Arrington Effectively Banned at The Skeptical Zone (and Then Reinstated)

@bornagain

The title said ‘indicate’ not ‘proved’, I took the strongest(...)

I didn't say anything about proof. You said: Study indicated A Fact of the matter is: Study indicated A or B or C or D

The preceding study simply makes no sense unless atheists harbor an actual belief that God is really real and not a figment of their imagination.

I'm objecting to your reporting of the study. I don't want to argue about whether the explanations make sense to you.

Moreover it is now found that humans are ‘born believers’

YES, that's what I think, too. I guess atheists lost the belief. JWTruthInLove

related notes: Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html It is interesting to note that there is a very strong tradition in philosophy that holds that the most concrete thing that a person can know about reality is the fact that they are indeed conscious: "Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body." http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf "Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'" Art Battson - Access Research Group Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist—see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990. http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Belief in God is a Properly Basic Belief (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Alvin-Plantinga-/1261 Solipsist Humor from Plantinga ,,,At a recent Lecture I attended by Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, he warmed up the crowd with a few solipsist jokes.,,, FYI, solipsism is the rather odd idea that there is only one individual in the universe and that you are it. Everyone else is just a figment of your imagination. 1. British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there aren't more of us.” 2. Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.” http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/05/13/solipsist-humor-from-plantinga/ All this plays out at the cutting edge of science: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html bornagain77

JWTruthInLove, I'm not twisting anything. The title said 'indicate' not 'proved', I took the strongest, 'most provocative' conclusion as true! You omitted that fact! But not to quibble with the whole 'he said, she said' bit, but, unlike you, I actually do have other lines of corroborating evidence that strongly line up with 'the most provocative' conclusion of the study. The conclusion that atheists are in a state of denial and that they actually do have a deep seeded belief in God. For instance I have this study:

When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god

The preceding study simply makes no sense unless atheists harbor an actual belief that God is really real and not a figment of their imagination. Moreover it is now found that humans are 'born believers',,,

Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html Out of the mouths of babes - Do children believe (in God) because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise - Justin Barrett - 2008 Excerpt: • Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty. • Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency. • Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one. • Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections. • Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

Thus when I say that atheists are in a state of denial of an deeply embedded belief in God, I am not just whistling Dixie, because there actually is much corroborating evidence backing up my claim. But JW, why would you, as Theist who supposedly believes that we were made in God's image so as to have a loving relationship with God, even contest this fact? Do you are do you not believe that we were created to have a relationship with almighty God? Verse and Music:

Psalm 139: 14 I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. Blind Faith-Can't Find My Way Home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSm6x2fIZI

supplemental note:

The Atheist's Dilemma - Jordan Monge - 4/4/2013 I tried to face down an overwhelming body of evidence, as well as the living God. Excerpt: And he did something else: He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories. Defenseless, I decided to take a seminar on meta-ethics. After all, atheists had been developing ethical systems for 200-some years. In what I now see as providential, my atheist professor assigned a paper by C. S. Lewis that resolved the Euthyphro dilemma, declaring, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." Joseph also pushed me on the origins of the universe. I had always believed in the Big Bang. But I was blissfully unaware that the man who first proposed it, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest. And I'd happily ignored the rabbit trail of a problem of what caused the Big Bang, and what caused that cause, and so on. By Valentine's Day, I began to believe in God. There was no intellectual shame in being a deist, after all, as I joined the respectable ranks of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. I wouldn't stay a deist for long. A Catholic friend gave me J. Budziszewski's book Ask Me Anything, which included the Christian teaching that "love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person." This theme—of love as sacrifice for true good—struck me. The Cross no longer seemed a grotesque symbol of divine sadism, but a remarkable act of love. And Christianity began to look less strangely mythical and more cosmically beautiful.,,, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/atheists-dilemma.html

bornagain77

Please don't twist. They offered different explanations (you omit this fact!) in their conclusion! Yet you pick the one you like and proclaim, that this is what the research indicated. Clearly you don't care for an objective analysis of papers. JWTruthInLove

JW, it is interesting that you stated,,, "This is not the conclusion of the researchers." Yet clearly it was one of their conclusions, in fact it was the first 'most provocative' conclusion: the first possibility is the most provocative. In line with Bering’s (2006, 2010) argument, atheism may lack cognitive depth in that atheists’ explicit beliefs may differ from the implicit reactions that exist outside of conscious awareness. They give caveats for why, but alas the data is what it is, i.e. "they dare God they sweat!" and even they say: or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural.” JW you claim: "I like truth." Then why did you say: "This is not the conclusion of the researchers." When clearly it was one of the possible conclusions they offered and thus is still very much on the table as a possible conclusion (and I would hold strongly so).,,, it seems you more than a bit disingenuous in you proclamation. bornagain77

@bornagain77: Please read the general discussion section. The researchers have offered several explanations. For instance, the one you cite (with a different emphasis):

“it seems strange that atheists would change their behavior unless they have some emotional reactions to reminders of God or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural.”

