Starboy's derail: Supernatural religion and dishonesty (Split Topic)

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Starboy I agree. You don't know enough about science to be anti-science. Your bullshit in one of your other threads regarding your knowledge of quantum mechanics is ample evidence. You lacked the honesty to admit that you didn't know shit when it came to QM and yet you blundered on like a lying sack of shit. Who the hell cares what you think about anything? Your dishonesty has already been established. Starboy

No personal insults or attacks will be tolerated in any of the main forums: Getting too personal, by insulting fellow users, only de-rails good arguments, and ruins the topics and the purpose of this site. If a topic does not interest you, or is “moronic” in your opinion, just avoid it and post a new topic or respond to something else. This rule includes the use of images or text-based signatures that mean to insult or attack a fellow user. This also includes Ad-Hominem's. Check out these logical fallacies so you can avoid them.

[Starboy]

Well we have a difference of opinion. I called him dishonest because I have observed him on many occasions to be dishonest. On some occasions it rose to the lying sack of shit category. If he continues to behave in such a manner there is no reason why I should not be able to point it out. If he were being brilliant I am sure no one would mind if I labeled him as such. I see no difference when he is being dishonest.

Starboy

Evidence

Evidence

Also where would it be more appropriate to point out dishonesty then on a thread dealing with dishonesty?

[Chris the Chees]

That may, or then again may not, be the case Starboy. However the fact of the matter is, calling people lying sacks of shit is something for the flame forum. Whether or not this person has lied or not is irrelevant.

[Starboy]

How can it be irrelevant on a thread about dishonesty?

Starboy

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Starboy How can it be irrelevant on a thread about dishonesty? Starboy

It is irreleveant, because somebody lying is not an excuse for flaming.

The debate about dishonesty and religion, is not helped by poor ad hominem attacks. Such remarks, for the record, are also equally dishonest.

If you are unable to resist the urge to slander other members on a personal level, then I think that it is you who are dishonest. This is because in the rules of the forum, it clearly says that you won't make such attacks, by doing so you have effectively ignored your promise.

But, this thread has degenerated totally, and will be moved to flame fest.

[Starboy]

If it is claimed that someone is X and there is no evidence to back up that claim then the original claim is a fallacious argument. But if there is evidence then it is not. And it doesn't matter if X == brilliant, X == silly or X == dishonest. That is not a fallacious argument. Ad Hominem is an argument with no evidence simply accusations. I am not making an Ad Hominem argument. When a case is brought to court for fraud they are not making Ad Hominem arguments if they have evidence to back up their claims. If people do not want to be called liars then they need to make sure that they don't lie to people. They need to be honest. It has been my experience that when cheaters know that they can get away with cheating, they cheat. It is only when people call them on it that they realize that they can’t get away with it and at least for interactions with that person they do not cheat. Liars are in that category. Calling them on their lying is what should be done. Letting them get away with their lies is what has gotten this country into this mess. When the President can make national statements that the jury is still out on evolution he is liar as well but no one will call him on it. But if I had the chance I certainly would. And of course, he lies because it is his religion that makes him dishonest. If it wasn't for the dishonesty caused by religion most people would give a shit about evolution.

Starboy

[Starboy]

And because I have not been making fallacious arguments moving the thread to flame fest is fallacious, unless you want to claim that topics about dishonesty are not fair game for Volconvo.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

:confused: Please back up your claim that this person is a sack of shit.

[Chris the Chees]

Calling someone a bag of shit, is not true, they are not a bag of shit. You know this to be true, thus you are lying as well.

Secondly, while you may think someone is liar, it does not mean you have to call them a lying sack of shit. That is flaming; threads which degenerate into flame matches end up in the flame forum, which is what it is here for.

unless you want to claim that topics about dishonesty are not fair game for Volconvo.

But you didn't do that, you did something completely different, you flamed the person, and then as you are doing now proceeded to derail the thread.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo :confused: Please back up your claim that this person is a sack of shit.

[PART ONE OF TWO]
Okay, here is the evidence.

The first indication of Merlin’s dishonest was exhibited in this thread.

Time static, or the metaphysical begins at Quantum level

Quote by: MerlinsByte Our existence (point) in time has similar proprieties of superposition. This would explain why we can have free will and have a future path that is predestined.

This disconnected assertion to his argument came to my attention. To which I relied:

Quote by: Starboy MerlinsByte, your thoughts and conclusions are based on a somewhat screwy interpretation of QM.

