Friday, November 24, 2017

Sacerdotus Is (Even More) Stupid (Than Previously Thought) Part 5

Author's note: I know I just wrote that I'd be spending more time writing about social issues and lay off atheism for a bit, but a recent attempt to rebut my blog post on why I'm an atheist got my attention and prompted me to make a response. I'll get back to social issues when this is done.

Happy Thanksgiving!

A supposed "philosopher" who challenged me on my post Why I'm An Atheist, wrote a follow up to my follow up, and in it he claims again, that's he's refuted me and that I'm ignorant of science and philosophy. The exact opposite is true and I can easily show why. His arguments are so bad, they are laughable. And I don't mean this to be facetious, I mean this with all seriousness. He makes so many common argumentative mistakes and factual errors that I cannot take him seriously that he has a degree in philosophy and science. If he does have a degree, he should get a refund, because he apparently learned no serious critical thinking skills because of it. His arguments are on the caliber of the same old tired internet apologist, like the many wannabe William Lane Craig clones out there. Only he's at the low end of the spectrum.

If you're wondering why my posts denigrate him so harshly it's because he mocks atheists and calls atheism stupid. Here I'm just giving him a taste of his own medicine.

I continue with part 5 covering arguments 12 and 13. Starting with his response to argument 12, his words are in block quotes.

12) All the arguments for god fail

Continuing on with this sad excuse for rebuttal we come to some demographics on atheism. He writes,

Atheism is declining. The author is not up-to-date and relies on an old 2014 study.  According to the Pew Research, atheism is on the decline (see: Previous studies claiming that the "nones" is on the rise clearly specify that these "nones" are not atheists, but those who are indifferent to religion. In other words, they are people who simply do not adhere to organized religion but still believe in God.  Atheism or atheists who completely reject God and religion are in fact on the decline. It is nearly extinct in Russia (see:

Many mistakes here. First, taken at face value, that article doesn't say atheism or the unaffiliated is declining. It says the unaffiliated will decline as a percentage of the world's population only due to the rising number of Muslim births in third world countries. (And by this metric Christianity is also declining). It doesn't say the raw number of atheists or unaffiliated will decline. In fact, the number of unaffiliated is actually expected to grow from 1.1 billion to 1.2 billion. He'd know that if he actually read the article instead of reading the headline.

Secondly, I've already written a critique on my blog about the faulty methodology of PEW's projection methods. Read: Did Pew Project The Future Of Religion Accurately? I wrote that "It seems that they're not taking into account conversions and deconversions. Many theists are leaving their religions and becoming unaffiliated (which includes all deists, agnostics, and atheists) and this is especially true in the West, where the number of Christians is dropping precipitously. Their future projection of the percentage of the unaffiliated in the US by 2050 seems deeply suspect, and indeed, out of whack with their other data."

In other words PEW is just assuming that if 2 Christians have a baby, that baby will be a Christian its whole life and if two Muslims have a baby, that baby will be a Muslim its whole life. Their predictions are even out of line with their own actual data that shows the unaffiliated for the US has already grown passed their projection. This shows their methodology is faulty, so I don't trust these results at all. This new article is just a rehashing of the old one I critiqued using the same data and making the same predictions.

Here's what PEW predicts will be the number of unaffiliated in the US to 2050. They predict it will grow just 9 points in 40 years from 16% to 25%.

But here's Pew's own numbers showing the rise of the unaffiliated growing much faster. In just the 7 years between 2007 to 2014, the unaffiliated grow by 6.7 points. (Christianity also dropped 7 points during that time, showing US Christians are leaving the religion to have no religion.)

This shows PEW's long term predictions for the decline of the unaffiliated as a percentage of population are incorrectly underestimating the number due to a flawed methodology. Pew doesn't seriously think that the number of unaffiliated Americans will rise just 3 percentage points from now until 2050 after they just grew nearly 7 percentage points in 7 years do they? No. Rather, there is a flaw in their methodology in projecting future religious growth, which, I suspect, relies almost entirely on fertility rates.

The number of atheists in the US according to one study is much higher than previously thought, and is as high as 26%. In the UK the number of people with no religion has hit a majority for the first time at 53% and atheism is rising throughout virtually every country in the West. In Russia, Putin has made the Orthodox Church front and center because he's using to prop up his power. He's appointed religious extremists into positions that allow them to pass laws that forbid publicly criticizing the Orthodox Church. In other words, Putin is turning Russia into a theocracy where the freedom of atheists is being curtailed. One single data point from a single country doesn't show a trend. And Sacerdotus's source if taken at face value shows an increase in actual numbers, not a decrease. He just doesn't understand how to use graphs.