More:

"Considered together, the results imply that while atheists' and religious individuals' beliefs about God and explicit attitudes towards God statements are different, they become equally emotionally aroused when daring God to do unpleasant things. These results extend earlier results by demonstrating that atheists' explicit beliefs not only conflict with their behavior, but also with their affective reactions. There at least four potential explanations for these findings. Because emotion and cognition strongly interact and jointly contribute to behaviour (e.g., Pessoa, 2008), the first possibility is the most provocative. In line with Bering's (2006, 2010) argument, atheism may lack cognitive depth in that atheists' explicit beliefs may differ from the implicit reactions that exist outside of conscious awareness. However, atheists may have found using the word God stressful also because others, possibly their friends and family, do take God seriously and believe in his ability to affect the world. Third, although the participants did not rate the idea of God as the reason for the unpleasantness of the statements, appealing to God may nevertheless have been absurd or aversive to atheists, leading to a dissonance-related affect. Fourth, it is possible that although atheists did not currently believe in God, they may have been influenced by their own previous beliefs. Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) surveyed American atheists and found that 71 - 76% of them had once believed in God. On the basis of the present data, it is not possible to determine which explanation is more satisfactory. Besides supplementing the present findings by a larger sample of participants, it would be useful in future to include implicit measures of belief in God and to get information about atheists' ideological history (e.g., how long they have been atheists and how passionately they deal with atheism). Also, it would be important to include a measure of socially desirable responding to determine how much the participants are worried about how they'll be perceived by others rather than worried about whether God can actually affect their lives."

@bornagain:

Of course I expected atheists to deny the clear cut implications of the preceding study but a theist???

I like truth. What about you? JWTruthInLove

JWTruthInLove you ask:

The paper is open access. Please read it.

Okie Doke:

"it seems strange that atheists would change their behavior unless they have some emotional reactions to reminders of God or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991#.UpeuwuL4Lms

Do you want me to cite the whole paper? There are several more quotes that say pretty much the same thing! :) Of course I expected atheists to deny the clear cut implications of the preceding study but a theist??? But then again it seems you have a fairly eccentric view of Christianity as is evident from how you twisted Romans to your own personal interpretation. bornagain77

News wrote: Shattabanana

What is a Shattabanana? I googled it, no hits. scordova

WJM, While I would never invite the mad or criminal into my home (UD), it doesn’t cost me anything, nor does it risk anything, to visit their ward (TSZ) and do what I can towards their mental rehabilitation Thanks for the insight,I had previously wondered what kind of moral code could be derived from " it is evil to torture children for pleasure" , velikovskys

Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (...)

This is not the conclusion of the researchers. The paper is open access. Please read it. Romans 1:20 - 1:* is talking about atheists and idol-worshippers

They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Clearly here God is talking about Trinitarians! JWTruthInLove

As to the 'atheists get sweaty' study, Atheists get sweaty when daring God – November 2015 http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2013/11/atheists-get-sweaty-when-daring-god.html?m=1 Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA that study humorously reminds me of this verse: James 2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. bornagain77

William J Murray: ,,, Although Atheist's actions are clearly insane to the rest of us, exactly why should using knowledge as a "completely subjective power tool" be wrong in their Atheistic worldview where both truth and morality are completely subjective and the overriding virtue behind it all is that 'might makes right'? They are merely, much like Hitler, living consistently within their stated worldview. Of related interest, There are actually studies that show that people who claim they do not believe in a soul are a little bit more anti-social than the majority of people in America who do believe in a soul:

Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s

I believe the main root cause for this tendency towards psychopathic mental illness that is inherent in atheists is 'denialism' (not being honest with oneself). In fact, studies have now indicated that deep down Atheists do seem to know that God is really real:

Atheists get sweaty when daring God - November 2015 http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2013/11/atheists-get-sweaty-when-daring-god.html?m=1 Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

music:

4-Him - Can't Get Past The Evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRQxEOWdDw

bornagain77

A chilling excerpt from BA77's link:

Then I read the review from which the New Yorker piece got its "science," which was actually written by a grad student at Berkeley. Now I have to say that Berkeley is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise, and I know exactly how Berkeley grad students go about their "work." Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I'm not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That's what we did.

