Open thread: the Fiscal Cliff

Patterico told his readers that he was pretty much bored with the fiscal cliff arguments, saying that, ” in the end, we will arrive at a Solemn Agreement to Tackle This Problem Head-On . . . next year.” He continued:

Meanwhile, our massive government debt bubble will continue to grow, and nobody will show the slightest bit of interest in letting the air out.

At this point, since the popping of that bubble is inevitable, I just want it to hurry up and happen. The problem isn’t going to get fixed. We’re not paying off the debt. So let’s get the catastrophe over with now instead of later, and give my children some chance at a few decent years.

I have said before that while I would like to see the deficit addressed entirely through spending cuts, and I meant massive spending cuts, if taxes have to be increased, I want to see them increased on everybody. We are supposed to all be in this together.

I’m kind of writer’s blocked this evening, so I’m setting this up as an open thread on the subject; have at it!
_________________________________
Related articles:

_________________________________
[The Comments & Conduct Policy. will be strictly enforced on this post.-- Editor]

478 Comments

  1. Thanks, DNW. I think you nailed it earlier – this fetish to deny God has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology.

  2. Does not your cite prove Eric’s point?

    Not really. This is why I hammered Eric for engaging in semantic games.

    In the sentence “Therefore, space itself should be able to be spontaneously created from nothing by quantum processes.”, “created” is used in the sense of “came into being”. There is no implication that there is a Creator.

    Eric, on the other hand, is using the alternative sense “was made by” and “logically” assuming this means there was a Creator. He is wrong.

    And, more importantly, koolo, he stated “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created.

    If it stated it specifically, then he should be able to quote those specifics. He can’t and he won’t.

    This is because he lied.

  3. Sorry, Pho, but if I say the sky is blue, or that water is wet, I don’t have to ‘Prove” it to you.

    But you didn’t. You stated, and I quote – “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created.”

    It does not. You are a liar.

  4. Oh, Pho, why don’t you stop with all this silliness and just believe in God like the rest of us?

    For the same reason I don’t believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no matter how happy they might make the simple-minded.

  5. Congrats, Dana, you’re up to 400 comments. I think that sets an all-time record, both here and for the old site, too.

    It would probably help if you didn’t try to evade the fact that you lied.

    You stated, and I quote – “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created.”

    It does not. You are a liar.

    If i stated “The Golden Rule asserts quite specifically that the sky is blue”, you’d expect me to prove it. If I stated “The Golden Rule asserts quite specifically that the sky is purple with bright pink polka dots” you’d expect me to prove it.

    The Big Bang theory does not assert what you said it specifically asserted.

    You are a liar, Eric, and everyone can see that.

  6. Eric wrote:

    Oh, Pho, why don’t you stop with all this silliness and just believe in God like the rest of us? What has atheism gotten you, anyway? It’s a cold, dead ideology that promises nothing and delivers nothing. In contrast, Christianity promises EVERYTHING! Eternal life in the presense of a loving God, a life of joy and bliss and happiness that literally goes on forever! Who would not want THAT??

    Hey, he thinks that he’s right, and that believers are foolish. That’s fair enough, since we certainly find him foolish.

  7. “Eric, you stated, and I quote, “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created.”

    Eric can be “forgiven” (irony intended) for having assumed so, since Einstein did as well. LOL

    Again:

    “The attitude of Einstein was less clear. … when he learnt about the primeval atom hypothesis, he considered it as inspired by the Christian dogma of creation and totally unjustified from the physical point of view.” [though Lemaître made no such claim or admission]

    Gen Relativ Gravit (2011) 43:2911–2928 DOI 10.1007/s10714-011-1213-7 by Jean-Pierre Luminet

    Also interesting from two aspects is the following passage on the theory; both for what it grants in substance, and what it – on principle and formally – withholds:

    “It is time to recall that Lemaître was also a Catholic priest, and since the creation of the universe a finite time ago is a dogma in Christian thought, it might be tempting to jump to the conclusion that the explosive universe was motivated by the aim to reconcile relativistic cosmology with religious belief.

    It is interesting to point out that the manuscript (typed) version of Lemaître’s article, preserved in the Archives Lemaître at the Université of Louvain, ended with a sentence crossed out by Lemaître himselfand which, therefore, was never published. Lemaître initially intended to conclude his letter to Nature by “I think that every one who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may
    be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation” (see Fig. 1). [an image of the typescript]

    This well reflected his deep theological view of a hidden God, not to be found as the Creator in the beginning of the universe. But before sending his paper to Nature, Lemaître probably realized that such a reference to God could mislead the readers and make them think that his hypothesis gave support to the Christian notion of God.

    As well analyzed in [23], Lemaître will preserve all his life the conception of a supreme and inaccessible God, enabling him to keep the natural origin of the world within the strict limits of physics, without mixing it with a supernatural creation. As a priest just like a scholar in theology, Lemaître was very conscious of the potential
    conflict—or, on the contrary, of the concordance—between the Christian dogma of a world created by God and the scientific theory of a universe formed approximately ten billion years ago. However, Lemaître never confused science and religion. Contrary
    to some other Christian cosmologists, he took care not to use one of these two “ways of knowledge” as a legitimisation of the other. He took, for example, great care to distinguish between the “beginning” and the “creation” of the world, and never spoke about the initial state of the universe in terms of “creation” (contrary to Friedmann,
    a fervent orthodox Christian, who eventually appears more “concordist” than the Belgian priest). Lemaître was convinced that science and theology dealt with two separate worlds.”

    cite, op cit.

    In sum:

    The originator of the theory saw the universe as created, but held back, as some of his cohorts did not, from identifying the big bang (so-called later) with creation in his published paper, taking the more sophisticated view of classical Catholic doctrine concerning the nature beyond being of God.

    Einstein, who was committed to a different view of the cosmos, nonetheless, and like many modern atheists who misunderstand the Catholic conception of a causal chain in reference to God, saw in the big bang, creationist implications, and was unsympathetic to them.

    Einstein, like many new atheists seems to have imagined a kind of God existing in a time just before time, and standing in a kind of pre-space from which he applies a match to a giant firecracker.

    It appears not only that Einstein’s view of what informed Christians meant by the God of classical theism and creation must be accepted as wrong, but also too that his conception of the the formation of the universe was wanting. Nonetheless, it is clear from the review that he envisioned the big bang as having clear theological antecedents and implications.

