Empirical Evidence, P2

No sooner had I responded to David Thiessen’s little jab, he replied. Read here if you want, but suffice to say, it is more of the same. It is dishonest. It is distorting the points I make – and as ever, David is too lazy and disrespectful to use my name (it’s a three-letter word David, why is that so hard for you to manage?)

He simply doesn’t understand. That’s the root of it all. Empirical evidence, the scientific method, facts, logic, reasoning – none of it matters to David. The fact that he believes in miracles as described in the Bible says it all. The Bible was written by people, who would describe anything they could not understand as a miracle. They wrote from a place of ignorance.

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic‘. To slightly alter and paraphrase, any unknown phenomena was considered supernatural by the people of ancient times. Humanity lacked the tools to understand the world, and so instead said ‘a god did it’. In different parts of the world, different gods were given the credit. There are many things and events throughout history that humans once believed were the act of divine powers. Just because there are unexplained things in this world and in our history, does not mean we have to assign these events to the supernatural!

Yet this is the process of dishonest fundies. ‘You don’t have an explanation, therefore my god did it!’ Yeah, sure… why not that person’s god over there? ‘Uh… only my faith is right and true!’ Uh huh, well, that person says the same thing about their faith.

I will quote one particular, deeply ironic, lacking-in-self-awareness part of David’s post:

Wow, he is not in a bad mood, whoopee… that doesn’t mean anything to us as we were not talking about him or critiquing his words. From what we can tell, he just wants an excuse to write bad things about us.

People do not write about our material, or if they do they do not put a link in, and we understand that they will do this. We do not get angry. We just expect those that do to give credit where credit is due.

Most of our material has nothing to do with MM, BG, and other unbelievers yet they feel free to do unprovoked attacks on us. We only use material God leads us to and wants us to write about, whether it includes us or not. When it is in the public square, people have the right to respond to the information or talk about its erroneous points.

We gave credit for where we got the quote and that is all we have to do.

Emphasis mine. Apparently David wasn’t talking about what I had to say, yet his original post on Empirical Evidence quoted me. He used what I had said to spin a long-winded, misleading yarn, half of which dove-tailed into something completely irrelevant! To make it even better, he did not even link to my post, but instead, possibly gave away something that he was looking into. He did not even refer to me as MM when he quoted me! So much for credit where it’s due…

For those wondering what David was (possibly) looking up, he linked his quote of my words to a site called Hidestar Proxy. Hidestar Proxy is a site all to do with VPNs, and they talk of accessing blocked content, and avoiding scrutiny. Is David looking to circumvent a block or a ban, or perhaps spy on someone’s activities, under the cover of anonymity? Oh, and David, in case you decide change the link after the fact, I’ve saved all the details.

I must also mention that a large volume of material does pertain to either myself or Bruce. More so Bruce, who David snipes at repeatedly, but down the years, David has written a fair bit about me, lied about me, and left nasty, snarky comments for me. It’s all well and good to say that material out there is fair game, but it is David needs to understand, that cuts both ways.

Please follow and like us: