Is it just me or...

[Case]

... are more and more idiots using big words in order to seem clever? Used to be that they couldn't even pronounce them correctly, now they apparently can. They don't understand them, but even though they're not making any sense, they are using them. TC would be a prime example (I think the evidence suggests he's not a poe), but there are more. With the advent of atheist videos on youtube (maybe even before, I'm not exactly an internet chronicler) the stupid folks are suddenly exposed to all these terms being flung around. Confirmation bias has a track record of facilitating assimilation, the interpretation of facts as supporting their own ideas when in reality, these facts contradict them. I recently came across this guy's video

MATTER REQUIRES CONSCIOUSNESS TO EXIST.

Evolution in Earth is like an egg. At first you dont see anything but in time you see everything.

People believe things dont start out superior, they become superior with time- WRONG (although test of time is a proof of superiority). Things always start out superior, it comes from consciousness (yours).

Im not saying you exist first before the molecule that exist hundreds, thousands, or billion years ago. Im saying every matter yesterday, today, or tommorrow requires consciousness to exist, thats a "CURRENT" scientific FACT (Im not interested in wishfull thinking, only solid evidence). This proves that consciousness exist before & during the big bang, because consciousness is the most superior.

(Check Laws of Conservation.)

Cavemen 40,000 yrs ago live by the same rules.

And the fact that we're capable of thinking of Cavemen 40,000 yrs. ago is proof that consciousness like ours is "capable" of thinking of them during their time before we became what we are today. And if were smarter now after 40,000 yrs, how much more smarter is the mind of the big bang?

QUESTION: If smarter means superior as we are to Cavemen, then how can a mind start out superior? The proof provided is that matter needs a mind- but it doesn't prove the superior mind started first (does it?), do you have proof that the mind behind the big bang is more superior than us? (matters= including the big bang need consciousness as well).

ANSWER: Yes, only a superior mind can create a universe like ours- superior mind means greater control of massive matter. Our superior mind today can move mountains through control & technology. In summary, a greater mind can move/control greater mass & the greater the mass the great mind can move, the tinier the mass that mind can move as well (CERN Laboratory proves that).

I understand that the theory of evolution wants us to use our imagination of how a single molecule is the mind behind another molecule its likeness, & in time became what we are today, thats possibly true & I believe it. But a molecule like that isnt the mind behind the big bang which created the sunlight- science & common sense would OBVIOUSLY prove that, a mind that created the sun/light (big bang) is something greater than a molecule because again science proves every matter including a single molecule and the big bang requires consciousness to exist.
-------------------------------------------------------

PROBABILITY OF EARTH LIFE..

Atheists argues that out of billions of try-outs, its likely that the universe would provide earth life by chance because it's bound to happen (1 out of 100,000,000). But the truth is probability as the end of end is a myth in an infinite universe. In other words if life exist in infinity, it ALWAYS existed.

Infinity requires infinite try-outs, not billions of try-outs.

What do you call the "physics" that creates "intelligent" life everysecond? Hmm...God? I dont see how non-intelligent matter creates intelligent life EVERYSECOND, to add insult to injury is to call that event an accident. Look, theres an accident everysecond! LOL.

Probability is a myth in infinity, the word "accident" or "coincidence" is eliminated. With that, there's only one option left= purpose. Is there proof that purpose creates intelligent life in an infinite universe? The answer is yes= birth (conception). Do science prove the universe is infinite? The answer is yes...

Energy always exist & theres incalculable amount of sun (stars/planets) in our universe with only one known testable source= consciousness- the nucleus of sun/stars/and all known matters. Atheist beliefs relies on wishfull thinking with no evidence, in other words they are living a lie.

IF THIS SCIENTIFIC & FACTUAL EVIDENCE DOESNT PROVE GOD, THEN I SUGGEST YOU NEED A BRAIN TRANSPLANT...END.

and admittedly, he's a small fry (and one of those obnoxious people who record video monologues while lying in bed), but I think this kind of bullshit is symptomatic for what's happening.
Those of poor wit used to just reject science, but now they blatantly misinterpret and misportray it. The gullible people's last straw? Do we need to worry that at some point, unless you're a scientist yourself you won't be able to tell science and pineconery apart?

We so need to teach kids how to tell if something's bullshit...

 

[Prolescum]

I actually know a dude who espouses the same shite. Lovely guy, just can't separate fact from supposition. He doesn't spread the stupid on the internet either.

 

[Blood Wraith]

That doesn't look like the well-articulated brand of sophistry that I'm accustomed to regarding the topic. It just looks like a barely readable shit heap.

