🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric Gisse wrote:
> 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.


If you are afraid to reply to each paragraph
on its own merits you can justify that. In fact
you can justify just about anything.


> 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.


That's a copout and you know it. But that's OK,
I really didn't expect better. You're still
seeing red. Just remember that "being right"
is not a valid justification for all sorts of
misbehavior.

Carry on as you must.


>>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.
> 
>