This may explain a lot about not only the ID debate, so much more, like using climate alarmism to generate wealth redistribution. If "scientists" are being taught that "knowledge" is essentially a powerful form of rhetoric, one can imagine what students in other fields are being taught, especially journalism, where I suppose "the truth" is also a completely subjective power tool to advance ideological goals. William J Murray

Unintended Consequences: How Hostile Responses to Darwin's Doubt Turned a Thoughtful Reader Against Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin November 26, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/unintended_cons079591.html bornagain77

Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?

While I would never invite the mad or criminal into my home (UD), it doesn't cost me anything, nor does it risk anything, to visit their ward (TSZ) and do what I can towards their mental rehabilitation. William J Murray

Neil, your attempt to spin this is truly pathetic. Really, have you no shame?

Let me try this again. It occurred to me, overnight, that perhaps Barry thought I was making some accusation. I apologize if my wording gave that impression. The point of my first comment in this thread, was to point out that the assertion of the post was mistaken. But I should have added that I take that to be an honest mistake. Barry very likely was looking at TSZ at the time that his posts became invisible. And it is possible that he did not recheck before posting this thread. Or if he did recheck, he might not have noticed that comments had been moved to sandbox. Neil Rickert

Good on you coldcoffee. I would have thought many IDists would like to comment on TSZ for the same reasons I like commenting here. If you confine yourself to an environment where most people have the same worldview then you will get daily support for your views. On UD it takes many forms from Denyse's gossip to VJ's megaposts; but it all comes through a Christian, right-wing filter (there are others commenting but they are overwhelmed by IDists). This can be emotionally satisfying, even necessary - we all need people to appreciate our contribution and it is nice to have others confirm you are right - but it doesn't motivate and challenge you intellectually. Mark Frank

I just joined The Skeptical Zone to get a feel of discussions going on there. I think UD and TSZ have a symbiotic relationship :-) coldcoffee

nullasullus, Quite seriously, population geneticists (like Felsenstein) and a few paleontologists (like Raup and Gould) and OOL researchers (like Morowitz) are somewhat held in awe and admiration in certain creationists circles. We may disagree with them, but they teach us many things. Many of the creationist thinkers came from secular schools and they had to have had a certain admiration for some (not all) aspects of the culture they were in. Felsenstein criticized something I wrote. That was about the first time I ever saw him on the internet. As far as Olegt, I think you are aware I view his as someone I can learn physics from, and he has taken time to answer highly technical questions. Here are some examples: 1. comments on the propriety separating configurational and thermal entropy (relevant to Bradley, Thaxton, Olsen's book) 2. comments to behavior of differential equations in certain contexts like the racemization rate constant of amino acids 3. errors in Gentry's conception of General Relativity 4. help in analysis of Laithwaite's claims, and mechanics of spinning tops 5. corrections to one of my calculations in counting microstates (I missed a factorial term) 6. corrections in my understanding of the Liouville Theorem 7. discussions about Maxwell's daemon and renewable energy 8. discussions about the theory of stochastic electrodynamics there are a few others. Remember, I matriculated through secular training, and to some extent I had to enjoy what I learned there. Recall Kurt Wise studied under Gould. For that to happen, a creationist has to find something worth learning in such an environment. I found a few things at TSZ worth learning, but perhaps things no one else cares about (like the above list). I did post a discussion that involved the Poisson distribution. They pounced on it but didn't uncover the one weakness that Joe Coder eventually found (a weakness that is Eyre-Walker Keightley's paper to this day). I did have one pointed disagreement with Elizabeth over natural selection, but it helped inspire a series of posts at UD which improved my line of argumentation. The lesson Mike Elzinga prepared on entropy was worth studying. I don't argue with the physicists about ID or philosophical issues. You might wonder why don't I just go to school? Well, I did, but sometimes I have questions outside the class topic. That said, I do have ID friendly contacts in the physics and astronomy community: Russ Humphreys, Don DeYoung, Danny Faulkner, John Hartnett, and a few others, but some of those relationships are somewhat recent in terms of the level of communication. As I developed relationships with them, I've been at TSZ less and less. Happy Thanksgiving. Nice to hear from you. scordova

