Using the term "skeptic" to describe someone who flat out rejects solid science is just capitulation. It's no different from minimizing lies by calling them "untruths".
Call them what they are: they're a vaccine DENIER.
I’m sorry but who other than MAGAs is expected to BELIEVE anything coming out of this administration?
They are ALREADY a bunch of unqualified lunatics, so why would folks who already expect a firehose of lies from Day One even pretend to pay them any mind?
Let them kill off MAGAs all they want. Thoughts and prayers. I’ll be over here minding my business and stocking up on N95 masks to trigger them as soon as Mexico and/or Canada sounds the alarm.
Einstein believed in but didn't worship God. There are many unanswered questions in life that are likely to remain that way. The God question is really 2 different questions. The first being whether there is a God. I don't know the answer but seems to me if you don't believe in God then you have to believe there was this big bang that came out of nowhere. Seems to me that of the 2 God is the one that makes more sense. That being said, that question is not the one that causes all the problems. That would be the second question of Religion if there is a God what our relationship should be to Him/Her/Whatever.
All that being said Insane Clown doesn't give a shit either way. Insane Clown never wanted intended or expected to be president. His 2016 campaign was a put-on. He never took being president seriously. And now the Second Coming (He Came, He Was Crucified, He Is Resurrected) all Insane Clown gives a shit about is making a mockery of criminal justice and staying out of jail. And of course becoming filthier and richer. Democrats have a will to lose. Kamala showed up as a joyous pom pom waving Barbie Doll. Hillary never showed up at all.
Democrats don't get it and they never will. Putin has run out of asses to laugh off.
Whenever the subject of evolution has come up with friends or colleagues, I skip right to the punchline that I read in Sam Harris' The End of Faith way back in 2004. I think it is on page 100 and it goes something like this: 'If God created life on earth as it exists today then he must have been inordinately fond of beetles for there are 40,000 species that we know of so far'. Thank you for reporting on Dave Weldon's views. You are right in that I have not seen it reported elsewhere.
What I’ve never understood is why anti-evolutionists can’t accept the idea that natural selection is itself the work of their god. The two views do not have to be antithetical to one another.
Don’t come at me—I think evolution is real and obvious. And I do not care what people believe with regard to god, an afterlife, etc., except insofar as they want to impose their beliefs on others. I just wonder why religious people think that the truth of evolution somehow denies the existence of god.
Ignoring bacterial and viral mutations, as creationists are prone to do will be deadly. In addition to the examples mentioned in the article, syphilis is a notoriously wily organism, and has, since the 1940s, developed antimicrobial resistance as fast as new treatment protocols can be developed. If you think old-timey syphilis was bad, wait until the newer strains of resistant syphilis start spreading. Anti-science X-tians are programmed to kill.
Unfortunately so many important distinctions and nuances that were previously considered a sign of expertise in many important fields are no longer respected. How have we ended up going backwards?
Ufff~ but a question: Can we return to “understand”, rather than “believe”? Scientific fact is inoculated, if you will, against people’s beliefs. Please don’t come at me, I’m a stickler for words, because words shape headlines and—geez, the way “beliefs” manifest. 😬
So, I went back and forth on this. As a stickler for words! I went with believe for two reasons. One, frankly, I think it's more compelling. But also, I can't know for sure whether he does understand it and just doesn't believe in it, or whether he believes in intelligent design because he doesn't understand evolution. (Cont'd.)
I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that believing in intelligent design is proof of failure to understand evolution. But lots of religious beliefs are held even though people understand the scientific alternative explanations. Like, people believe in an afterlife even though they understand the concept of there not being one. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for weighing in. We word-sticklers have to stickle together.
It's definitely a programming problem because if you enter a short reply and then edit your reply you can then make it as long as you want and the Save button remains clickable. Maybe you can contact someone in tech support? I tried the Substack Support menu but all you can do is search existing articles.
I am solidly stickling with you and your words! As a mild, not irreverent, pushback—I wonder whether people subconsciously shift from an emotional to a logical process when encountering ‘understand’, rather than believe. 🤔 People obv believe in things they cannot demonstrate to be factual, but nonetheless hang on to their beliefs. Here’s another example I’ve wondered about and would love your thoughts: I kept wishing interviewers would ask trump if he understood that his beliefs about the results of an election are irrelevant to the outcome, rather than asking him if he would accept the results of the election. Why give him the opening to summon “beliefs”?
I understand the reasoning in this thought, but as a veteran of the online "god debate", I've seen many occasions where a person is convinced they understand something, but obviously only believe they do. So if there's a shift, the process can be purely semantic.
The brain-drain is going to be epic.
Using the term "skeptic" to describe someone who flat out rejects solid science is just capitulation. It's no different from minimizing lies by calling them "untruths".
Call them what they are: they're a vaccine DENIER.