I am not surprised that this author seems to be allergic to facts. His/her arguments are void of them.

Ha! The one allergic to facts is of course Sacerdotus. He cites one country as proof atheism is declining, and he cites another survey with flawed methods that only says atheists will decline as a percentage of the population because Muslim births will grow enormously. It doesn't mean the number of atheists will shrink, they predict it will actually grow. But he's to stupid to know this because he can't read.

Moreover, science does not negate the principle of causality. It is a principle studied in physics and cosmology.  The quote from Sean Carroll does not address what the author thinks it does. I demonstrated that in my previous reply.  I refuted each point the author made using solely science, theology, philosophy, psychology and scripture where appropriate in order to correct the author's misconception on sin and suffering from a Christian perspective. This author did not bother to read my post it seems. 

Science does refute the principle of causality. Scientists use the word "cause" because it's convenient. The problem is language. We have words that mean different things in different contexts, just like how "theory" in science means one thing, and colloquially it means another. Sean Carroll's point is exactly the point I'm making. Only Sacerdotus is confused on this because he doesn't know the subject matter. To further prove my point, here is Sean Carroll's latest talk at the Royal Institute in England on how modern physics has shown cause and effect are not fundamental to reality.

You can't refute anything by quoting the Bible. Sorry, logic doesn't work that way. His explanation of suffering from a Christian perspective just asserts (on faith!) Genesis as literal history, while at the same time he seems to affirm evolution. This shows he's contradicting himself because he doesn't have a coherent view on human origins. Once you accept evolution, there is no Adam and Eve who brought "sin" or suffering into the world. Death and suffering predate humankind by millions of years. Death and suffering are built into how evolution works. They are features, not bugs.

He/she claims that I never showed the KCA does not negate free will.  I did, in the previous responses. I even stated this. I wrote,

This isn't showing, it's asserting.

As stated before, this author is an academic sloth. He/she is so quick to play contrarian that he/she does not bother to read an opponent's rebuttals. In a formal debate, he/she would lose a lot of points.  Paying attention is key to a debate. If the author simply skims through an opponent's rebuttals and is triggered to resort to ad hominem and strawman, then the author is simply asserting the contrary as factual. 

That's exactly what this author has done. He's so quick to "refute" me he ignores words I wrote and then attacks a strawman. I'd whoop his ass in a formal debate. Anytime he wants one all he has to do is say so. He's welcome on my site to debate me any time.

I mention this in my book "Atheism Is Stupid." It is a defense mechanism used by alleged atheists when cornered with facts. They refuse to tackle them so their only option is to play contrarian.  This tells us that this author is either not a real atheist or is extremely uneducated in the fields he/she pretends to hold mastery in.  

Oh please. I'm as real an atheist as you will ever get. And I am educated in these fields. This guy's reasoning skills are so bad he cannot possibly have an actual degree in anything let alone philosophy. I've easily shown again and again why his argument skills completely fail. At this point I can't take him seriously anymore. He actually wrote this on his blog:

No one can be this stupid and have a degree in philosophy. No one. God can't have "absolute" power if he can't lift that rock he created that's too heavy to lift. (A rock too heavy to lift is by definition unliftable). Otherwise he can't create a rock too heavy for him to lift. This is a paradox showing that god cannot do the logically impossible. He's more stupid than Ray Comfort at this point and even Prof. Pigliucci called him out on it.

Moving on to the fine tuning argument, he writes,

Lastly, the fine-tuning argument does not entail that God can only create humans in one manner.  That is just silly. If this were so, why would male and female exist, or different colors, shapes, and sizes among the species?  We see the silliness of this author's claims. 

He's again not understanding the argument. The fine tuning argument implies god can only create us one way because if god could create us 100 trillion different physical ways, then there are 100 trillion different physical ways we could have also existed naturally. The point I'm making hits upon the fundamental physical make up of all life: quarks and electrons. It's not about whether god could create different kind of animals.

The fact that God can create in many physical ways does not disprove fine tuning. It just shows God can choose any design. The author makes absolutely no sense in his/her comment.  He/she is wrong on the merit of his/her own claims, not because I state so. What the author fails to grasp is the fine-tuning argument entails the ontological state of life now, not in the hypothetical.  Things are fine-tuned now. If God created life in a different matter (IE water-based life instead of carbon), that too would be fine-tuned. 

