acknowledge that the preponderance of evidence supporting it's non-existence is by now about on par with the formulas we have for gravity and motion.

 

[graylshaped]

Fallacious premise. No, "god" is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
The existence of such an entity - omnipotent, omniscient, utterly undetectable in any way shape or form - is still an extraordinary claim.

My understanding of "god" does not entail an entity. I don't make any claims whatsoever regarding such qualities, or even, really, any qualities at all.

So... what else ya got?

 

[Komarov]

My understanding of "god" does not entail an entity. I don't make any claims whatsoever regarding such qualities, or even, really, any qualities at all.

So... what else ya got?

Sorry, that statement is congruent to an end product of the bovine energy cycle. And I don't mean steak.

For example, my definition of “god” boils down to “unnecessary concept other people tend to waste way too much time on”. And yet that doesn't mean one can't reason (and argue) about it. Which you (we) have been doing for the last N pages of comments. If you can argue about it, it's amenable to scientific inquiry. ∎

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

My understanding of "god" does not entail an entity. I don't make any claims whatsoever regarding such qualities, or even, really, any qualities at all.

So... what else ya got?

Well, if you don't define "god" as the dictionary definition of an entity that, well, doesn't leave much room for debate.

If your idea of religion is the belief in an impersonal field or set of circumstances rather than as anything with agency then no, I got nothing further. I freely admit that gravity is a thing. If what you posit is ether, then produce proof or be dismissed.

If your belief is in some undetectable prime mover with agency then I call that an extraordinary claim for which evidence of some sort needs to be produced or the claim must be dismissed in much the same manner as anyone sane should dismiss theories about the tooth fairy without at the very least an evidence bag containing very small pliers and a dash of faerie dust, or at least the Onlyfans page adress of said entity.

The idea that science can not immediately dismiss an extraordinary claim has always been fallacious. Objectively, the idea of a sky wizard is a delusion and should be discussed as exactly that.

Do you demand the respect of credibility be extended to someone thinking that Transformers are real when they go down the street lambasting all the spying cars?

The entire premise that you can't disprove the existence of god, therefore science can say nothing about it is very early - and lamentably internationally successful - agitprop pushed by intelligent design creationists in a desperate attempt to keep the sky wizard concept from getting the boot out of academic and governmental institutions.

 

[graylshaped]

Well, if you don't define "god" as the dictionary definition of an entity that, well, doesn't leave much room for debate.

If your idea of religion is the belief in an impersonal field or set of circumstances rather than as anything with agency then no, I got nothing further. I freely admit that gravity is a thing. If what you posit is ether, then produce proof or be dismissed.

If your belief is in some undetectable prime mover with agency then I call that an extraordinary claim for which evidence of some sort needs to be produced or the claim must be dismissed in much the same manner as anyone sane should dismiss theories about the tooth fairy without at the very least an evidence bag containing very small pliers and a dash of faerie dust, or at least the Onlyfans page adress of said entity.

The idea that science can not immediately dismiss an extraordinary claim has always been fallacious. Objectively, the idea of a sky wizard is a delusion and should be discussed as exactly that.

Do you demand the respect of credibility be extended to someone thinking that Transformers are real when they go down the street lambasting all the spying cars?

The entire premise that you can't disprove the existence of god, therefore science can say nothing about it is very early - and lamentably internationally successful - agitprop pushed by intelligent design creationists in a desperate attempt to keep the sky wizard concept from getting the boot out of academic and governmental institutions.

I am amused you dance through such hoops while filtering everything you say through a Christian-flavored filter.

You had it right to start with: the dictionary definition of what you want to label “god” is not part of my understanding of the higher purpose of my life as I understand it. Then you felt compelled to toss out out all kinds of strawmen to shoot at, and spoil your whole argument. Your concept of my concept is irrelevant: that you demand it fit it into how you want things to be perceived is illuminating.

One of the things people miss is that the Christian “God” (I capitalized it so you can see the difference) if you take that alleged entity at its purported word, doesn’t care what you call it or what you think of it. I am that I am. It cares about not fucking around with other people, treating them poorly, or taking their stuff. It cares about you keeping your own house in order. Candidly, it is projection even to assume “care” is involved. It sounds like good advice to me.

All the rest of that biblical claptrap is just different men projecting their control fantasies, in the same way your entire post history is your explicit and implicit criticism of how you think other people should think.