Some of you might want to read Lizzie's post about this. Remember she, along with many of the other regulars at TSZ, is banned from UD so she cannot post here. All the time she was posting here she never wrote anything approaching the sheer rudeness of Barry's very first comment (in fact I can't remember her posting a personal comment at all). She was banned for offering arguments that Barry didn't like. Barry's posts, which were essentially a personal attack, were deleted for less than an hour which was against TSZ policy, they are now restored and he has authoring privileges. If he uses them I hope he will show one tenth of the politeness and willingness to take opposing viewpoints seriously that Lizzie has consistently shown. Mark Frank

Sal,

We have opportunity to interact with world-class Darwinists like Joe Felsenstein.

Bluntly: so? What has that gained you? What insights have they offered of value? If you refuted them on a key point, would they admit it? Would the world even notice it? Sharp physicists? Same deal. I interacted with olegt for years over at Telic Thoughts. What use was it? Here's the important point, Sal: when it comes to intelligent design, these guys only have so much intellectual input they can offer. When it comes to non-ID questions, like God's existence, consciousness, materialism and more? The 'world-class Darwinist and physicist' is a layman, period. That last one is key: on many of the questions of importance, they are simply laymen. And, considering a chunk of them were tossed out of here for not even being able to affirm the law of non-contradiction, they're sub-par laymen at that. Mung,

1.) I can actually author posts at TSZ.

Your list could be just as easily implemented in all kinds of other venues. Start your own blog if you wish, for that matter. Why, of all places, there? I suppose you have your reasons. nullasalus

I don't know what a "lickspittle" is, but it doesn't sound very nice. Seriously, how would you guys feel if I came to visit your blog and announced my entrance like Barry did (as quoted @20 above). It seems like a very rude way to enter a stranger's house to me. And decidedly unchristian. Definitely not something you would say if you were interested in a conversation. Almost seems like death by cop. It's a pity KN obliged but you will see from the conversation over there that it was a much regretted and criticised decision. It would be great to see that kind of openness and fair mindedness here. KF, do you have anything to say about Barry's language? 5for

Barb:

This is their blurb: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” It’s a quote from Oliver Cromwell. He included it in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland.

All of those self-appointed skeptics have a beef with Christianity. So in the guise of advancing science, they think it's their duty to criticise non-scientists, astrologers, psychics, new agers and especially Christians. They use science as a weapon against their imagined enemies. The problem with that is that science progresses only through self-criticism. The moment science is changed into a fortress to be defended at all costs against "barbarians", it becomes a farce and degenerates from intellectual incest. That's when Thomas Kuhn comes in and hits them real hard between the eyes with a paradigm shift. Real soon now. Mapou

Speaking of TSZ's Joe Felsenstein, Matzke through a fit when I offered my tribute to Joe: https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/the-fine-work-of-joe-felsenstein-and-m-wilson-sayres/ scordova

And all along I thought that Joe Felsenstein was just a crackpot. :-D

Nevertheless world class. He coined the phrase "Muller's ratchet", and Muller's ratchet has been quite an inspiration for the works of John Sanford and Walter ReMine and a host of others at the Cornell conference. Felsenstein wrote the "textbook" of phylogeny that taught Nick Matzke and WD400 and generations of other Darwinists in graduate school how to force fit data to preconceived ideas about phylogeny. Felsenstien is Darwinist par excellence. scordova

And all along I thought that Joe Felsenstein was just a crackpot. :-D Mapou

Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?

We have opportunity to interact with world-class Darwinists like Joe Felsenstein. There are some sharp physicists there too. scordova

nullasalus:

Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?

1.) I can actually author posts at TSZ. 2.) To correct the lies and misrepresentations about ID which frequently appear there. 3.) Salvador can't get away with deleting and modifying my posts there like he does here. Mung

Eric Anderson:

I thought KN was an interesting and worthy debater her at UD, and that some mutual learning and respect resulted. I am sorry to see that it did not work both ways.