This is a farce! All of his picks are a joke. We are going to have the head of the CDC. Not believe I
In science.
I’m sorry but who other than MAGAs is expected to BELIEVE anything coming out of this administration?
They are ALREADY a bunch of unqualified lunatics, so why would folks who already expect a firehose of lies from Day One even pretend to pay them any mind?
Let them kill off MAGAs all they want. Thoughts and prayers. I’ll be over here minding my business and stocking up on N95 masks to trigger them as soon as Mexico and/or Canada sounds the alarm.
Einstein believed in but didn't worship God. There are many unanswered questions in life that are likely to remain that way. The God question is really 2 different questions. The first being whether there is a God. I don't know the answer but seems to me if you don't believe in God then you have to believe there was this big bang that came out of nowhere. Seems to me that of the 2 God is the one that makes more sense. That being said, that question is not the one that causes all the problems. That would be the second question of Religion if there is a God what our relationship should be to Him/Her/Whatever.
All that being said Insane Clown doesn't give a shit either way. Insane Clown never wanted intended or expected to be president. His 2016 campaign was a put-on. He never took being president seriously. And now the Second Coming (He Came, He Was Crucified, He Is Resurrected) all Insane Clown gives a shit about is making a mockery of criminal justice and staying out of jail. And of course becoming filthier and richer. Democrats have a will to lose. Kamala showed up as a joyous pom pom waving Barbie Doll. Hillary never showed up at all.
Democrats don't get it and they never will. Putin has run out of asses to laugh off.
Whenever the subject of evolution has come up with friends or colleagues, I skip right to the punchline that I read in Sam Harris' The End of Faith way back in 2004. I think it is on page 100 and it goes something like this: 'If God created life on earth as it exists today then he must have been inordinately fond of beetles for there are 40,000 species that we know of so far'. Thank you for reporting on Dave Weldon's views. You are right in that I have not seen it reported elsewhere.
What I’ve never understood is why anti-evolutionists can’t accept the idea that natural selection is itself the work of their god. The two views do not have to be antithetical to one another.
Don’t come at me—I think evolution is real and obvious. And I do not care what people believe with regard to god, an afterlife, etc., except insofar as they want to impose their beliefs on others. I just wonder why religious people think that the truth of evolution somehow denies the existence of god.
Their inate or instilled inability to distinguish between the metaphorical and literal?
Me: "Perhaps your god's 6 days were each a million of our years long? You know, relativity."
Them: "No, He created the world only 8,024 years ago."
Me: "How can you cope with life inside a mind that narrow?"
Ignoring bacterial and viral mutations, as creationists are prone to do will be deadly. In addition to the examples mentioned in the article, syphilis is a notoriously wily organism, and has, since the 1940s, developed antimicrobial resistance as fast as new treatment protocols can be developed. If you think old-timey syphilis was bad, wait until the newer strains of resistant syphilis start spreading. Anti-science X-tians are programmed to kill.
Unfortunately so many important distinctions and nuances that were previously considered a sign of expertise in many important fields are no longer respected. How have we ended up going backwards?
Ufff~ but a question: Can we return to “understand”, rather than “believe”? Scientific fact is inoculated, if you will, against people’s beliefs. Please don’t come at me, I’m a stickler for words, because words shape headlines and—geez, the way “beliefs” manifest. 😬
So, I went back and forth on this. As a stickler for words! I went with believe for two reasons. One, frankly, I think it's more compelling. But also, I can't know for sure whether he does understand it and just doesn't believe in it, or whether he believes in intelligent design because he doesn't understand evolution. (Cont'd.)
I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that believing in intelligent design is proof of failure to understand evolution. But lots of religious beliefs are held even though people understand the scientific alternative explanations. Like, people believe in an afterlife even though they understand the concept of there not being one. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for weighing in. We word-sticklers have to stickle together.
It's definitely a programming problem because if you enter a short reply and then edit your reply you can then make it as long as you want and the Save button remains clickable. Maybe you can contact someone in tech support? I tried the Substack Support menu but all you can do is search existing articles.
See your previous article for how to work around the problem where the reply button is no longer clickable when the reply is too long.
I am solidly stickling with you and your words! As a mild, not irreverent, pushback—I wonder whether people subconsciously shift from an emotional to a logical process when encountering ‘understand’, rather than believe. 🤔 People obv believe in things they cannot demonstrate to be factual, but nonetheless hang on to their beliefs. Here’s another example I’ve wondered about and would love your thoughts: I kept wishing interviewers would ask trump if he understood that his beliefs about the results of an election are irrelevant to the outcome, rather than asking him if he would accept the results of the election. Why give him the opening to summon “beliefs”?
I understand the reasoning in this thought, but as a veteran of the online "god debate", I've seen many occasions where a person is convinced they understand something, but obviously only believe they do. So if there's a shift, the process can be purely semantic.