I mean yeah, there's people who tend to subtly misconstrue facts or concepts on a rudimentary level for the sake of buttressing whatever argument they're trying to assert, and that's the sort of thing that people need to be more aware of on an open forum for discourse. But this guy doesn't even have a basic grasp of cogency for his assertions.

Oh, and his syntax is utter shit.

 

[Nashy19]

Where are the big words?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

... are more and more idiots using big words in order to seem clever? Used to be that they couldn't even pronounce them correctly, now they apparently can. They don't understand them, but even though they're not making any sense, they are using them. TC would be a prime example (I think the evidence suggests he's not a poe), but there are more. With the advent of atheist videos on youtube (maybe even before, I'm not exactly an internet chronicler) the stupid folks are suddenly exposed to all these terms being flung around. Confirmation bias has a track record of facilitating assimilation, the interpretation of facts as supporting their own ideas when in reality, these facts contradict them.

What we're seeing is sort of "cargo cult philosophy." For folks who don't know, cargo cults are basically what happened when primitive cultures met more advanced Western cultures. When Westerners needed supplies delivered to these remote areas, they would build landing strips for their airplanes to drop off "cargo". The natives didn't understand where the "cargo" was coming from, and assumed something supernatural about it. So instead of seeing the building of a landing strip as being a technical matter necessary for the airplanes to land, they believed that building landing strips was a religious rite that would cause the supernatural delivery of "cargo" from some god being. Cargo cults mimic the outer appearance of a things without understanding the underlying processes that determine whether or not you get the desired outcome.

Cargo cult philosophy is similar. It is mimicry of the forms of philosophy and logic, without containing the underlying structure that produces useful results. It uses big words and the basic format of philosophy, and shares with real philosophy what Wittgenstein called "surface grammar". Here's an example of that I read just yesterday:

Statement A: It is now three o'clock on the moon.
Statement B: It is now three o'clock in Los Angeles.

Let's paraphrase loosely. According to Wittegnstein, western philosophy is largely composed of statements like Statement A,statements which make no sense, except as some form of poetry. But their incoherence escapes detection, because their "surface grammar" is so much like various Statements B,statements which make perfect sense.

That's the sort of philosophy that our anti-reality friends are engaging in. They know some of the big words, they learn the names (if not the meanings) of some logical fallacies, they learn to state their position in terms of numbers premises... they make a sort of linguistic "landing strip" and then pretend that the outcome of their posturing is equal to the "cargo" produced by rational thought. A lot of the time, I don't think they understand the lack of an underpinning for their position at all... why shouldn't they be correct? They followed the proper format that produces correct results, so how can they be wrong?

That's where you run into these pseudo-philosophers online who cannot understand that their ideas are flaws, because they believe that the superficial appearance of rational thought is identical to actually producing logical syllogisms and/or the evidence to back up their beliefs.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

The one thing that springs to mind is "intelligent design", which I consciously call "creationism" to piss the ID-followers off. C'mon, we all know that if someone is talking intelligent design, they actually mean creationism. Seriously. It just looks better and more scientific.

The same thing is true when people say "evolutionism" or "evolutionist". It's a very, very cheap attempt from that lobby to pull the theory of evolution to a philosophy or religion, and to elevate creationism to a higher, scientific plane.

 

[Case]

Nashy: I'm not going to do your homework, but I'll give you an example: "CERN Laboratory" is mentioned as if the author had some kind of insider knowledge when in reality, knowledge of what the CERN facility does, exposes his statement as utterly retarded.

Joe: Very interesting reply, I didn't know about the cargo cult topic at all. Seems very compelling to make that connection at least.

 

[Divergedwoods]

That text could very well pass for a Dadaist poem made from cut out words from a scientific magazine, very little of it made any sense. I agree that this people who thrive on the internet only by dressing up nonsense in scientifically gowns. I can't help bit remember an episode of the show "bullshit", where Penn and teller got a bunch of people to sign a petition for banning water, just by changing the presentation (of the word water, using a slightly different chemical nomenclature).
It also makes me remember of a Latin-American comedy group which in a song throws one of the integrants of his game by using the phrase "Small spiked metallic wheels which are fixated to the back of the riders boot and which are used to poke into the horses flesh when riding" to describe spurs

 

[Lallapalalable]

Oh dear lord. I read one line and just vomited on my dog: "MATTER REQUIRES CONSCIOUSNESS TO EXIST"

Yes, I think the rise in atheist/scientific videos and material in public forums has given these people access to words they would have otherwise thought were from fictional mythology (as in mythology that was made up for fun and not believed by anyone). However, their using them just makes them that more hilarious/painful, and would probably, in the long run, be a detriment to their cause.