Am I the only one who can recall KN's stated reasons for leaving UD? Imagine my surprise at finding he'd subsequently taken up residence at TSZ. Mung

Barry, don't you just love how they purport to be open minded over there? It should be called "The Selectively Skeptical Zone." Mung

You guys might want to know where that quote comes from (and how it widely used): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell's_rule It amounts to saying that absolute belief makes evidence irrelevant, so ought to be avoided wd400

#20: Did barry really post that stuff ? Graham2

This is their blurb: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." It's a quote from Oliver Cromwell. He included it in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. It's deeply ironic that they metaphorically speak this to IDists while consistently refusing to examine their own beliefs using this axiom. I believe they call that 'hypocrisy.' Barb

The hilarious thing is that, in science, unless a person is content to be a mere laboratory drudge with scant interest in the development of theory (nothing wrong with that, per se), it's sure to be as counter-productive to be too sceptical as it is to be insufficiently so. After all, ultimately, it's only rigorously-applied and narrowly-dedicated common sense, isn't it?. Axel

That baffled me, too, nullasalus. And then to resume on their their turf and on their terms.... I could never enjoy KN's endless, exquisite sophistries, but to my shame, I got to really enjoy watching the journeyman Elizabeth's predictable sophistries driving ultra smart people such as Kairosfocus, VJT, and a few others almost round the twist. I'm not sure, actually, if VJT did argue with her, but plenty of top-liners did. What's happened to Joe, lately? His style could be hilariously bellicose. Axel

The very name of that forum, “The Skeptical Zone” is synonymous with elitism.

I love their obnoxious little site blurb. What was it again? 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'? Fantastic, for two reasons. 1, a pack of largely atheists of the crazier 'gnu' variety invoking Christ's name. 2, because that title says it all. 'Please, PLEASE, think YOU are mistaken. Us? ... Well no, we're right. It's everyone else who should consider they are wrong.' nullasalus

Self-appointed skeptics are like the Singularitarians. They are a bunch of elitists. Elitists can never admit to being wrong. So why even debate an elitist? The very name of that forum, "The Skeptical Zone" is synonymous with elitism. The question is, who will be skeptical of the skeptics? The question leads to an infinite regress. Mapou

'The irony of a post-modernist, bloviating sophist calling anyone a pseudo-intellectual or anti-intellectual is delicious.' !!!! Reminded again of the utter vacuity (literally) of String Theory and the Multiworlds conjecture (please, be sensible, does it really rise to the level of a theory?), I found myself once again seeing a hilarious similarity between those atheist luminaries who conceived them, and the haplessly incompetent 'wizards and enchanters' of the court of Belshazzar, as illustrated so notably on the occasion of the Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar's feast. Also of the 'wizards and enchanters' known as the prophets of Baal, so roundly exposed by Elijah for the impostors they were. It would be fun to see them dancing wildly for hours on end, cutting themselves with stones, etc, calling on Lord Dirt or Lord Darwin. But seeing Michael Behe dispatching them all to the hereafter, might perhaps, be a tad excessive, I think. Axel

While I actually think Neil is a more reasonable commenter, let me just ask... Why in the world is 'Posting at The Skeptical Zone' even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it? I regarded the initial banning of TSZ people on the grounds that they denied fundamental laws of thought and logic as a great move. Clearly, that is not a group of people with whom productive conversation is really possible. But I never understood why, right after deciding that, a number of UD people decided it was a good idea to go to their site to continue debating with them. Is UD really that desperate for critics? You have to scrape not just the bottom of the barrel, but the bottom of that particular barrel? Let the parasites go hungry without their host. Consider stopping this TSZ interaction - find other people to engage in discourse with. It's not as if there's a lack of ID critics out there - you really have to pick the group for whom this is all extraordinarily personal, and has been for nearly a decade? Better yet, as the (to my knowledge) most major ID site around, THIS is how time is best spent? nullasalus

Are you claiming that is the objective meaning of the word “banned”? If so, can you back that up?

In the context of blogging and web sites that allow comments, the consensus meaning of "banned" is "blocked from commenting". There is little objectivity when it comes to blogging, obviously! Alan Fox

Alan Fox: Awesome! I hadn't been over to check out the thread, so thanks for the link. And thank, KN, for the kind words! It is mutual. :) Eric Anderson

The irony of a post-modernist, bloviating sophist calling anyone a pseudo-intellectual or anti-intellectual is delicious. William J Murray

Eric,

I will, of course, choose to believe that KN intended an unwritten parenthetical to his statement along the lines of: (“except for, of course, that Anderson guy. He was a pleasure to debate with.”)! :)

He did! Alan Fox

To me the disappointing thing about this episode is this: KN: “I refuse to engage with the pseudo-intellectuals (in fact anti-intellectuals) at Uncommon Descent.” I thought KN was an interesting and worthy debater her at UD, and that some mutual learning and respect resulted. I am sorry to see that it did not work both ways. I will, of course, choose to believe that KN intended an unwritten parenthetical to his statement along the lines of: ("except for, of course, that Anderson guy. He was a pleasure to debate with.")! :) Eric Anderson

Being banned means being blocked from commenting, William.

Are you claiming that is the objective meaning of the word "banned"? If so, can you back that up? William J Murray

Since “banning” means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being.

Being banned means being blocked from commenting, William. Who is complaining about being blocked from viewing UD? Nobody that I can see. And I don't consider it a privilege to be permitted to post comments on a web site. It is the web site that should be grateful that people take the time and trouble to comment. I'm very grateful that you, Barry and some others have made the effort to comment at The Skeptical Zone. Alan Fox

In my rabidly agnostic, anti-Catholic youth, I would have responded in exactly the same way. IMMEDIATELY, deleting Barry's posts, declaiming, 'How dare they post here after banning us from their website!' If you have my kind of dark sense of humour, when you've been there and done that, somehow seeing your juvenile folly replicated by others adds a certain piquancy to this otherwise drab and sorry affair. Cheered me up no end. Axel

Since "banning" means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being. See how that works, Neil? Alan? William J Murray

Dirt-worshipping is, as dirt-worshipping does. Figs do not grow on thorns. Axel

Lies and evasions are instinctive with atheist polemicists, and since they are no more than an aggregation of molecules in their own eyes, with no objective moral code, why would some overriding faculty for censoring such instincts be allowed to come into play? Axel

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the “delete” button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it’s only been “deleted” if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back.

Neil is correct, William. Authors, of whom there are more than 60 at TSZ, have the ability to move posts to trash which renders them "invisible". They cannot permanently delete comments and so Neil was able to restore them very easily. It has been made clear on several occasions that, while authors are able to move comments to trash, they must not do so. As I said, it is express TSZ policy that no comments are deleted. Unacceptable comments go into "guano". So this was a case of an author acting outside express policy. Unfortunate but the status quo is restored and no comment died. TSZ will try to ensure anything similar doesn't happen again. Alan Fox

“Lot’s of room for interpretation here.” Yeah, I can see how “just moved” could be interpreted to mean “put in the trash and then taken out of trash and put in the sandbox.”

It's understandable that you want to make hay with this, Barry, but no comments were harmed during this débâcle. Alan Fox

Ah Apologies to Barry Arrington. It is express TSZ policy that comments are not to be deleted. I was unaware that Kantian Naturalist had deleted Barry's comments. He should not have done that. Comments deemed off-topic are moved to the "Sandbox" (a thread for general discussion) - now "Sandbox cont'd". Comments deemed outside comment policy (accusation of lying etc) are moved to "Guano". Hope all is now clear and I look forward to seeing Barry's further comments as the spirit moves him. All comments have been restored and Barry was never "banned". Alan Fox

WJM @ 22: Yeah, Neil's sheer chutzpah is a wonder to behold. "Lot's of room for interpretation here." Yeah, I can see how "just moved" could be interpreted to mean "put in the trash and then taken out of trash and put in the sandbox." Of course this is standard operating procedure for Neil. Get caught in an outrageous statement; don't fess up and apologize, double down. I've called Neil out on this before: Jerad and Neil Rickert Double Down And he learned it from Lizzie, the proprietress of TSZ: Liddle Doubles Down They are utterly shameless. Barry Arrington

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the “delete” button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it’s only been “deleted” if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back.