    Other scientists, as quoted here earlier, are seen on a reasonable reading as criticizing the big bang and deriding it as not only reflecting the taint of religious dogmatics into science, but have insinuated that it is in fact virtually a deracinated religious dogma as well.

    They criticized it for implying just what Eric said it did.

    It looks then like Eric’s remarks are not unjustifiable. Whereas the sneering dismissal of Eric’s conjunction of the theory with the implication of creation and a creator, represents an embarrassing pratfall on the part of Eric’s overhasty and ignorant attackers. They being demonstrably both ahistorical in their criticism, as well as just plain ignorant of the theory’s initial presentation and reception; both in the cosmology community of its era, and among the generality of educated people.

  8. Eric says:

    December 10, 2012 at 19:59

    Thanks, DNW. I think you nailed it earlier – this fetish to deny God has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology.”

    One can be unconvinced of God’s existence without devolving into a collectivist troll. Unfortunately one would not know it from reading the two worthless clowns you have been arguing with.

  9. Eric says:

    December 10, 2012 at 19:48

    You believe in a Big Sky Fairy

    Oh, Pho, why don’t you stop with all this silliness and just believe in God like the rest of us? What has atheism gotten you, anyway? It’s a cold, dead ideology that promises nothing and delivers nothing. In contrast, Christianity promises EVERYTHING! Eternal life in the presense of a loving God, a life of joy and bliss and happiness that literally goes on forever! Who would not want THAT?? “

    1. Pho would respond that wish fulfilment is not an argument, and that he already giddily ravens on a dish he finds much more satisfying.

    2. I would ask why, given their [The Phoenician's and Perry's] stated views on the nature of the concept of good, that you keep trying to save the souls of these proudly and proclaimedly soulless beings.

    These fellows are not pitiably and invincibly ignorant in the traditional sense, nor are they merely unconvinced.

    They are gleeful apostates, shrugging liars, enemies of [aside from Christianity] the very ideas of truth and goodness, and as such, disciples of wandering and phenomenal urges they believe incapable of justification.

    When I characterize them as mere congeries of appetites I not only mean it almost literally, but would expect that they would, and do, grudgingly grant it as the case in more than a figurative sense.

    Where they would probably differ, is in asserting that every living thing is no more. Though on the basis of their own philosophy they would have no grounds for really saying so, if they did.

    For example, there is no logical principle derivable from their metaphysical viewpoints which would sustain the argument that if one “man” had a “soul”, that then all other so-called men must also have one too … since the class of men is for them arbitrary and conventional only.

    Their intellectual allegiance is, ultimately, to nothingness.

    Now, I assume that you actually believe in a real hell, and that however conceived as real, say as a “mere” totally conscious and unbridgeable alienation and eternal loss of access to the light and to any joy, it would be unbearably and unfathomably tragic.

    But these two fellows are admitted enemies of the very idea of a transcendent value or holiness. If there demonstrably were a god and devils, they would likely hate god and wish to join the devils; assuming like all relativists and insane egoists do, that even The Absolute, if it exists, must succumb to their will.

    I’m not sure you understand what you are dealing with in these fellows, whether one grants the reality of the supernatural or not.

    I hesitantly suggest that you let them go. But then, you may know more about this than I do.

  10. You stated, and I quote – “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created.”

    It does not. You are a liar.

    You seem rather obsessed with this, thus leading to emotional rants like the above. The mere fact of a semantical difference of opinion over the definition of the term “Created” does NOT constitute a lie on my part. But nice try, though.

    To say that the Universe was created is simply to state a fact. If it wasn’t created, then where did it come from? The Big Bang says it came from nothing. That’s another way of saying it was created. If you want to argue the nitty-gritty semantics of what “Created” means, then be my guest. Absent such, my statement stands as is.

  11. You seem rather obsessed with this,

    Nope – just pointing out that you are a liar while you evade the subject. It amuses me to see you squirm away from that fact.

    To say that the Universe was created is simply to state a fact.

    No, it is not. You are lying.

    If it wasn’t created, then where did it come from?

    Pardon me, but this isn’t even a good argument – if I don’t know where a wallet lying on the ground came from, I don’t immediately jump to the conclusion that it was excreted by a Giant Wallet-Excreting Bird that ate a cow and pooped out a wallet. You are stating that your ignorance is somehow “proof” of an entity that otherwise lacks support, a Universe-Excreting Great Sky Fairy.

    But I have pointed you at better alternatives, that space was “spontaneously created [i.e. in the sense that it came from, rather than a conscious entity willed it] from nothing by quantum processes”.

    The Big Bang says it came from nothing. That’s another way of saying it was created.

    In the sense of “a conscious entity willed it”, no it doesn’t.

    You stated that “The Big Bang Theory asserts quite specifically that the Universe was created“.

    If it asserted that “quite specifically”, then you can provide a cite to that specific assertion. Not blather from you – you made a statement about what the Big Bang theory SAID.

    Prove it. Cite a credible source on what the Big Bang theory is about.

    You can’t, because you’re a liar.

  12. For the same reason I don’t believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no matter how happy they might make the simple-minded.

    Unicorns and leprechauns can’t grant you eternal life. God can and does. This is a wonderful gift that God offers us, Pho, and you want to throw it all away because of what? Pride? Ego? What good are they when they will die when you do, leaving behind nothing but dust. Put aside your silly pride, your silly ego, these silly nonsense theories about there being no God. Embrace the truth. It is all around you. The Power and the Glory of God has been revealed to all, and only a fool would disbelieve. And what does his disbelief get him? Nothing. He ends up dead, buried, forgotten. And what does the believer get? Eternal life, as promised by God and demonstated by His Son, Jesus Christ.

    Seriously, Pho,rather than get into silly arguments over the definition of words like “Created”, you ought to read the Gospels instead. You don’t have to read the whole Bible, or even the whole New Testament, just the Gospels. And try, if you can, to go into it with no preconceived notions. Just be, to borrow an old liberal term back when liberalism represented the best of Christianity, “Open minded”. And as you read (it won’t take long, all four books are maybe 130 pages in your standard issue Bible), start asking yourself some basic questions. Questions like: 1. Why were these books written, 2. Who is this man they are describing, and 3. Why was He so extraordinary in human history? For the more you read the Gospels, the more you will be fascinated by the figure of Christ. You may not at first believe that he was the Son of God, or even that he performed any miracles. Just look at His teachings instead. He said things that no one else had ever said before. Things that influenced generations of believers to come. Things that persuaded people to DIE for His sake. Would you die for atheism? Somehow, I doubt it. It is useless to you, and I suspect, deep down inside, you know it.