Yes it does show the fine tuning argument is problematic, because again, if god could create us 100 trillion different physical ways, then there are 100 trillion different physical ways we could also exist naturally. Therefore to say, via the fine tuning argument, that we can only exist one specific way (ie., being fine tuned), fails to take this into account. (See The Short Rebuttal To The Fine Tuning Argument). It's like this guy is purposely trying to be as dumb as possible. Add the multiverse hypothesis to the mix, and that takes care of the chance solution, just like how having many planets explains why our earth is just the right distance from the sun. Hitchens made a great point on the fine tuning argument in one of his debates with Rabbi Wolpe,

98.9 percent of every species has ever been on earth has already become extinct. So if there's a creator or designer—and I can't prove there isn't—who wanted that, this designer must be either very capricious, very cruel, very incompetent, or very indifferent. Grant him and you must grant all that. You can't say "Ah, what a welcome. What a table was spread for us to dine on."

Some tuner!

Verdict: In addition to not understanding science and philosophy, Sacerdotus doesn't know how to read surveys and graphs. His source showing a "decline" in atheists or unaffiliated actually shows an increase in raw numbers. It's obvious he didn't read the link, he just read the headline. His other source relies on a single country: Russia. And today to is well known that Putin is using the Orthodox Church to solidify his power and he's allowing them to persecute atheist critics of the church to get their blessing. This is creating a hostile atmosphere for atheists in Russia, which is quickly resembling a theocracy. Sacerdotus fails to make his point. He also doesn't understand the fine tuning argument enough to know what he's talking about. As usual. And he fails at basic logic on what it means to do the logically impossible. His degree is fake because no one can be as stupid as he is and have one. His own supposed professor called him out on that.

13) All religions appear man made

His responses to the points I made here are perhaps the most laughable. He writes,

Not all religions describe themselves as revealed. The majority of religions understand themselves as part of a culture or a philosophy. We see this among African tribes, Asian religions and even among Native Americans. The author never showed that archeology contradicts the Bible because no such thing exists. If the author is privy to information that universities in Israel are not, he/she should share it. Note how the author relies on a YouTube video instead of peer review journals to make his/her claim. It is laughable. The video itself has a misleading title which tells me that it is just propaganda that someone is trying to push to others. 

Almost all religions have a prophet or a spiritual leader who gets insights from the spirit world. The Shaman in South America, for example, drink Ayahuasca which they think has magical powers that allows them to see into the spirit world where revelations occur. African tribes do similar things. I did show that archeology contradicted the Bible and we know this is true. He has a nasty habit of declaring I didn't show X when I clearly did. The video I linked to is a documentary by Israel Finklestein, who's a famous Israeli archaeologist and who's written numerous best sellers that have rewritten Isaraeli history, his most famous work being The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, which shows many (not all) of the Bible's stories are not historical. That he laughs at the documentary indicates he didn't even watch it.

Here is a video showing study abroad MA program for those looking to study the archaeology of the Bible.  If the Bible was false and there was no archaeology to back up the stories, no reputable university would have such a program.

Interestingly, Israel Finkelstein is in the video he linked to! This shows he cannot dismiss such a person. Also I never said there was no archeology backing up the Bible. I clearly stated, "My position is not that everything in the Bible is historically false. My view is that many of the Bible's historical claims are false. The Jewish enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, wandering Sinai for 40 years, the military conquest of Canaan — the central stories in the books of Moses (who didn't exist), none of them have been shown to be archaeological by science (and this includes a historical Adam and Eve)."

I even emphasized "many" in my original response so that he'd understand the nuance and as usual he completely missed it. This guy is a complete dotard. Even when I emphasize nuance it goes right through him. I guess it's pointless. I have to write to him as if he's a baby.

I provided more than one line regarding the accuracy of the Bible. The author apparently did not bother to view all of them.  Many ancient societies have recorded astrological events, however, a recent study showed the biblical accounts were more accurate. The author could read the studies which I linked to the posts.  Moreover, the author is running into a strawman again. I refuted his/her claim that archeology contradicts the Bible and never made the claim that astrological events say religion is true.  The Bible is not religion. Can you see how silly this author is and how bad he/she is at reasoning?  Defending the accuracy of accounts of the Bible in relation to archeology is not an endorsement of any religion.  So the author's comment about Chinese religions being true is extremely stupid and reflective of the cognitive lethargy the author engages in.  

He never provided any archaeological evidence to show that the Jewish enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, wandering Sinai for 40 years, and the military conquest of Canaan were real. Archeology has shown that there's either no evidence of those things ever happening, or there is positive evidence telling a different story. This is one of the main things Israel Finkelstein has shown who is in the video Sacerdotus linked! And is he saying eclipse accuracy shows that the all of the Bible's stories are true? What kind of nonsense is that? He never even showed evidence it was more accurate, and if so, it doesn't prove the Bible's stories are true. Only bad reasoning could assert such a thing. And if it isn't supposed to show the Bible's stories are true, why even mention it? It's completely irrelevant to whether archeology supports all of the Bible's historical claims which is Sacerdotus's view. He has yet to show that.

Then he links to some popular articles from news sources that claim archeology confirms some the Bible's accounts. I've never denied that some of the Bible is true. I've denied that all of it is true. So linking to an article that a few stories took place in cities that actually existed, does nothing to refute my point. He's too stupid to get that. so he has to waste his time attacking a strawman.

Next, the author claims that my response is the "stupidest response ever." This is typical of someone who has run out of answers.  The author claims that humanity could have handled knowledge of evolution, DNA and germs centuries ago. He/she is speculating here. History shows that the unknown scares people. As stated in my previous reply, natives did not take well to the appearance of white men. During the plague, citizens believed it was a curse or a demon who was at fault. Even today, some have trouble accepting evolution. Does this author deny this?  Moreover, some even have trouble with climate change facts!  The idea that people cannot handle hard facts is not fictitious. We see it today. The author demonstrates it as well by relying on sophism rather than facts on his/her website. Acknowledging history, physics, theology as I presented them will harm his/her cognitive bias.  This is why he/she became very defensive in his/her replies.  

And what do we do when someone can't handle the facts? Do we lie to them instead? No. We tell the truth anyway. We show them the evidence whether they like it or not. I'm not speculating here (which is exactly what Sacerdotus does when he says a primate will run into a predator if they falsely think one is in the bushes — but hey, he's ok with double standards as we've established). If people can't handle evolution now, or when Darwin discovered it, then why did god use evolution to create us in the first place? Why not just create us as we are now? You see, if you're going to argue that something like evolution is too hard to handle now, then it was too hard to handle 2000 years ago, and might be too hard to handle 2000 years from now, and so we're never going to be prepared for it. Why use evolution at all? Sacerdotus's answer fails.

The unknown scares people, yet we're all faced with it everyday. If god revealed that the punishment for witchcraft or working on the Sabbath was death, I'm sure that scared a lot of people a whole lot more than DNA or heliocentricism would. His argument is so paltry. And there's no sophism on my website. My arguments are just too complex for Sacerdotus to handle. He's welcome on my site to debate me on anything any time he wants.

Furthermore, the suggestion that religion contained scientific ignorance is just absurd. It was the Catholic Church that gave us science. Friar Roger Baco formulated the scientific method that we use today. Priest Copernicus gave us heliocentrism. I can go on and on showing how the Catholic Church created and contributed to the modern understanding of science that we have today. Even hospitals and psychology have their origin in the Catholic Church; not to mention, schools and universities. Again, this author simply does not research anything and runs with his/her fallacious narratives.  This is why the title of volume 1 of my book is "Atheism Is Stupid." It really is when you vet it against the facts.  The content found on this author's website is demonstrative of the stupidity atheism is.    

Nothing can be further from the truth. Religion didn't give us science, religious people gave us science, and that was because 500 years ago you had to be religious or you could go to jail or be executed. There was no freedom of belief back then, because of religion. I just wrote about that here: "But Many Great Scientists Believed In God!" There were laws on the books in many European countries that prescribed the death penalty for not believing. So everyone had to be religious then, at least publicly. And religions had a monopoly on institutions. There was no separation of church and state until 1776, and that was only in the US. And once it became legal and socially acceptable to be an atheist, what did we see? We saw the floodgates open up to atheists in science and ever since the time of Einstein, atheists have dominated the sciences in the Western world.

That Sacerdotus can't tell the difference between religion and religious people, and is ignorant about the fact that everyone had to be religious prior to the mid 1800s or face jail, death, or career suicide, shows how pathetic his reasoning skills are. I can't believe I'm even spending time on him. He is indeed high school level apologetics.

