Is anyone here a moderator at Uncommondescent? If so, can someone tell me if I'm banned from there. I can't seem to login. My nick there is Bettawrekonize. Thanks.

If you post there (although you won't see your post) the mods will get it and then respond to you (usually on that thread) if you were banned or not.
I got banned from UD awhile ago…. and I still don't have ability to post.
Shows that they not only ban those who disagree with their views. I got banned from a thread that I was agreeing with the author, but my behavior left alot to be desired.

Dogmatic Darwinists are working overtime to bully the Governor into vetoing the act, going so far as to enlist activists from other countries to urge American's to tell Governor Jindal to oppose the act.

Pressure on Gov. Jindal to support/deny academic freedom

I'm glad that you people are finally paying more attention to what many committed naturalists do in order to suppress academic freedom and open inquiry. This kind of misbehavior is exactly how UCD and other naturalistic philosophies acquired the status they have. They never used science to acquire this status, they used politics (something that ID advocates and Creationists have been avoiding for a very long time), and it's time we fight back.

Another thing we should do is encourage newspapers, local, regional, national, and international TV and radio news stations to cover the issues fairly and to allow prominent ID advocates , creationists, and critics of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies an equal opportunity to discuss such topics on their news stations. Topics to discuss include the unfair discrimination that scientists who questions evolution receive and reasons that criticisms and opposing views of naturalistic philosophies should be discussed in classrooms. It seems like the media is often unfair to those that may question naturalism, often misguiding the people with misinformation. The reason for this is probably (at least in part) due to darwinian lobbying of the media influencing what they say. We need to be more proactive in ensuring that all sides of the issues are covered fairly.

Another thing I wanted to add is that it seems like many scientists (ie: Mike Gene?) are afraid of revealing the fact that they may question naturalism. I don't blame them (and at this point I'm not asking them to). The fact is that they will probably be dishonestly discriminated against (and the secular community will deny the fact that they are being dishonestly discriminated against and they will make up a bunch of other excuses for discrimination). I think that we should be more intolerant of such discrimination. We should not allow people to be discriminated against just because they may question naturalism. We must ensure that criticisms and opposing views of naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) have an equal opportunity at receiving tax dollars (ie: research grants and classroom time).

fifth monarchy man: Young Frank Michael Murphy says he can suddenly hear noises. The rest of his all deaf family are confused by his claims until the family cynic Zane informs them that hearing is not objective because no one else in the family has had the experience.

Zane is adamant the noise is not a real thing outside of us but equivalent to the feeling we get when upset (anger)

Then oddly enough FFM insists his well attested experience is objective because he can cross check it with other senses other folks and other means. He believes this sense is relaying real valuable information about the world outside that his family knows nothing about because of the terrible defect they share.

As Frank Michael Murphy could show (instead of just saying so), there is a relationship between his sense and other aspects of the phenomenal world that his family can experience. For instance, he could communicate to his family that he hears the cat in the next room, and then open the door so that they could see the cat. By this, and many such empirical predictions, he could show his family that his sense of hearing reveals information about objects and phenomena *independent of his individual thought*.

What is odd is that his family seems to be completely unaware that others have a sense of hearing. Because they do, in fact, belong to a larger community, allowing a more reliable measure of independence from the individual mind. Sadly, young Frank Michael Murphy instead shrugs his shoulders and joins his hearing friends as they listen to music.

Zane is adamant the noise is not a real thing outside of us but equivalent to the feeling we get when upset (anger)

Then oddly enough FFM insists his well attested experience is objective because he can cross check it with other senses other folks and other means. He believes this sense is relaying real valuable information about the world outside that his family knows nothing about because of the terrible defect they share.

Zane says

"I am convinced now that your argument is sophistry and depends on your ignorance of the diversity of mental experience as it will convince no one other than the few who share your wan view of mental experience; your argument requires no additional rebuttal."

Sadly young Frank Michael Murphy shrugs his shoulders at his relatives' closed mindedness thanks him for his time and joins his hearing friends as they listen to music.

