FYI-FTR

A new accusatory talking point being used by one particular frequent objector, is that I am ducking answering what he imagines I cannot answer. This arose in connexion with his drearily raising yet again an obsessive theme that would drag threads into the sewer. Having taken time to deal with such in one thread, I refused. I took time to deal with the focal topic (currently at top of UD’s recent active threads) then I took time to answer objections as above. For corrective record, I now headline, and as the relevant thread is still open, discussion will be entertained there. First, 419 in the atheism warrant challenge thread, July 17 2019 at 11:54 am on blog timestamp: [KF, 419:] Read More ›

One of the lingering talking points used by darwinists in debates is fixity of species, which as usual is used in a way that is rhetorically resistant to correction. It just popped up here at UD, and so, by way of DDG search, let’s lay it to rest, starting with the much despised YEC’s. The logic here is a fortiori. Okay, from Creation Wiki, on Baraminology: Baraminology is a creation biology discipline that studies the ancestry of life on Earth (biosystematics). It draws from the presupposition that God created many separate kinds of organisms as described in the Biblical book of Genesis, and uses scientific means to determine which organisms belong to the same kind (baramin) and by contrast which Read More ›

Over the past several days, JS has been self-unmasked as a troll at a notorious anti-UD forum site.  As a public service, to demonstrate the tactics and mentality we are up against, I now headline an exchange with a likely second “sock[puppet]” that popped up to try to project accusations: MK, 139: >>I have gone back and read through many, although not all, of JSmith’s comments. Although I disagree with many of his views, I don’t see anything that would warrant the venom and viscous [sic] accusations that you are tossing his way . . .  [–> note, this is a claimed school-marm]>> Here we see the tag team backup in the form of what is very likely a concern Read More ›

It seems there is now a talking-point agenda to dismiss the fine tuning issue as an illusion. So, in the current thread on the big bang and fine tuning, I have clipped and commented on a recent article by Luke Barnes. However, comments cannot put up images [save through extraordinary steps], so it is first worth showing Barnes’ key illustration, as showing where fine tuning comes in, updating Hoyle’s remark about the C-O balance first key fine tuning issue put on the table in 1953: Let me also headline my comment, no. 77 in the thread: >>Luke Barnes has a useful semi-pop summary: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/…..tures-laws Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Read More ›

Video: (This is supplementary to the discussion thread here started by HeKS, as he only linked the debate. Onward discussion is invited there in the thread.) END

As the WJM arguing thread continues, we can notice other concerns, here, extreme nominalism and its nihilistic consequences. Yes, nihilistic: might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘meaning,’ ‘law,’ and so forth. I responded to CF’s attempt to push principled objection to nihilistic, nominalistic, radically relativist, subjectivist homosexualisation of ‘marriage’ under false colour of law [cf Girgis et al here], with racism as follows, at 40: >>wrenching a term like marriage out of its natural context and imposing a distortion under false colour of law has not created a new form of marriage. It only reveals that those who do it are in the grips of a nominalism that cannot recognise the manifestly evident core principles of the moral laws of Read More ›

In a recent exchange with BA in the WJM arguing thread, CF inadvertently revealed that he too knows or should know and acknowledge, that there is an oughtness towards truth. This is not unexpected, given the core moral self evident truths. For instance, we can see the first cycle: >>1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even Read More ›

In WJM’s still very active Subjectivism privilege thread — and in response to my citing Plato’s warning on radical relativist amorality, factionalism and nihilism in The Laws Bk X, CF has recently gloated (cf 417): “Frankly, I am glad that the type of prurient, judgemental morality that you worship [–> yes, we catch the implicit, Lewontin-style a priori,  self-referentially incoherent and amoral evo mat scientism based atheism and/or fellow traveller ideologies] is dying out.” This tellingly echoes a recent blog post by Harvard Law professor Victor Mark Tushnet** on the legal exploitation of claimed victory in the culture wars: >>The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they [= conservatives] were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as Read More ›

CF’s objection to “we are inescapably under the government of ought . . . ” in WJM’s subjectivism privilege thread is revealing and worth headlining, as is the onward exchange, as it shows what we are dealing with. Remember, this is a live example of a now common mindset: CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what you have yet to cogently engage — and this is not personal disagreement it is a matter of warrant: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to Read More ›

Overnight CF and Aleta threw down a gauntlet in WJM’s thread on subjectivism: CF, 148 : >>KairosFocus: “CF, again you are asserting when something you have consistently refused to address is on the table.” [CF:] the fact that you disagree with how I have repeatedly addressed the issue does not mean that I have “consistently refused to address” it.>> Aleta,149 : >>Re 148: what he means is that you consistently refuse to agree with him.>> Of course, the truth is, CF and others of like ilk have consistently side-stepped dealing with evidence that there are self-evident moral truths (07 is still missing in action . . . ), that we are under moral governance, and that this directly impinges on Read More ›

In a current WJM thread on transgenderism, CF has been arguing that different cultures and religions take different views and each holds themselves to be superior — of course this overlooks for just one instance a key remark C S Lewis made in his essay, “Men Without Chests” on what he called the Tao, on how uniform core moral principles are across time and place (when we deal with people we accept as equals and/or care about): >>in early Hinduism that conduct in men which can be called good consists in conformity to, or almost participation in, the Rta — that great ritual or pattern of nature and supernature which is revealed alike in the cosmic order, the moral virtues, Read More ›

Athens, the first great democracy — the city state and naval power that in company with the great Greek land power Sparta led Greece in its successful defense against Persian aggression — foolishly and arrogantly grasped for empire and wealth; so it fell due to its hubris. By march of folly [I add, cf vid lectures here]: For, when Persia made its second major move against Greece, it was naval power at Salamis that broke the Persians’ ambitions. And Athens then led in forming the Delian League, which: >> . . .  founded in 477 BC, was an association of Greek city-states . . . under the leadership of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after Read More ›

As we continue to look at the issue of wedges used at watersheds to trigger slides down mutually polarised slippery slopes to ruin, D reminds us on the lesson of the White Rose martyrs . . . a movement that is now pivotal in some key ways to the modern self-understanding of the German people. We tread holy ground here, lessons literally bought with blood and tears. Here is D, reporting on a recent tour of pivotal sites and linked reflections: >>Regarding your clear warnings about the inescapable consequences of disregarding the lessons from history, there are a few interesting things I noticed during my recent first visit to the Polish cities of Wroclaw and Krakow a week ago. However, Read More ›

As discussion continues on the march of folly watershed and slippery slopes of wedging apart, polarisation and ruin, it is time to expose mass manipulation tactics. Aka, “brainwashing.” Here, I clip comment 771: ______________ >>>Can “mind control” techniques really rob us of ability to think, decide and act for ourselves? Are we really responsible, free, rational creatures? (Or, are we more like computers that just need to be purged of old programming and loaded with new software?) After the Korean War (1950 – 53), there were major studies on brainwashing of prisoners of war, but in the end it became clear that the techniques in use were similar to much more familiar processes of persuasion and change. Though, perhaps, at Read More ›

As debate has proceeded on the watershed, wedge-apart issue, real-time events have intruded to show who has read the dynamics accurately. Never mind the dismissive, denigratory accusations: bigot, hater, coward, apocalyptic, and worse  . . . So, it is time to promote yet another comment in the still-in progress thread — no. 656 — as a FTR: >>Events as we debate, sadly, are showing just how accurate and timely the analysis in the OP above is. Now, in the OP I spoke to bringing a society to a ridge-line watershed that forces a wedging apart of a community, country or civilisation along double, mutually polarised slippery slopes leading to ruin. When I did so, I had no awareness of a Read More ›