Notice how the author ignores the birth of Christ as a direct revelation from God. Christ is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity who became incarnate and walked among men, women, and children. Jesus is and was a historical figure. There is no dispute here. One can claim that He was just a man, but we have to see the logic regarding why His Church survived. If Jesus was just a mere man, no one would risk his/her life for Him. No Christian would risk being thrown into the lions or face persecution for a mere mortal. Remember, other "messiahs" were around before, during and after Christ claiming to be the "chosen one." These cults died away when their leaders passed. However, Christ's Church lived on with Peter as the first pope up to now with Pope Francis at the helm. We can see that this person of Christ was so impactful and "walked the walked," so to speak, that followers continued His mission even after He ascended to Heaven. The author fails to take into account this impactful revelation. No other religion can claim the success Catholicism has.  

Notice how I ignore the birth of Christ as a direct revelation from god? Um, excuse me? It is not a fact that Jesus was a revelation from god, nor that his birth was immaculate, nor that he even existed. This guy ignorantly seems to think that the Bible is a history book, and that we can take it as truth at face value. This is Ray Comfort level apologetics. You know Islam spread faster than Christianity did in its first century. It went from a small tribe in Mecca all the way into Spain in less than a hundred years. Does that prove Mohammad was a real prophet? Of course not.

In response to my asking for proof knowledge comes from god, he writes,

If God created all things, then only He can know everything about it. It is logically sound that God would be the source of knowledge. If you want to know about Ford vehicles, will you go to Kia?  It would not make sense to do so because Kia is a different company and designs vehicles differently.  One would logically go to the source of the product to learn more about it. Hence, God can only be the one source of knowledge. 

Yes — IF. Big if there. That's like saying IF Christianity is true, then Christianity is true. A tautology! His "proof" literally relies on a conditional "if" statement that asks us to assume the very thing I asked him to prove! That is not proof, it's presupposing. There is absolutely no way he has a degree in philosophy given the utter absurdity of his arguments. I asked him to prove knowledge comes from god, and he assumes knowledge comes from god to do so! Epic failure at logic proving he can't have a degree.

It makes perfect sense since we are called to preach the Good News to all the world (Matthew 28:19). This is a Christian's job. We are to go out and share the news of Jesus Christ to all the world and provide a reason for our hope (1 Peter 3:15). As a former atheist who holds degrees in the sciences and philosophy, I do exactly this. I refute atheist nonsense wherever it is found and show Catholics and other religious people how stupid atheism really is and that they can easily refute it.  Look how fast I refuted this author's nonsense; not once, but twice!  It is child's play to me. I have been there and done that, so to speak. No atheist can present an argument that I have not used myself during my years as an atheist.  To me, it would be like someone teaching me the multiplication table after I earned several college degrees.  There is no such thing as "high school level apologetics," by the way.  This shows how ignorant this author is.   

Well then it makes perfect sense for atheists to spend time refuting religion. Religious people are always trying to convince us they are right, some of them through force and violence. Look at what's going on in Russia now with atheists being discriminated against from the new law that makes it illegal to “insult the feelings of religious believers.” One atheist blogger in Russia was arrested for playing Pokemon Go in a church, and was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison. It makes perfect sense that people like me who want to live free from religion's authority fight against the inanity of religious belief — demonstrated by Sacerdotus in perfect clarity. I can't possibly believe he has a degree in science and philosophy given how stupid he is on the subjects. Religious belief seems to have rotted his brain's ability to be reasonable. Just look at how he assumed god existed when I asked him for proof. If that's not indicative of his complete inability to be logical, I don't know what is. He didn't refute anything. He made the most facile arguments plagued with obvious ignorance which makes him think that he's refuted my arguments.

The author then claims that he/she focuses on religion because of discrimination against others or because of killing. This is just unfounded. In fact, atheist leaders such as Stalin hold the record for the most mass murders. A study from Case Western Reserve University and Babson College even found that atheists are psychopaths. It seems that we should be more worried about atheists, than religious people. May I remind the author of the recent attack in Texas by an atheist. He gunned down 27 people without concerned, many of them children. How about Hicks who gunned down Muslims?  The author's hate for religious people must have a psychological root. Perhaps he/she was offended or hurt by a religious person and is holding a grudge. His/her opinion is based on prejudice, not facts. The author claims to want to "destroy religious belief," but he/she clearly has failed in that endeavor. 

