🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 1, 12:55 pm, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 9:08 am, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>
> >>Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 31, 2:14 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>deep snip
>
> >>>>Richard Dawkins, author of "Root of all evil" made the claim that
> >>>>militant faith is again on the march despite the progress of
> >>>>science. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if science was raised
> >>>>above the sea of indoctrinated realities, to take its rightful
> >>>>place in the world as the champion of truth.
>
> >>>It only appears as "militant faith" to someone who is unwilling and
> >>>unable to understand the many explanations, links, and books
> >>>referenced to him.
>
> >>Mr. Gisse:
>
> >>You need to stop posting for a while. You're so immersed
> >>in what you think you're trying to achieve that you've
> >>forgotten to read what your correspondent is writing,
> >>or even worse, ignoring it altogether. Hint: seeing
> >>everything through a haze of red is a *bad thing*.
>
> >>Let's talk about Dawkins for just a moment.
>
> >>Here's the opening paragraph to the Wikipedia article
> >>about him:
>
> >>"Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a
> >>British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular
> >>science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for
> >>the Public Understanding of Science at the University
> >>of Oxford.[1]"
>
> >>I hope there's no need to beat up on you any more
> >>for this sort of thing.
>
> > I'm reasonably sure that Dawkins was talking about creationists, who
> > tend to make the same arguments about evolution that folks on here use
> > against modern physics. The "militant faith" likely refers to those
> > same people - but since there is absolutely no context, I can't be
> > sure.
>
> > I don't even see why you felt you had to reply.
>
> Figgers. You're still seeing red.
>
> No matter what Keon's science is or isn't, read the
> paragraph he wrote. You might not see yourself in it,
> but I sure do, and I'm not arguing the science at all,
> but the precise aspects he's hit on.

I did read the paragraph he wrote, and found it amusing given his long-
standing resistance to conventional explanations through multiple
paths.

Is someone a pioneer because they refuse to understand, or just an
idiot?

If you don't want to argue science, that's fine. Just don't expect me
to play ball with you on it.

>
> Go out of doors. Spend the weekend interfacing with
> friendly human beings. One view of the universe is all
> numbers. You need to spend time looking at things
> directly for a bit. The sun really doesn't rise or set
> around how right you are and how wrong he is on any
> particular issue.
>
> And when you've done some R&R come back and explain
> to me how time has behaved identically everywhere
> since the first few moments after the initiation
> of the big bang.
>
> But please go take the cure first.
>
> Thanks.