I am not monitoring which buttons people click. I can only see the result. In this case, what I saw was that some comments had been moved to trash. Neil Rickert

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the "delete" button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it's only been "deleted" if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back. Well, when you can define terms however you need to in order to make your case, I guess you can win just about every argument. William J Murray

Lots of interpretation there, in comment #18. Seen from a moderators perspective, the initial TSZ comment by Barry had been flagged for moderation (after I had earlier released it from moderation). Several other comments (four, as I recall) had been moved to trash. They had never been deleted, though they had been made non-visible by the move to trash. As far as I know, the only people able to flag comments for moderation, or able to move them to trash, are the moderators and the author of the particular thread (in this case KN). I was not sure which, though I guessed it was most likely the author. When I later saw a comment by KN, I took it that he had probably clicked a "delete" button, which had moved the comments to trash. Still, they had only ever been moved. There was no restore from backup -- I'm not even sure if a backup was taken during the interim. For the comment that had been flagged for moderation, I moved that to sandbox. The move process automatically approves a post that is in moderation. For the comments in trash, I had to first click the "restore" button, which restores from trash. That put those back in the original thread. I then proceeded to move from that thread to sandbox, which is a tedious process -- I have to do it one comment at a time. No spinning from me. No brazening anything out. I just chose to omit lots of tedious detail. The detail is now here in this comment, and apologies to those who find the detail boring. I was certainly not attempting to deny what KN had posted in his comment about deleting (and I also moved that comment to sandbox). My first post in this thread was to point out that the posts were visible and had been visible in sandbox for over two hours, by the time Barry posted this thread. It also provided a link on where to find them. It was reporting the current state, not the gory details. But now that I am giving details, yes some of the comments were not visible for a few minutes. In accordance with the rules Lizzie has set for the TSZ site, I corrected this as soon as I was aware of it. Neil Rickert

Barry #18

“I’m not spinning anything” Who are the readers going to believe, you or their own eyes

I imagine the readers will notice that your comments were deleted for less than an hour, that deleting them was accepted as a breach of TSZ policy, and that your OP was not posted until several hours after that. I guess some readers may be interested in what your very first post on TSZ said (my emphasis):

At PHV’s behest I came over here to check out this thread. Nice little echo chamber you have here. Boring. Mark Frank speaking of KN: “As always you are right about almost everything and express it very clearly.” KN: “I refuse to engage with the pseudo-intellectuals (in fact anti-intellectuals) at Uncommon Descent.” You don’t engage at UD because every time you spouted your sophistry you got your ass kicked up between your shoulders. You would much rather be here in your nice safe little echo chamber with your pet lickspittles (see Mark Frank’s comment above). Your pretense that you eschew a site beneath your efforts is a convenient camouflage for your cowardice.

If I had written that I would be glad if it were deleted. Mark Frank

Mapou: “You guys have got a lot of time on your hands.” I suppose if there is any benefit to insomnia, it is that. :-) Perhaps if I had more of a flair for the dramatic, I would say something like, “I am tireless in my zeal to expose the hypocrisy of the denizens of TSZ!!!” Barry Arrington

Barry: “I decided to test that and signed up to comment at The Skeptical Zone. All of my comments – every single one of them – were deleted.” Neil: No . . . They [i.e., the comments] were just moved . . .” Then Neil admitted (in 14) that my comments were in fact deleted and then restored. The corollary to that admission is that when he said they were “just moved,” he was lying. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was mistaken, because his own comment 14 shows that he knew the facts and then affirmatively misrepresented them. Then Neil says: “LOL. I'm not spinning anything.” I have to hand it to you Neil. Even when you are caught in flagrante delicto you brazen it out. You remind me of the man caught in bed with another woman. His wife accuses him of adultery and he denies it. She says, but I saw you with my own two eyes, and he says, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” “I’m not spinning anything.” Who are the readers going to believe, you or their own eyes? Barry Arrington

LOL. You guys have got a lot of time on your hands. Mapou

Neil, your attempt to spin this is truly pathetic. Really, have you no shame?

LOL. I'm not spinning anything. My comment #14 consists of time data, with no attempt to interpret motives. But one addendum is in order. My RSS reader is "akregator", which has been running for almost 3 days. It is running under KDE 4.11.2, under opensuse 13.1. The opensuse 13.1 was installed some time on Nov 20th. Two of the times that I listed are approximate (from memory), and listed as "approx". The other times all come directly from the akregator display. However, akregator shows the times in my local time zone (CST), so I added 6 hours to get the UTC times. Neil Rickert

Neil, your attempt to spin this is truly pathetic. Really, have you no shame? Barry Arrington

No doubt Neil can confirm ...