We have a Right wing party in the US that wants to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. Just look at what vice president Mike Pence and senate candidate Roy Moore want to do. Listen to what they stand for. If it wasn't for the hard work of secularists keeping them at bay, they'd take over and legalize discrimination against not only atheists, but many non-Christians. As far as Stalin, he didn't kill in the name of atheism. He killed in the name of communism. They are not the same thing. Countries with high numbers of atheists have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. The least religious countries are among the safest and happiest worldwide.

Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist, writes,

Take homicide. According to the United Nations' 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands.

The rate of prisoners who are atheist is far below the percentage of the population. So no, you don't have to worry about atheists. You have to worry about theists. Theists kill much more than atheists do today, just look at terrorism. One atheist mass shooter who actually appears to have killed because of his wife doesn't show a trend.

Verdict: Sacerdotus fails to understand that my argument is that many of the Bible's historical claims are not backed up by evidence or there is evidence that contradicts it. I don't need to show all the stories aren't true to make my point. The main stories are not historical: The Jewish enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, wandering Sinai for 40 years, the military conquest of Canaan — all shown false or inconsistent with evidence by prominent Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, whom Sacerdotus even links to! Also the most atheist and secular a countries are associated with less crime, and the most religious countries are associated with more crime. This refutes any claim that atheism leads to violence. Sacerdotus has failed to refute this argument that all religions are man made.

In summary

He actually writes,

I do not think I refuted this author's post, I actually did. This is why it is one of the most popular posts on my site.  Over 5,000 views already!  It rose in popularity within an hour of being posted. I have gotten praise from both theists and atheists on it.  It seems that the author is "anally injured" and is attempting to save face after I destroyed his/he poor reasons to be an atheist. Even others have criticized his/her poor post:

No he did not. It was very easy for me to show that he didn't. My original post is really supposed to summarize my reasons for being an atheist. It isn't supposed to give the full explanation for each of them, otherwise it would have been a book. That's why I included so many hyperlinks in it, and it seems he read not a single one of them. There's no injury on my part. I will debate Sacerdotus anytime he wants. His low level of apologetics is truly high school level. I've given dozens of examples in this rebuttal of why that is the case. He has no idea what he's talking about and I've debated far more sophisticated people than him. The fact that he refuses to come to my site to debate me is evidence he's too scared.

And he has a reputation among atheists of using fake accounts to comment on his tweets. This would be the saddest behavior if true. If he was so confident he refuted me he'd come to my site like hundreds of theists have before. I'm not going to waste money on his silly book because I can easily tell his arguments are really bad. The reviews are horrible. Don't waste your time with this charlatan. His degree is fake and it's obvious to anyone with in depth knowledge of modern science and philosophy.

Final verdict: Sacerdotus is definitely more stupid than previously thought. And that brings me to this meme:

This meme is so true and it's emblematic of what's going on here in the debate. Saying things like "causality doesn't exist" or that "all moments of time exist" sounds like nonsense to people ignorant of science. Understanding these things relies on deeper knowledge of science and philosophy, beyond the popular level understanding Sacerdotus has. Semantics is also a problem. The word "cause" is useful in everyday life, but fundamentally, things are not caused in the way we typically think of them. That means physicists use the word cause all the time, but it doesn't mean they mean it in the colloquial sense. This is a major reason why these kinds of deep philosophical discussions are so hard to have.

Sacerdotus just doesn't have the knowledge capable of having such an adult discussion. His reasoning is infantile, as a recent comment on my blog stated. He shoots himself in the foot so regularly that he has no feet anymore. For example, the claim that there is no suffering because it's a social construct is itself a social construct, which negates the claim. No one with a degree in philosophy could make such an elementary mistake. I will debate him anytime on any platform, but I will not agree to his ridiculous rules. He cannot have the sole rights to the material. I get to reproduce it on my blog so as to ensure he doesn't edit it in a way that manipulates what I said or wrote. And he doesn't get to ask for credentials because he's not capable of demonstrating he has an actual degree. His arguments are too infantile to allow that.

His recent reviews of me just assert the same bullshit nonsense that I already refuted and really are him just ranting falsely about how ignorant I am in science and philosophy, which of course is absurd since I know way more than he does. He'd get an F in any philosophy course for sure, his lack of critical analysis ensures that. As I just tweeted,

And professor Massimo Pigliucci liked the tweet! He recognizes the truth of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...