 

[Komarov]

I am amused you dance through such hoops while filtering everything you say through a Christian-flavored filter.

You had it right to start with: the dictionary definition of what you want to label “god” is not part of my understanding of the higher purpose of my life as I understand it. Then you felt compelled to toss out out all kinds of strawmen to shoot at, and spoil your whole argument. Your concept of my concept is irrelevant: that you demand it fit it into how you want things to be perceived is illuminating.

One of the things people miss is that the Christian “God” (I capitalized it so you can see the difference) if you take that alleged entity at its purported word, doesn’t care what you call it or what you think of it. I am that I am. It cares about not fucking around with other people, treating them poorly, or taking their stuff. It cares about you keeping your own house in order. Candidly, it is projection even to assume “care” is involved. It sounds like good advice to me.

All the rest of that biblical claptrap is just different men projecting their control fantasies, in the same way your entire post history is your explicit and implicit criticism of how you think other people should think.

Ooof. “I Am That I Am” is so old-old-testament that it has really absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, at all. AIUI it predates יהוה by a lot. (No, not that Lot.)

 

[graylshaped]

Ooof. “I Am That I Am” is so old-old-testament that it has really absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, at all. AIUI it predates יהוה by a lot. (No, not that Lot.)

These days Jesus has very little to do with Christianity.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

I am amused you dance through such hoops while filtering everything you say through a Christian-flavored filter.

You had it right to start with: the dictionary definition of what you want to label “god” is not part of my understanding of the higher purpose of my life as I understand it. Then you felt compelled to toss out out all kinds of strawmen to shoot at, and spoil your whole argument. Your concept of my concept is irrelevant: that you demand it fit it into how you want things to be perceived is illuminating.

Words have meaning. If what you're thinking about is something which might as well be described in a formula of field equations then that is not something you can wedge into any understood definition of "deity".

So please, skip the "I'm more mystic than thou" rhetoric, grayl, and kindly clarify. You want to describe a "There's something out there" as some form of spiritual belief and demand this is respected without any logic or evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.
And get defensive and rude when called out on it, to boot.

One of the things people miss is that the Christian “God” (I capitalized it so you can see the difference) if you take that alleged entity at its purported word, doesn’t care what you call it or what you think of it. I am that I am. It cares about not fucking around with other people, treating them poorly, or taking their stuff. It cares about you keeping your own house in order. Candidly, it is projection even to assume “care” is involved. It sounds like good advice to me.

And that rose, no matter by what it's name and attributes, is still an extraordinary claim which can, by the scientific framework, be dismissed without evidence the same way we can dismiss Gandalf, Vampires, the tooth fairy and santa claus. Not because of a belief but because that's just self-evident reality. Absence of Evidence is in fact Evidence of Absence when we're discussing Russel's Teapot. Such absence simply isn't proof - but it doesn't need to be for a summary dismissal, because the claimant is the one on whom that burden lies.

All the rest of that biblical claptrap is just different men projecting their control fantasies, in the same way your entire post history is your explicit and implicit criticism of how you think other people should think.

We live in one observable reality. Most of it can be measured. Yes, grayl, I certainly criticize the dictionary-definition delusional who take for granted that Santa Claus In The Sky or the Boltzman Brain is reality rather than assume that pending any evidence to the contrary that hypothesis can be summarily dismissed as nonsense. Because people who make such assumptions have based their entire understanding of the world on a manifest fallacy.

So kindly spare me the stale intelligent design agitprop around how observable reality makes me the bad guy in such an argument where I claim that instant dismissal of the non-observable is in fact quite complicit with the framework of scientific rigor. If you have a problem with that argument, then kindly address that criticism to whoever codified logic.

 

[graylshaped]

Words have meaning. If what you're thinking about is something which might as well be described in a formula of field equations then that is not something you can wedge into any understood definition of "deity".

So please, skip the "I'm more mystic than thou" rhetoric, grayl, and kindly clarify. You want to describe a "There's something out there" as some form of spiritual belief and demand this is respected without any logic or evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.
And get defensive and rude when called out on it, to boot.



And that rose, no matter by what it's name and attributes, is still an extraordinary claim which can, by the scientific framework, be dismissed without evidence the same way we can dismiss Gandalf, Vampires, the tooth fairy and santa claus. Not because of a belief but because that's just self-evident reality. Absence of Evidence is in fact Evidence of Absence when we're discussing Russel's Teapot. Such absence simply isn't proof - but it doesn't need to be for a summary dismissal, because the claimant is the one on whom that burden lies.



We live in one observable reality. Most of it can be measured. Yes, grayl, I certainly criticize the dictionary-definition delusional who take for granted that Santa Claus In The Sky or the Boltzman Brain is reality rather than assume that pending any evidence to the contrary that hypothesis can be summarily dismissed as nonsense. Because people who make such assumptions have based their entire understanding of the world on a manifest fallacy.

So kindly spare me the stale intelligent design agitprop around how observable reality makes me the bad guy in such an argument where I claim that instant dismissal of the non-observable is in fact quite complicit with the framework of scientific rigor. If you have a problem with that argument, then kindly address that criticism to whoever codified logic.

My relationship, such that I have one, with my higher authority--such that there is one--is my business. Your demands have been appropriately filed.

Also:

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your self-appointed intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony.

Amen.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

My relationship, such that I have one, with my higher authority--such that there is one--is my business. Your demands have been appropriately filed.

No one has said differently. For someone who likes to accuse other people of building strawmen, you certainly don't shy from setting up a few.

My entire argument was that science can indeed summarily dismiss the supernatural. That's it.

That point, adressed to another commenter, was what you jumped in on. And immediately started being an ass about claims i never made.

Feel free to believe what you wish. Just don't insist others need to give fantasy and wishful thinking equal weight as empiric observation.

Also:

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your self-appointed intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony.

Amen.

And that right there? Appeals on my behalf to a hypothetical fantasy are about as patronizingly and condescendingly offensive as advocating gay conversion therapy to homosexuals would be.
So congratulations on making my stomach churn.

Thus far I only observe that religion does indeed inspire petty malice whenever someone dares assert that the preponderance of the evidence suggests the supernatural isn't real.

 

[graylshaped]

And that right there? Appeals on my behalf to a hypothetical fantasy are about as patronizingly and condescendingly offensive as advocating gay conversion therapy to homosexuals would be.
So congratulations on making my stomach churn.

That’s some self-righteous shit right there. Are you really trying to equate someone having a belief system that you don’t understand, with gay conversion therapy?

Wow. Pretty thin skin for someone so convinced he has the Answer.

You can chill. That was a very slightly adjusted version of Zelazny’s agnostics prayer, which I’m a little surprised you did not recognize. Any karmic investment I might make would be more in line with simply hoping you find what you need. No more, no less.

Also amusing to think I would offer you patronage.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

That’s some self-righteous shit right there. Are you really trying to equate someone having a belief system that you don’t understand, with gay conversion therapy?

No, but when you try to involve ME in said belief system, it is indeed as condescending, unwelcome and patronizing as it is for a gay person to have to put up with soeone trying to advocate the benefits of gay conversion therapy.
In much of europe it's pretty well understood even by most religious people that telling someone you're praying for them is as repellent as having someone walk up to you and gravely declare their intent to masturbate to them. You just don't do that shit.

Sure, you're well within your rights to be an asshole. But that still leaves you being an asshole.
And you telling people that's "self-righteous"? Yeah, that just tells more about you and the sheer entitlement you're carrying around whenever it concerns you taking someone challenging a self-evident fantasy personally.

Wow. Pretty thin skin for someone so convinced he has the Answer.

Ah, yes, my fault for "taking offense" at what is arguably highly offensive - you involving another person in your own fantasies.
That exact sentence is usually aimed at gay people, liberal people, brown people, jewish people, women, and other demographics when someone decides they're being thin-skinned over a microaggression and tries to justify their "little joke".

You can chill. That was a very slightly adjusted version of Zelazny’s agnostics prayer, which I’m a little surprised you did not recognize. Any karmic investment I might make would be more in line with simply hoping you find what you need. No more, no less.

Also amusing to think I would offer you patronage.

Oh, I will indeed confess to being, by now, a little thin-skinned as an atheist who's had to put up with believers of fantasies trying to forcibly involve other people in their prayers. My apologies for not really thinking it very funny anymore.

Point of note. You started the offense here. I didn't address you in any way shape or form until you came at me - personally - for daring to challenge the idea that Russel's Teapot needs to be given any consideration within a scientific framework.