All times here are UTC, for Nov 12th. 2:12 Barry's post. This went into moderation (first post of new member) 2:35 approx - post released from moderation. 2:50 approx - I noticed Barry's post was back in moderation, and some replies were in trash. I began restoration. 2:57 KN posts about deleting. 3:09 I reply to KN, saying that I had restored to sandbox cont'd. 5:46 Barry posts this thread, asserting that his posts are deleted. The times that I list as "approx" are from my recollection, and could be off by a few minutes. The other times are taken from the posting time displayed in my RSS reader, and those times are probably in header lines of the posts themselves, though hard to find. For sure, they are in the data made available to RSS readers. Neil Rickert

Well, one thing we can all conclude from this is that everyone is free to speak at TSZ provided they and a bunch of other people have half the night or something to hassle about it. You've got company; that's how they do it in Soviet Shattabanana too. Mileage varies; we prefer more time sensitive approaches here. Lotta stories, lotta ground to cover. News

G2: This is one case where -- sadly -- a reply to the man is appropriate. First, you are the person who is having the vapours over the self evident truth:

And of course we come to: it is SET that it would be wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. With corollary, that if such is in progress we are duty-bound to intervene to save the child from the monster.

That speaks volumes. On the point you tried to assert, it is generally speaking false. As can be seen all over this blog for years, many disagree and comment. While there are problems at UD, the real and material problem is abusive commentary by objectors, a reflection of far worse -- outright slander and libel -- elsewhere, and there is another problem of insistently willful obtuseness to the point that it frustrates reasonable and sober discussion. As you full well know or should know. But then, it is -- for cause [cf. the linked] -- sadly, an open question whether you see yourself as having duties of care to truth, fairness and respect for those who dare differ with you and your agenda. Cho, man, do betta dean dat! KF kairosfocus

GP - thanks. Mind you SH would simply have asked Neil. Mark Frank

Mark: Better than Sherlock Holmes! :) gpuccio

#7 wenzelitis

Chain of events -KN deleted Barry’s posts -Barry posted here- Neil saw Barry’s post here and quickly/sneakily restored deleted posts in different section so he could call out Barry while simultaneously making TSZ appear innocent and just

No doubt Neil can confirm this but the timing of various comments makes this very implausible and it is quite fun doing the detective work. (It is necessary to understand that there is a six hour difference between TSZ and UD times). The key times are: * KN’s comment that he had deleted Barry’s comments – 2:57 am. * Neil’s comment on TSZ that he had restored Barry’s comments – 3:09 am * UD does not give the timings for OPs so we don’t know exactly when Barry posted here. We do know that it was after 2:57 am because he quotes from KN’s comment. * The first comment on Barry’s OP is Neil’s explaining the posts had been restored is timed at 12:36 am UD time which is 6:36 am TSZ time. Therefore, for your scenario the following must have happened in the course of 12 minutes: * KN made his comment. * Barry happened to monitoring TSZ and saw the comment. * Barry posted the OP  on UD. * By coincidence Neil happened to be looking at UD and saw Barry’s OP, rushed back to TSZ to restore the comments, and made his comment. Then over three hours later drew Neil drew Barry’s attention to it. Mark Frank

Are we talking about the same Barry that bans people if they dont agree with him ? Graham2

chain of events -KN deleted Barry's posts -Barry posted here -Neil saw Barry's post here and quickly/sneakily restored deleted posts in different section so he could call out Barry while simultaneously making TSZ appear innocent and just wentzelitis

To be fair I see that KN initially deleted Barry's comments and then Neil restored them and put them in the sandbox. So at the time of writing Barry's OP was probably accurate. I think KN was wrong, it is not in the spirit of TSZ to delete stuff, and Neil did the right thing. Mark Frank

CR@2 chuckle chuckle Upright BiPed

Just go and look. Alan Fox

Let me repeat what Neil says. You are wrong Barry. All your comments are visible and there is even one response welcoming you to TSZ and offering you authoring rights. Your comment was clearly not relevant to the thread to which it was posted and was therefore moved to the Sandbox. In the light of this might you consider correcting your OP which is very misleading. Mark Frank

The Firefly philosopher apparently adopts the same methods of policing his thread as Arrington does his blog. Shiny. Chance Ratcliff

I decided to test that and signed up to comment at The Skeptical Zone. All of my comments – every single one of them – were deleted.

No, they are all quite visible. They were just moved to the sandbox, where they are not off-topic. Neil Rickert