  13. Unicorns and leprechauns can’t grant you eternal life. God can and does.

    Proof please. Now you’re babbling.

  14. Proof please. Now you’re babbling.

    Oh, as well as evading the fact that you lied about what the Bib Bang theory “specifically asserts”.

  15. Eric can be “forgiven” (irony intended) for having assumed so, since Einstein did as well. LOL

    That’s OK. Pho no doubt thinks he is much smarter than that dumb old Einstein.

  16. Questions like: 1. Why were these books written,

    To cement the power of the Catholic Church, a human institution founded on human credibility.

    2. Who is this man they are describing,

    Probably a mixture of a little fact and a lot of mythology – the same as Gilgamesh, the Buddha, or Muhummad.

    and 3. Why was He so extraordinary in human history?

    He wasn’t. Messiahs have come and gone, and religions founded on human credibility have come and gone – cf the Buddha and Muhummad. Christ is merely the figurehead for what is only currently the largest religion, and one declining in relative terms.

    Now, please provide proof “God grants eternal life” – the writings of your cult are not proof unless backed up by evidence, just as you would not accept teh Quran as proof of anything.

    And please deal with the fact you lied about the Big Bang theory. Isn’t lying a sin to Jesus cultists?

  17. If it wasn’t created, then where did it come from?

    Pardon me, but this isn’t even a good argument – if I don’t know where a wallet lying on the ground came from, I don’t immediately jump to the conclusion that it was excreted by a Giant Wallet-Excreting Bird that ate a cow and pooped out a wallet. You are stating that your ignorance is somehow “proof” of an entity that otherwise lacks support, a Universe-Excreting Great Sky Fairy.

    Sorry, but that’s a REALLY dumb analogy. If you saw a wallet, you would assume someone made it. You wouldn’t assume it just came out of thin air. Ditto the Universe. It exists. Someone created it. That’s a fact. Deal with it.

  18. The Big Bang says it came from nothing. That’s another way of saying it was created.

    In the sense of “a conscious entity willed it”, no it doesn’t.

    The Big Bang simply says the Universe was created, It doesn’t say how or by whom. Those questions are beyond what science can answer.

  19. Unicorns and leprechauns can’t grant you eternal life. God can and does.

    Proof please.

    The Resurrection of Christ. Clear, physical proof of life after death. Also the people Christ raised from the dead. There is no record in previous human history of someone doing that before.

  20. Sorry, but that’s a REALLY dumb analogy.

    Incorrect – it’s an excellent analogy. You observe something exists; you immediately jump to a complex explanation (“A Universe-Excreting Big Sky Fairy that is really really interested in people’s sex lives did it!”) rather than taking a simpler explanation (“It happened because of randomness and quantum fluctuations”).

    The Big Bang simply says the Universe was created, It doesn’t say how or by whom.

    The Big Bang says nothing about the need for a whom. You are lying.

    Once again, you made an assertion about what the theory “specifically asserted”. If it “specifically asserted” this, then you must be able to provide a cite.

    You cannot, because you lied.

  21. Questions like: 1. Why were these books written,

    To cement the power of the Catholic Church, a human institution founded on human credibility.

    Some “Power”! The early Christian Church had no power at all, other than the power of truth and eyewitness testimony. You DO know, of course, that the early Christians were heavily persecuted by the Romans? Roman history in fact records such, and it went on for centuries. What “Power” was there in being nailed to a cross, or being fed to lions, for your beliefs? So much easier to renounce said beliefs and go free.

    Seriously, Pho, would you DIE for atheism? Of course you would not, for it is a silly and completely man-made ideology. It means nothing and promises nothing. It is just a load of crap. Believe instead in the Living God, the God who gave you life, and who will promise you life everlasting. Don’t believe in nonsense, in “Scientists” who have made a fetish of turning science into a religion. Why should you believe them? Are they telling you the truth, or just engaging in sophistry? Believe instead in the God who ALWAYS tells the truth. Believe in Christ, who once asserted that Heaven and Earth will someday pass away, but the Truth of my Words will last forever.

  22. Incorrect – it’s an excellent analogy. You observe something exists; you immediately jump to a complex explanation (“A Universe-Excreting Big Sky Fairy that is really really interested in people’s sex lives did it!”) rather than taking a simpler explanation (“It happened because of randomness and quantum fluctuations”).

    Sorry, but it’s still a dumb analogy. If a wallet exists, it’s because someone created it. If the Universe exists, it’s because someone created it.

  23. The Big Bang simply says the Universe was created, It doesn’t say how or by whom.

    The Big Bang says nothing about the need for a whom. You are lying.

    No lying at all. In fact, we are in agreement. The Big Bang merely asserts the Universe was created. It says nothing about the Creator, nor can it. That is simply beyond the realm of science.

  24. and 3. Why was He so extraordinary in human history?

    He wasn’t.

    Sorry, but facts say otherwise. Christ toppled the greatest empire in human history. Pretty impressive for a lowly Jewish carpenter who was born of a virgin. And He changed all of human history from that point on. All of Europe’s history after the collapse of Rome is Christian history.

  25. I’m not sure you understand what you are dealing with in these fellows, whether one grants the reality of the supernatural or not.

    I hesitantly suggest that you let them go. But then, you may know more about this than I do.

    Souls are always worth saving, to the extent that such is possible. What I don’t get is Perry rejecting the Promise of Eternal Life. What a fool! Such a gift is beyond price, but he wants to just toss it in the trash. And for what? Ego? Pride? The satisfaction of saying “There is no God”?

  26. Eric says:

    December 11, 2012 at 00:01

    I’m not sure you understand what you are dealing with in these fellows, whether one grants the reality of the supernatural or not.

    I hesitantly suggest that you let them go. But then, you may know more about this than I do.

    Souls are always worth saving, to the extent that such is possible. What I don’t get is Perry rejecting the Promise of Eternal Life. What a fool! Such a gift is beyond price, but he wants to just toss it in the trash. And for what? Ego? Pride? The satisfaction of saying “There is no God”?