Quote by: MerlinsByte This unhealthy scientific denial reminds me of non acceptance of time dilation as a "real" effect of Einstein's classical special theory of relativity.

Exhibit A) Do you beat your wife deceit. I never said anything about time dilation.

He also replied:

Quote by: MerlinsByte I stand by my interpretation. Starboy It may be beneficial to think outside of the box, remember what happened to the cat?

Quote by: Starboy I have no problem with thinking outside the box. I am not in denial. If you have evidence to buttress your claims then produce it. But before you do that go learn QM. Reading your tripe is distasteful.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Starboy, I'm sorry that you don't understand the question, much less rudimentary facts about QM. 'Tis you that is hasn't a clue. And its blatantly obvious. You grossly misunderstand basic fundamentals of QM. In your first response to my post, your answer/response was simply mish-mash deceptive rambling. Feel free to use formulas and or equations if you attempt to explain your (question)? And be specific, dear.

Quote by: Starboy Merlin, it is your OP. You are the one making the claims about how QM applies to your claim that "This would explain why we can have free will and have a future path that is predestined." I am not the one making the claims about what QM says. In fact I claim that the equations say no such thing. So if you are asking me to write down an equation that supports your statement, then I cannot because I claim that no such equation in QM exists. And if you ask me to write down an equation that supports my statements then let us start with Schrödinger’s equation. Since you claim that it indicates that the future is predestined then you must know how that equation relates to your claim. So, why don't you write down the pertinent equations that apply to your statements? Make your case with the equations. Fire away. Starboy Oh and if you want to use bra-ket notation that is fine too.

Quote by: MerlinsByte A short note. I placed my original post in this section because it wasn't pure science by design. I think this fact was lost on starboy. As a new member, perhaps I should be a bit more careful in this aspect of my posting?

Quote by: Starboy Well gee Merlin, then you should have buttressed your nonsense with the ravings of a philosopher rather than trying to gain creadence by trying to confliat your ideas with QM.

At this point if Merlin was honest, rather than continuing this charade as if he knew enough about QM to buttress his claims he continues.

Starboy, I won't entertain your sadistic idiotic taunt for sake of the thinking people here. If you want me to e mail you a page or two of basic QM I will. You haven't clarified the first response to my post. From the first sentence to the last word that you pecked, its all toxic word salad. (word salad is a pathological schizophrenic symptom) You need a hobby, get one and if my writing somehow offends your brown shirt attitude I suggest that you avert your eyes. Its simple really, but obvious that even this is beyond the scope of your understanding.

Quote by: Starboy Merlin, thank you for the confirmation that you are full of shit. Why wouldn't you want to openly provide the science that backs up your claims? From the nature of your posts there is obviously only one reason. You do not know what the fuck you are talking about. Whine away Merlin but your philosophical sorcery doesn't work on science. Starboy

[Starboy]

[PART TWO OF TWO]

And now Merlins Ad Hominems:

Quote by: MerlinsByte Starboy, I refuse to have a battle of wits with a defenseless individual. As I have (wearily) said, you cannot think in terms in anything but a personal attack. I use the term "think" cautiously. I have grave doubts If you are capable of original thought. Your answers/attacks are more like a reptilian brain response. do you understand? Allow me to be precise... You are a narrow minded Jerk. You are so closed minded as to be comical. I simply will not engage anyone that has the manners of a baboon. Read my post(s) and learn starboy. And you truly are a boy. I will reply to those who actually wish to engage in constructive debate. The pathatic garabage that you blather isn't beneficial to the forum members, or anyone else. Take your vile adolescent lunacy use it to continue your gross self delusion.

Quote by: Starboy Merlin, I can be a complete and total idiot. The most defenseless person on the planet and you can still be full of shit. This has nothing to do with me. This is about your abilities to back up your own claims. Such deflection onto me only indicates that you are just another lying sack of shit that relies on the ignorance of the reader to allow you to conflate your vacuous ideas with more credible explanations. All you gotta do is support your own claims. So put up or shut up. Starboy

Even at this point Merlin could admit his ignorance, but he still does not. At this point he goes from merely dishonest into the lying sack of shit category.

Quote by: MerlinsByte yes see new post on same subject and try to keep a open mind starboy post title; Time static, or the metaphysical begins at Quantum level part TWO

His reply is as follows:

Quote by: MerlinsByte I typed this out before work without time to edit so I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors....MB Nicholas Bhor, sometimes called the father of quantum mechanics, struggled his entire lifetime to write theories down in coherent understandable terms. I am not nearly of the caliber of Bhor ( I do wish) but I can relate with him, quantum theory , even a skeleton outline, can be extremely difficult to communicate. I’ve often asked myself (most likely to the delight of star boy and his ilk) if I understand the finer points if the theory. With this in mind please consider the following. I have been asked how can one have free will and live in a pre destined or deterministic universe. It was a challenge to my faith for the longest time, until I revisited basic quantum theory . I use a quantum theory model to explain how we as sentient observers could indeed have free will, as well as have a future path that is pre ordained. Our present here and now is similar to the state of superposition ,with the future being the set of possible events. Our past is fixed and frozen. The exact nature of the future is unknowable to us. However a deity could know the future by the probability of the outcome of possible future events. Just as in the famous double slit experiment with QM. You could consider our time line a particle going into the slit. We in QM can calculate the possibilities (of the future path of the particle) well enough to use this theory as applied science. God is the obsever in our thought experiment. The deity also, in effect, causes the collapse of the wave function (our mortal time line or the future path of humans in the universeusing his future frame of reference). The result of this event is to cause our (future) path to be fixed. He/it/she/etc of course will also "know and predict" our future. We a as mortals can only exist in the present. Keep in mind I feel that our point in time (superposition) isn’t here nor there or future but rather a fluid, POINT . (particle or wave?). This point is the ONLY area in the human time line where we, as flesh and blood, (normal matter that must obey natural laws) can exist. Our existance in the present can never be fixed but must forever in a state of akin to superposition. I hope this first part of the clarification has explained some of my thoughts. And star boy, if you can comment in a intelligent civilized manner feel free.

It just gets deeper and deeper into misrepresentations and misunderstandings of QM. And then he conflates a mechanistic natural explanation with a supernatural construct with no demonstration of god collapsing anything.

Quote by: Starboy Certainly you must be aware that QM has moved on since Bohr

Quote by: MerlinsByte Even replying to such idiocy is demeaning, I will educate the boy. Yes, I am aware of that, the world also has moved on since Einstein, but still E=MC2....is any of this going into where your brain should be starboy? Hey do you think a fission bomb will still work starboy? You know that Einstein published his theories a long time ago! They might not work today! I question your motives (they derive from insecurity of being stupid) starboy.

He does a bait and switch. I was talking about QM and his interpretation, not relativity.

Quote by: Starboy "Why could a deity know this? And where is this deity? In any case why use QM. As long as you have an all powerful deity then QM just doesn't matter. All you have to say is goddidit."

Quote by: MerlinsByte If you read my post I answered most of these questions. Why use QM? I f you cant think with an open mind starboy just think of QM is an analogy its is simple and easier than trying to pick apart my post word for word, otherwise you may get even more insecure and deeper in denial. In any case if you sincerely want to know the answer to the above questions re read my post the answer is there, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. If your motives were to understand me I would spoon feed you, however your motives are born of some kind of hurt that you received in the past.

This right here is classic deception. He has not justified any of his claims and most of them are just plain erroneous but the problem is mine because I do not have an open mind.

Quote by: Starboy All you have to say is goddidit

Quote by: MerlinsByte No, you miss the point again. An intelligent designer did it but the method of how "it" was done was the in the post for a reason that you will never understand.

Another bit of dishonesty. Quite frankly my assessment of MerlinsByte as a lying sack of shit was being kind.

Quote by: Starboy The stupid thing about it is that your epiphany is nothing more than goddidit. You could have saved yourself a great deal of time and effort if you just ignored the science and stuck with your god.

Quote by: MerlinsByte same thing as above. You cannot perceive or understand that someone may think differently than yourself. The amazing thing is that you would make a wonderful inquisitor for an orthodox religious cult. Tolerance boy tolerance, I feel sorry for you and your narrow minded small world.

Again, he throws this back onto the person challenging his claims. It is my fault that he is an idiot.

Quote by: MerlinsByte One more thing Hitler, I never said that my theory was the only way but it is a possible way. You are like say a "scientist form 500 years ago, clueless and ignorant of anything that requires free thought.