Peace

fifth monarchy man: Same goes with SD

You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Religious experience varies wildly, and your sensation of the Divine does not constitute objective evidence by any reasonable measure.

Third Regency Dude says he has had a direct experience of God. The rest of the village wants to share in this Divine Encounter. But Third Regency Dude says that the villagers must be blind and cannot see. Then, oddly enough, Third Regency Dude insists his personal and uncorroborated experience is objective evidence.

I am convinced now that your argument is sophistry and depends on your ignorance of the diversity of religious experience. As it will convince no one other than the few who share your wan view of religious experience, your argument requires no additional rebuttal.

That's right. And we can then ask others if they feel the warmth of the fire, even those from a different village. Christians and Buddhists and Atheists can all see and feel the fire

Not everyone can fell the fire those with certain neurological disorders or certain skin disorders can not feel the warmth does this make it subjective?

They can independently compare the color of the fire to other objects.

Same goes with SD

They can experiment with the fire and predict how it will act

Same goes with SD

regardless of who is manipulating it.

Some things like gravity are beyond our manipulation does that mean they are subjective?

Compare to what you indicated earlier. Some people feel warm. Some people feel cold. Other observers notice that thermometers are left unaffected. Paul saw a bright light. Others don't. Independent observers can't replicate the observations. There is no consistency or reliability between observers.

This is exactly what happens when ammonia is experienced. Some folk's eyes water some folks feel a burning in their throat some folks complain of an awful smell since there is no consistency or reliability between observers is this experience subjective?

You are the one who is manipulating the meaning of words. The term 'objectivity' has a fairly standard usage in English that you refuse to acknowledge.

Objective:

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Once we clarify the vagueness of the phrase "all observers" to exclude those for which the sense is not functioning properly like the blind and deaf when talking about vision and hearing I am completely on board with this definition.

You're the one who has trouble with the English definition when it comes to senses you don't like IMHO

I think I've made my point. I'll let you have the last word unless you actually have something new to say instead of the same old presumption of atheism.

Peace

fifth monarchy man: If I see a fire I can crosscheck my sense of vision if I feel warmth.

That's right. And we can then ask others if they feel the warmth of the fire, even those from a different village. Christians and Buddhists and Atheists can all see and feel the fire. They can independently compare the color of the fire to other objects. They can experiment with the fire and predict how it will act regardless of who is manipulating it. Use it to transform food (cook).

Compare to what you indicated earlier. Some people feel warm. Some people feel cold. Other observers notice that thermometers are left unaffected. Paul saw a bright light. Others don't. Independent observers can't replicate the observations. There is no consistency or reliability between observers.

fifth monarchy man: In disputing past assumptions postmodernists generally display a preoccupation with the inadequacy of language as a mode of communication.

But that's not what you said. Nor would I agree that language is inadequate to communication. You are the one who is manipulating the meaning of words. The term 'objectivity' has a fairly standard usage in English that you refuse to acknowledge. Apparently you think that coopting a word constitutes an argument, sort of like a talisman.

So God is warm or cold or a blinding light or a voice.

not any more than a human is an voice or fire is warm feeling or a bright light.

If I see a human I can crosscheck my sense of vision with my sense of hearing if I hear a voice.
If I see a fire I can crosscheck my sense of vision if I feel warmth
If I hear an explosion I can crosscheck my sense of hearing if I see a bright light.

I can crosscheck The SD by my other senses in exactly the same way.

We are talking about crosschecking senses not what God or fire or a human or an explosion is.

Sorry, but you just described a typical subjective experience that would apply to the experience of beauty or outrage or any of a number of sensations that people often share.

So you are again saying that vision and hearing and touch are subjective. If (as you said) crosschecking against other senses makes those things objective its works for the SD as well you can't have it both ways.

No, that's not what postmodernism means.

I did not say that's what postmodern means. It is however what a postmodern does.
Postmodernism in the Encarta encyclopedia

Quote:

In disputing past assumptions postmodernists generally display a preoccupation with the inadequacy of language as a mode of communication
End quote:

Peace