    For the joy of spitting in the face of a creation that has shortchanged them as organic beings, and which fails to satisfy their “needs” for acceptance and recognition. That is why they are modern liberals in the first place. Modern liberalism is all about socially “equalizing” the “injustices” of nature through coercively redistributive social management schemes.

    Of course they know that they are not gods and that nature is indifferent to their pain. But if you can be made to share it, or experience something like it, they believe that they will somehow feel better. Politics is their vehicle for accomplishing this.

    Down to cases: One of them admittedly sick in mind and body, the other the psychological product of a dysfunctional family and weak father. Both probably had weak or dysfunctional fathers. And they told us this … we never even had to ask because they made it a point on their own to say so.

    What do they seek then? Emotional compensation of some kind. Everything liberals seek is ultimately based on emotional “justifications”. That is why the Phoenician and Perry obsessively troll this site; for the emotional kick their bile spitting gives them.

    What liberals wish to experience then, is no more than the “liberation” that comes with the distraction of being the mindless slaves of natural impulses they concede to be ultimately meaninless anyway.

    Dead now, dead later. With a soulless liberal, it’s all the same ultimately.

    If you take their own account of existence seriously, and grant that they really want what they say they want, why would you trouble yourself over their pointless fate?

    As you come from a Christian perspective on this, you might wish to consider this Scripture:

    “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request”.

  27. Put it this way, Eric, whether or not there is such an entity as the “Promise of Eternal Life”, I don’t care. The concept is meaningless.

    You and DNW, in your attempts to evangelize, overlook one very important aspect, which is: Your behavior is not a fitting witness to the enlightenment which you try to sell to others on here. The same holds true regarding the behavior of self-proclaimed Christians down through the ages. That there have been some who one might be inclined to admire is undeniable, but on the whole, Christians, and tribes touting other theologies, have been prone to violent solutions to settle differences down through the ages, like the Crusaders, like those who wage wars of choice on sovereign nations, then generate lots of collateral damage on other human beings. Who wants association with these self-proclaimed Christians?

    Look here what DNW says:

    These fellows [PiaToR and I] are not pitiably and invincibly ignorant in the traditional sense, nor are they merely unconvinced.

    They are gleeful apostates, shrugging liars, enemies of [aside from Christianity] the very ideas of truth and goodness, and as such, disciples of wandering and phenomenal urges they believe incapable of justification.

    When I characterize them as mere congeries of appetites I not only mean it almost literally, but would expect that they would, and do, grudgingly grant it as the case in more than a figurative sense.

    Where they would probably differ, is in asserting that every living thing is no more. Though on the basis of their own philosophy they would have no grounds for really saying so, if they did.

    For example, there is no logical principle derivable from their metaphysical viewpoints which would sustain the argument that if one “man” had a “soul”, that then all other so-called men must also have one too … since the class of men is for them arbitrary and conventional only.

    Their intellectual allegiance is, ultimately, to nothingness.

    There is no other response to this venom except to state what it is: venom from the fangs of a snake of a man. There is no “live and let live” aspect to this snake, only coercion, believe as he proclaims, else suffer his onslaught of insults and condemnations, as he himself arbitrarily has placed himself in a position to define who is right and who is wrong, who has a soul and who does not. Didn’t you cast off this superiority complex once your brain became whole at about 25 years old? Apparently not.

    I reject your tyrannical outbursts, DNW. Believe what you wish, but don’t condemn me for not subscribing to your own alleged truths.

    Discern the difference between science and the supernatural. Science deals with observable reality, whereas the supernational (religion) deals with that which any individual might choose to accept by an exercise of faith, by definition not provable by the application of the scientific method. Thus, your chosen faith, DNW, does not define mine, merely because you make a proclamation that it should; nor does your demeaning characterization of those who reject your declared proclamations have any universal validity, even if you insist that they do.

  28. Put it this way, Eric, whether or not there is such an entity as the “Promise of Eternal Life”, I don’t care. The concept is meaningless.

    Only to someone for whom life itself is meaningless.

    I can see why you lash out in hate against DNW. He has you (plural) pegged to a tee. Your whole ideology ultimately provides no meaning at all. Nor can it provide an objective moral code, something you admit yourself as a “Relativist”. Taken to its logical extreme, your ideology can’t distinguish morally between Hitler and Mother Theresa. They were simply operating from different moral precepts, and in a world of pure relativism, one is no better than any other.

  29. Eric, as I noted hundreds of comments before, you can’t argue someone into faith. What you are doing is pretty much comparable to wrestling a pig in his own {insert slang term for feces here.] You get covered in the muck, and the pig enjoys it.

    Either God exists or he does not. The Phoenician will never believe that he does, until that one final day, when all of the proof anyone could ever want or need is staring him dead in the eye. You may take some small solace in the fact that, on that day, he will be thinking, “Oh, crap, Eric was right all along. What do I say now?”

  30. You and DNW, in your attempts to evangelize, overlook one very important aspect, which is: Your behavior is not a fitting witness to the enlightenment which you try to sell to others on here.

    Thus says the man who was banned from this site twice, and who still can’t be honest about why he was banned. Seriously, Perry, are you capable of any introspection at all? Self-examination?

  31. Now look what suddenly pops up from the pen of the snake:

    Dead now, dead later. With a soulless liberal, it’s all the same ultimately.

    Yeah, more of the same, as is his habit.

    For the joy of spitting in the face of a creation that has shortchanged them as organic beings, and which fails to satisfy their “needs” for acceptance and recognition. That is why they are modern liberals in the first place. Modern liberalism is all about socially “equalizing” the “injustices” of nature through coercively redistributive social management schemes.

    The redistributive schemes are the workings of those who would greedily work the political system on behalf of themselves, to hell with those from whom it is coercively taken. This is how the 2% came into possession with half our nation’s wealth. Well the tide is turning, on behalf of those who work hard, yet presently are barely able to put a square meal on the kitchen table, you know DNW, those of whom you could care less!

  32. Discern the difference between science and the supernatural. Science deals with observable reality, whereas the supernational (religion) deals with that which any individual might choose to accept by an exercise of faith, by definition not provable by the application of the scientific method.

    Sorry, but that’s making a “Religion” out of science. Science is NOT the final arbiter of everything. It can’t even give us an objective moral code.