Now I have become Hitler for daring to question his claims. I tell you. I was being kind when I labeled him a lying sack of shit.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

That's all well and good, and I think that you should report this person if he continues to insult. My question is, what do you have to back up your claim that he is a bag of shit?

Are you saying that he is not human? If he is human, are you saying that all humans are bags of shit, as we do technically contain some shit? Would that make you a bag of shit?

I'm not criticizing here or saying that you're wrong. I'm asking if this is an honest statement?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo That's all well and good, and I think that you should report this person if he continues to insult. My question is, what do you have to back up your claim that he is a bag of shit? Are you saying that he is not human? If he is human, are you saying that all humans are bags of shit, as we do technically contain some shit? Would that make you a bag of shit? I'm not criticizing here or saying that you're wrong. I'm asking if this is an honest statement?

Lying sack of shit is social slang for a person that is compulsively dishonest. Merlin had ample opportunity to admit his bluff but just decided to play his hand even when it became obvious that he was holding nothing. My guess is that he is an old hand at being dishonest. In the thread he admits that is how he got through some of his classes.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Social slang means that people do it all the time so therefore it is honest?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sean Do not respond to this warning within this post as it will turn into more of a distraction The insults need to stop. I am being easy-going with this topic because I think there are some good points within, but the insults need to stop! Do not continue to ignore my warnings. You can always call someone an idiot by saying "I don't think you know what you're talking about...here's why: source, point, debate, etc". That is how it will be done here. If you want to respond to this send me a private message, or respond to your split thread that I made from this: Starboy's derail: Supernatural religion and dishonesty (Split Topic) I really hope you head my advice; I really want to let you continue to debate here. -Sean Back to the debate

Sean, essentially you're saying that you do not mind if I call people liars or dishonest as long as I say it the way you want me to say it. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet or foul.

Starboy

[Sean]

Starboy,

you can call people dishonest so many different ways yes. By telling you that I want you to stay, but you need to stop with the insults, I am also saying "stop the fucking insults so I do not have to ban you". Word it so the topic does not become distracted, and the user so turned off by the name-calling that he ignores your points.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo Social slang means that people do it all the time so therefore it is honest?

No, why would you say that? When I say compulsive I mean an irresistible impulse to perform an irrational act. It is irrational to persist in being dishonest when you have been called on it. I would call that an irresistable compulsion. You can certainly see it in many if not most of Merlins posts. I have stopped reading his threads because his compulsive dishonesty is so distasteful. But hey if he wants to post on one of my threads then he better be ready to hear about it.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

"Bag of Shit!", "idiot", etc., are expressions of anger, and not true statements. The guy driving the car that cut you off is not an "idiot", or he wouldn't be able to drive a car.

A "bag of shit" cannot write. It is not the truth to say that he is a "bag of shit."

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sean Starboy, you can call people dishonest so many different ways yes. By telling you that I want you to stay, but you need to stop with the insults, I am also saying "stop the fucking insults so I do not have to ban you". Word it so the topic does not become distracted, and the user so turned off by the name-calling that he ignores your points.

Sean, I usually start calling them dishonest when it has become the point. When that is the only possible point left in the discussion. In the example I have shown with Merlin, in my opinion it contributed to clarification of his position, since his position was a set of dishonest assertions in the first place.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo "Bag of Shit!", "idiot", etc., are expressions of anger, and not true statements. The guy driving the car that cut you off is not an "idiot", or he wouldn't be able to drive a car. A "bag of shit" cannot write. It is not the truth to say that he is a "bag of shit."

Instead of idiot would a make a bit of difference if I said, 'a foolish or stupid person', or ignoramus, or clueless, or uninformed. For some reason you think that the intent of the words has changed if a seemingly more "civilized" version is used. The vulgar forms of the intended idea just happens to be more expressive, but they are still evaluative. If the person knows what they are talking about and can back it up then it will not matter what I call them. It will be trivial for them to show me up as the idiot. In the case of MerlinsByte I gave him several opportunities to show me up with out the more expressive evaluative comments. It didn't matter in his case because he was as I claimed. He was an idiot for persisting in pretending to know something about QM when he knew very little at all. This was dishonest and his persistence made him compulsively dishonest and my expressive use of lying sack of shit in no way changed the facts. Again, you do not seem to object to what I have said, just the way I said it. I don't see why it is germane that you do not like my means of expression when you agree with what is expressed. My expression is my own. You may do it as you wish.

Starboy