  33. Who wants association with these self-proclaimed Christians?

    Oh the ego! As if YOU were so much better than they! You, who are so morally weak that you couldn’t even decide if Pontius Pilate should have sentenced Jesus to death, wants now to pass moral judgment on others? What a laugh!

  34. Thus says the man who was banned from this site twice, and who still can’t be honest about why he was banned. Seriously, Perry, are you capable of any introspection at all? Self-examination?

    Thus says the man who should have been banned at least once for totally losing control and violating the Comments and Content Policy, though not enforced.

    I’m still waiting for the evidence of said allegations resulting in my being banned, so it can be discussed, as I don’t believe I deserved the ban.

  35. The redistributive schemes are the workings of those who would greedily work the political system on behalf of themselves, to hell with those from whom it is coercively taken. This is how the 2% came into possession with half our nation’s wealth. Well the tide is turning, on behalf of those who work hard, yet presently are barely able to put a square meal on the kitchen table, you know DNW, those of whom you could care less!

    Oh, spare us the sanctimonious garbage! You and your ilk care nothing about the so-called 98%, as proven in Obama’s Keystone Pipeline decision.

  36. I’m still waiting for the evidence of said allegations resulting in my being banned, so it can be discussed, as I don’t believe I deserved the ban.

    The evidence was given, many times. You just keep lying about it.

  37. There is no other response to this venom except to state what it is: venom from the fangs of a snake of a man. There is no “live and let live” aspect to this snake, only coercion

    There is no coercion in any of DNW’s statements. Politically, he seems to be a libertarian, which means he believes in minimal coercion (especially from the government) and maximum individual liberty. You should learn from him.

  38. to hell with those from whom it is coercively taken. This is how the 2% came into possession with half our nation’s wealth.

    Citation please. Otherwise this is pure bullsh**.

    I’m still waiting for the evidence of said allegations resulting in my being banned, so it can be discussed, as I don’t believe I deserved the ban.

    Of course you don’t believe you should have been banned! You can’t even accept the cold reality that you threatened people and made accusations of felonious behavior against another! And how many freakin’ times does the evidence have to be presented? A thousand? A million? Even that wouldn’t satisfy your narcissistic self.

    How does one even remotely rationally deal with such a schizophrenic specimen?

  39. Perry says:

    “You and DNW, in your attempts to evangelize, overlook one very important aspect, which is: Your behavior is not a fitting witness to the enlightenment which you try to sell to others on here. The same holds true regarding the behavior of self-proclaimed Christians down through the ages …”

    There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Possibly because it is that Eric has in fact expressed a hope that Perry will embrace the Christian promise in the hope of avoiding the pains of Hell.

    I however, don’t think that I have proclaimed myself as a Chiristian, and I certainly don’t think that I have expressed any interest in saving Perry from any state of eternal damnation.

    My view is that Perry, warped in origins as he may have been, has had plenty of time to heal and to sort out the questions of good and evil, and truth and nothingness; and he has quite consciously chosen to align himself with moral nihilism.

    If there is a Hell, he could probably best be seen as actively battering at the entrance in an attempt to force his way in.

    Who am I to stand in his way?

  40. If there is a Hell, he could probably best be seen as actively battering at the entrance in an attempt to force his way in.

    Who am I to stand in his way?

    LOL!! :-D

  41. Eric says:

    December 11, 2012 at 11:34

    [Perry]

    There is no other response to this venom except to state what it is: venom from the fangs of a snake of a man. There is no “live and let live” aspect to this snake, only coercion [...]

    There is no coercion in any of DNW’s statements. Politically, he seems to be a libertarian, which means he believes in minimal coercion (especially from the government) and maximum individual liberty. You should learn from him.”

    Thanks for saving me the response. I don’t believe that I have leveled any positive claims against Perry, nor do I believe myself to have any vested interest in his life. In fact I am all for live and let live. Let those who pursue nihilism live as they choose, and those who choose to be more responsible live free of the burden of enabling and underwriting the self-destructive behaviors of the soulless nihilist.

    Why cheat your child in order to buy drugs for Pho?

  42. WW wrote:

    The redistributive schemes are the workings of those who would greedily work the political system on behalf of themselves, to hell with those from whom it is coercively taken. This is how the 2% came into possession with half our nation’s wealth.

    The logical fallacy behind Mr Wheel’s statement is the assumption that everyone would have pretty much the same wealth, that everyone would be just about equally productive, were the wealthy not using the power of government to steal from the poor.

    That, of course, is patently false: throughout the history of mankind, whether governments were very involved or just barely existed, we have had more and less productive people, people with more or less wealth, dependent upon their energy, their intelligence, their drive, and their luck. The only societies in which there was anything close to economic equality were subsistence level economies, where equality of economy meant equality of squalor.

    Our government does not redistribute upward; it redistributes downward. Our government takes more from those who produce more, who earn more, and gives it to those who produce less.

    I was looking at a slideshow from Kiplinger earlier today, the Worst College Majors for Your Career. Here we have an interesting bit of documentation concerning the personal choices taken by college students concerning their course of study, and the obviously unequal financial rewards from having taken those choices. (Rather amusingly, each bad major includes a score of how probable that getting a degree in the listed bad major will lead to the graduate working in retail.)

    The government doesn’t force people to choose to major in English; students take those decisions themselves. But the rewards of our society show that choosing to major in a field where there simply isn’t much demand means that the student has probably chosen a career path which will reward him less well.

    Yet, for Mr Wheel, people who earn more are somehow victims of “the redistributive schemes are the workings of those who would greedily work the political system on behalf of themselves,” rather than the victims of their own economic choices.

    Well the tide is turning, on behalf of those who work hard, yet presently are barely able to put a square meal on the kitchen table,

    Which means what, WW? That there will be some revolution, in which the people who don’t earn as much, the people who are simply less productive, will rise up and steal, yes, steal! the rewards of those who are more productive? We have had such things before, and they led to Stalinist Russia, they led to China and the Cultural revolution, they led to nations in which people like Wagonwheel would not have freedom of speech, they led to systems in which the only real equality was equality of poverty.

  43. “… the supernational (religion) deals with that which any individual might choose to accept by an exercise of faith, by definition not provable by the application of the scientific method”

    Is that what “the supernational” deals with? Or is that just your “progression” (or whatever) on others?

  44. ” … as he himself arbitrarily has placed himself in a position to define who is right and who is wrong, who has a soul and who does not.”

    I did not define who lacks a soul. Political progressives did the work for me. They informed me that the notion of the soul implied a superstitious belief in some super-additive “spirit goo”, and that as physicalists they were not having any of it.

    Fair enough. They are not having any of it. According to them then, no member of the class of entities under discussion had “a soul”. As they are members of the class of entities under discussion, it implied that according to them, they have no soul.

    The only adjustment I have made is to remind them of their own ideology’s limitation on their power to define classes and membership objectively: inasmuch as for most of the proclaimedly soulless, class membership is not based on any objective attribute or essence, but on arbitrary verbal groupings maintained only through convention.

    Therefore, although we may grant, and I do, that the progressives may have some direct insight into their own state as soulless “men”, the term “man” as used by a relativist or conventionalist can in fact imply no objective state of affairs regarding the soul possession or lack thereof by other “men”.

    Now, why it is that making the generous minded grant to a progressive that it has no soul, while reserving judgment on the possession of a soul by other beings should strike the progressive as so offensive, is a matter of some mystery.

    It probably has something to do with the average progressive’s psychological need for identification with others as a paramount need, above and beyond any other need it has for say, understanding, or clarification, or even self-direction.

    And I guess, as I have stated before, from the progressive thing’s point of view, the distraction of appetite, and the comfort of being part of a cacophonous community of interpenetrating all same-same; denizens of the kindom of noise you might say – is what helps keep to the terrors of individual conscious existence somewhat at bay.

    They also probably figure they will get more consideration from the soul bearing, if their lack of one is not mentioned.

  45. Just thinking of the progressive’s kingdom of chaos and noise, caused me to shudder. LOL

    Read,

    “the kindom of noise you might say – is what helps keep to the terrors of individual conscious existence somewhat at bay …”

    As

    “the kingdom of noise you might say – is what helps to keep the terrors of individual conscious existence somewhat at bay”

  46. <i.There is no coercion in any of DNW’s statements. Politically, he seems to be a libertarian,

    Eric, he keeps making eliminationist comments. Libertarians don’t usually fantasize out loud about shoving their opponents into the death camps.

    And, dude, his issues with homosexuality are just creepy – he reminds me of nothing more than the weird old guy who lives alone and who all the mothers in the neighborhood tell their kids to stay WELL away from.

  47. Sorry, but that’s making a “Religion” out of science. Science is NOT the final arbiter of everything.

    Strangely enough, neither is wishing that Big Sky Fairies existed…

  48. Sorry, but facts say otherwise. Christ toppled the greatest empire in human history.

    What? Genghiz Khan was born about 1200 years AFTER Jesus, Eric.

    And assuming you’re talking about Rome, you’re even more seriously confused than normal – Rome fell in 410 to the Visigoths, who were NOT Christian.

  49. The Big Bang merely asserts the Universe was created. It says nothing about the Creator, nor can it.

    Actually, it says a Creator is not necessary. The Big Bang may have arisen simply from quantum fluctuations.

    The Big Bang theory does not “specifically assert” the universe was created in the sense you used the word. You lied.

    You are a liar, Eric.

  50. But Phoe: If things such as quantum gravity et. al. can spontaneously create matter, even the quantum gravity had to originate somewhere, did it not? How was it created? An “it was always there” sounds like “there always was a God.” ;-)

  51. But Phoe: If things such as quantum gravity et. al. can spontaneously create matter, even the quantum gravity had to originate somewhere, did it not? How was it created? An “it was always there” sounds like “there always was a God.” ;-)

    No, because you’re multiplying entities unnecessarily. If your argument for God is “everything needs to come from somewhere”, then you run into the infinite regress problem Eric tried to evade – where did God come from? If you posit that “God always existed” then why not “the universe always existed”?

    There’s another problem in that our causal notions are necessarily time bound – but time is an artifact of the universe itself. It doesn’t exist outside it. In a sense, the universe is a big 4-dimensional ball of space AND time – there was nothing “before” the Big Bang any more than there is a point “south” of teh South Pole of a planet.

    I personally consider the cyclical or multiple universe idea plausible, although there may not be any difference between them – how can you have a cycle if time starts with a universe? Our universe is one of many many many separate universes. It may be that each universe starts from inflation from a singularity within another universe, separated from that universe – Eric’s “God” may be a black hole, or the equivalent of some CERN desk jockey running an experiment on a big particle collector.

    The anthropic universe idea from string theory suggests that the possible “starting settings” of such universes might be around 10**500 – what we observe as cosmological fine tuning is simply because we, as observers, can only exist in that small subset of universes that actually support observers.

    Ultimately, we are ignorant of what lies “beyond” the Big Bang. the mistake of theists is to patch over that ignorance with a band aid labelled “God” and use it as support for whatever flight of fancy they wish to fob off on others.

  52. Souls are always worth saving, to the extent that such is possible.

    Grow up, Eric. What’s the chemical composition of a soul? What frequencies do its “energies” use? How much does it weigh? Do you have a photograph of it? What does it look like attached to an oscilloscope?

    There is no such thing as a soul. There is no little man sitting behind your eyes, somehow separate from your body. There is no holy vapor that rises up to heaven when you snuff it.

    The simple truth proclaimed by every test we undertake and every piece of actual evidence is that you are nothing but a pattern of information stored in meat, and the processes that run in that meat. Your ego, the thing that you think of you, is a perceptual illusion generated by a couple of kilos of fatty tissue hiding in your skull.

    When your body dies, the meat rots. When the body dies, it stops processing information through that meat, and you disappear – just like a circle of light on a wall disappears when a flashlight turns off. And when the meat rots, the information inside is lost, and you will never reappear. The circle of light doesn’t exist on its own; it doesn’t waft off to some astral plane for good little circles of light; it doesn’t move into another flashlight. Your ego, everything that you think of as you, is a projection of the brain’s processes, and ONLY that.

    You are afraid to die, so you tell yourself there’s somehow a little invisible man squatting in your skull that will survive your death. There isn’t. Anybody who tells you there is is either trying to foll themselves, fool you, or both. They’re fooling themselves because they are also afraid of death, and they’re fooling you because they want to manipulate you.

    They get you as a child and fill your head full of rubbish to manipulate you. They install guilt and fear in you, and then tell you that you won’t die as long as you obey the words they have scrawled on a piece of paper. they tell you that even to question them is dangerous, and they make you into your own jailer. And you, you chump, you’re running yourself ragged jumping through the hoops they made for you.

    Grow up, Eric. There is no soul. There is no heaven, no hell, no reincarnation, no nirvana. There is no Zeus, no Allah, no God, no Santa Claus, no Good Fairy.

    You only have one life, and when you die, that’s it. All the fear you feel is what they use to manipulate you. All the rubbish they’ve fed you, the tales about Moses and arks and giving to TV evangelists is what they have manipulated you into. And all the antipathy and anger you feel when someone points out these hard truths, all the urge to blurt out that I’m wrong, is only the neurotic chains they installed in your mind.

    You’re your own jailer. You are wasting your life quaking in fear before an illusion and you’re busy listening to people who see you as a chump to be manipulated.

    Deal with reality, and grow up.

  53. The simple truth proclaimed by every test we undertake and every piece of actual evidence is that you are nothing but a pattern of information stored in meat, and the processes that run in that meat. Your ego, the thing that you think of you, is a perceptual illusion generated by a couple of kilos of fatty tissue hiding in your skull.

    I think you’ve just confirmed everything DNW said about the “Progressive” mindset. Thank you for clearing that up.

  54. They get you as a child and fill your head full of rubbish to manipulate you.

    Not so. I was mostly indifferent to religion until I turned 40. Then, in an instant, I knew that God existed. At that point it was a matter of determining which version of God. I settled on the Christian version about three months later. The Jews haven’t accepted Christ yet, so that wouldn’t work. Islam denies the divinity of Christ, so that wouldn’t work, either. Basically, it was a simple process of elimination.

    But don’t take my word for it. Read CS Lewis, who was a much smarter man than either of us. A good starting point is his Mere Christianity, although he has a number of other books on the subject as well.

    Read these, and then get back to me on the subject.

  55. If you take their own account of existence seriously, and grant that they really want what they say they want, why would you trouble yourself over their pointless fate?

    Well, it’s the right thing to do. We can give them the Good News, but if they don’t want to listen, fine. We leave them in peace, and shake the dust off our shoes as we walk away.

  56. I think you’ve just confirmed everything DNW said about the “Progressive” mindset.

    This would be the DNW who continually invokes God to justify hatred for others, and flatters you insincerely to gain validation?

    Oh well. If you’re content to remain a fool, a fool you will remain.

  57. Not so. I was mostly indifferent to religion until I turned 40. Then, in an instant, I knew that God existed. At that point it was a matter of determining which version of God. I settled on the Christian version about three months later. The Jews haven’t accepted Christ yet, so that wouldn’t work. Islam denies the divinity of Christ, so that wouldn’t work, either. Basically, it was a simple process of elimination.

    OFFS. The Christians deny the prophethood of Muhammad, so they’re obviously wrong too.

    Look up “begging the question” – you’re assuming first that Jesus was divine, and therefore you go to the religion that proclaims him divine. If you assumed first that Muhummad was a Prophet, you’d go for Islam. If you assumed that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired, you’d become a Mormon.

    That first erroneous assumption is based on what they beat into you as a kid. And we’ve heard that lame tale before from bleating sheep.

    And you’re attempting to cite CS Lewis? Really? The guy who created the laughable “liar, luantic or Lord” strawman?

    Jesus, Eric, grow up and face reality.

  58. And, for that matter, even fellow apologists who are able to think don’t trust Lewis’s apologetics – to quote NT Wright:

    —-
    A Fine but Leaky Building

    So to my conclusion. Lewis has indeed built a fine building with lots of splendid features, and many people have been properly and rightly attracted to buy up apartments in it and move in. Some parts of the building have remained in great shape, and are still well worth inhabiting. But I fear that those who move in to other parts will find that the foundations are indeed shaky, and that the roof leaks a bit.

    Someone who converted to the Christian faith through reading Mere Christianity, and who never moved on or grew up theologically or historically, would be in a dangerous position when faced even with proper, non-skeptical historical investigation, let alone the regular improper, skeptical sort. Lewis didn’t give such a person sufficient grounding in who Jesus really was.

    Similarly, I don’t know how his line of argument in the first part would stand up against the rigorous and relentless assault from the determined atheists of our own day. He was well used to arguing with their predecessors, of course, but I don’t think the first section would be seen in such circles as anything more than arm-waving about moral perceptions and dilemmas that today’s robust cynic would dismiss as atavistic fantasy.
    —-

    Think a bit, and grow up, Eric. And stop lying.

  59. Koolo, I don’t have any hassle with the belief that God is/was a sufficiently advanced alien, either. I’ve always found that possibility to be quite fascinating myself.

  60. But don’t take my word for it. Read CS Lewis, who was a much smarter man than either of us

    DO enlighten us, Eric – what exactly did CS Lewis say about the chemical composition of a soul? What evidence did he give for the frequencies its “energies” use? How much did he say it weighed? Did he have a photograph of it? Did he tell you what it looked like attached to an oscilloscope?

  61. The Phoenician acts like a typical atheist, who can’t seem to handle anyone who disagrees with his spiritual views. Or lack thereof.

  62. “Deal with reality, and grow up.”

    Yeah Eric, then, once liberated to explore your full powers, you might rise to become a knowing librarian too!

    “– Rome fell in 410 to the Visigoths, who were NOT Christian.”

    You said the “greatest empire”, didn’t you Eric?

    Well … aside from the glaring fact that at that time whatever the “sackings” supposed psychological impact the city of Rome was neither the empire nor any longer its capital … maybe not so knowing.

    Generally, to quote,

    “When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century …”

    “Within a few generations of their appearance on the borders of the Empire in 238 AD, the conversion of the Goths to Christianity was nearly all-inclusive. The Christian cross appeared on coins in Gothic Crimea shortly after the Edict of Tolerance was issued by Galerius in 311 AD …”

    Wiki

    Specifically, to quote,

    “The Visigoths, who were their other allies and inhabitants of the western country, were terrified as their kinsmen had been, and knew not how to plan for safety against the race of the Huns. After long deliberation by common consent they finally sent ambassadors into Romania to the Emperor Valens, [“Eastern Roman Emperor from 364 to 378.”] brother of Valentinian, the elder Emperor, to say that if he would give them part of Thrace or Moesia to keep, they would submit themselves to his laws and commands. That he might have greater confidence in them, they promised to become Christians, if he would give them teachers who spoke their language. When Valens learned this, he gladly and promptly granted what he had himself intended to ask. He received the Getae into the region of Moesia and placed them there as a wall of defense for his kingdom against other tribes. And since at that time the Emperor Valens, who was infected with the Arian perfidy, had closed all the churches of our party, he sent as preachers to them those who favored his sect.

    Jordanes

    And very specifically,

    “The battle which followed on April 6, 402 (coinciding with Easter), was a victory for Rome, though a costly one. But it effectively halted the Goths’ progress.
    Stilicho’s enemies later reproached him for having gained his victory by taking impious advantage of the great Christian festival. Alaric, too, was a Christian, though an Arian, not Orthodox. He had trusted to the sanctity of Easter for immunity from attack.”

    Wiki

    Yeah well, whatever, eh? Why let a little thing like the historical record, or lacking what is common knowledge among the educated, stand in the way of delivering a pretentious harangue.

    After all Eric, he’s a librarian, and he Googles.

    So what if the trouble is that he’s just not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to know what to Google. Maybe he’ll write ‘Orthodox Christian’ next time, and expect people to believe that he was on top of it all along.

    No doubt if you abandoned Christianity too, you could do even better!

    By the way, did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution? Yeah, really! Huh? Oh, the same source.

    I also notice that Perry has not yet apologized to you for jumping on the troll’s accusation bandwagon.

    Say Perry … don’t you think you should have looked before you so foolishly leaped?

    Come on and apologize to Eric.

    You know that you should.

  63. Mr Norman wrote:

    The Phoenician acts like a typical atheist, who can’t seem to handle anyone who disagrees with his spiritual views. Or lack thereof.

    The Phoenician simply likes to argue; that is his favorite — and perhaps only — hobby in life. He is very good at picking nits, which certainly is a talent, but he interprets it as being clever and intelligent. He completely lacks any respect for the views of others, and believes that we are all stupid here, but, for some unexplained reason, just keeps coming back, kind of like a herpes sore.

  64. Koolo, I don’t have any hassle with the belief that God is/was a sufficiently advanced alien, either. I’ve always found that possibility to be quite fascinating myself.

    Doesn’t have to be that advanced. Onetheory is that every singularity (black hole) contains another universe, produced by inflation. David Brin (among others) have written stories where human researchers of a few years hence realise they’ve created new universes through playing around with particle accelerators – they didn’t intend to, nor did they set up the initial parameters, nor do they intervene in that universe. And they’re not “God”, either.

  65. W.A. Norman says:

    December 11, 2012 at 18:08

    The Phoenician acts like a typical atheist, who can’t seem to handle anyone who disagrees with his spiritual views. Or lack thereof.”

    He’s a physically troubled depressive from NZ [long back story of his whining about his ailments to the very people he claims to despise] whose routine for years has been compulsively trolling The Editor’s sites while posturing as knowledgeable, only to repeatedly get cut off at the knees when it comes down to those troublesome facts.

    He specializes in pouncing on casually made statements that sound unqualified, and engaging in various tar baby gambits and ploys.

    You know, a typical troll.

  66. The Phoenician acts like a typical atheist, who can’t seem to handle anyone who disagrees with his spiritual views.

    Uh-huh. I can handle fools who blather on about things they lack evidence for – but it’s not going to stop me from pointing out that they ARE fools who blather on about things they lack evidence for.

  67. ” … for some unexplained reason, just keeps coming back, kind of like a herpes sore.”

    Amanda Marcotte must be ignoring him. He’s beginning to sound like he desperately needs a friend.

    Maybe you could be that friend, Dana …

  68. He completely lacks any respect for the views of others, and believes that we are all stupid here,

    Gee, Dana, do you think you could take a stab at answering the questions Eric hasn’t answered yet?

    What’s the chemical composition of a soul? What frequencies do its “energies” use? How much does it weigh? Do you have a photograph of it? What does it look like attached to an oscilloscope?

    Or do you believe that ad hominem attacks on me will hide the gaping lack of evidence for the existence of a soul or God?

  69. DNW wrote:

    ” … for some unexplained reason, just keeps coming back, kind of like a herpes sore.”

    Amanda Marcotte must be ignoring him. He’s beginning to sound like he desperately needs a friend.

    Maybe you could be that friend, Dana …

    Miss Marcotte’s blog, Pandagon, has been shut down for some time now, and she has moved on to Slate e-zine. Her writing style hasn’t changed, but while you can comment on Stale, it’s a touch more difficult.

    I certainly can’t fault her for her move: she’s moved from a free blog to getting paid to write. After several years of reading her stuff, I now find it repetitious and boring, but obviously enough people like her writing for her to make money at it. I support free market capitalism, and she has made a success for herself in the free market.

  70. The Phoenician complained:

    He completely lacks any respect for the views of others, and believes that we are all stupid here,

    Gee, Dana, do you think you could take a stab at answering the questions Eric hasn’t answered yet? . . .

    Or do you believe that ad hominem attacks on me will hide the gaping lack of evidence for the existence of a soul or God?

    One wonders why you consider my statement an ad hominem attack; do you in any way dispute what I wrote?

  71. “What’s the chemical composition of a soul?”

    Everything does not have a chemical composition, like light or heat. Some things are just energy. Seems you think the soul is matter rather than energy. Remember, when one dies the energy leaves the body, the mass remains behind.

  72. The Editor observed:

    “The Phoenician simply likes to argue; that is his favorite — and perhaps only — hobby in life. He is very good at picking nits, which certainly is a talent, but he interprets it as being clever and intelligent. He completely lacks any respect for the views of others, and believes that we are all stupid here, but, for some unexplained reason, just keeps coming back, kind of like a herpes sore.”

    But perhaps there is another explanation. From Wiki:
    “A polemic ( /pəˈlɛmɪk/) is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific belief and the falsity of the contrary belief. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about very controversial topics.

    The art or practice of such argumentation is called polemics.

    A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is a polemicist or a polemic.[1] The word is derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning “warlike, hostile”,[2][3] which comes from πόλεμος (polemos), “war”.[4]“

Comments are closed.