In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

I'm not going to respond to this tonight, but let's start here with just a tidbit.  I'll simply point out that, by all indications, you were refuted on the meaning of tohu/bohu (Genesis I believe) several Christmases ago.  You left early so we never actually finished that discussion, but at the time you left, you had simply repeated an argument that I had shown to be flawed.  I'm fully willing to revisit the discussion if you like.  But if you remember the discussion, you lead with a source that didn't exist, then you made a claim that was wrong according to Hebrew grammar, and then you posted a word study, which, as I pointed out to you, was actually self-refuting.  If posting non-existent sources and such is your way of leading with your weak material, well all I can say is, mission accomplished!   At best, it's unclear that you have always been right about scripture. I get that you probably don't remember the argument, but this is a typical case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  That's confirmation bias, and you are guilty of it a lot.   But that hasn't stopped you from making a boast here.   That type of confirmation bias is very common.  Fortunately, most people don't go around making brags like you do.  When you do, it's going to get you into trouble.  Especially if you are frequently wrong.  I'll try to respond to your specific complaints and counter-arguments at another time.

You can find the tohu/bohu thread here.

---

Maybe one more, just because I think it's instructive.  


Your claim in that thread was that science and scientists are unreliable, frequently changing their predictions.  As such, what matters is what scientists had to say on the matter, not what the media did.  As pointed out to you in that thread, even Wikipedia pointed out that the notion of a mini-ice-age was not supported by the majority of scientific papers.  See the graph below for an example of what Wikipedia said on the subject.  Jumping from a claim about what scientists say to personal anecdotes and quotes about what the media said is simply flawed and very shitty argument, and it's an example of poor thinking.  And yet you count this as a hit or a case where you were right.   Now, it's possible that other sources do support the point that scientists predicted that in the majority back then.  But when you post a source which clearly contradicts you, as you did here and in that "atheistic satire" thread, then you've got no room to argue.  Misrepresenting sources is a form of lying.  I don't believe you likely intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia, but this is simply an example of your inability to think well, and springboarding from that into absurdist territory (as here).  In that post you again claimed that I had not responded substantively to your arguments.  I had (here and here).  



(ETA:  It's possible to suggest that your point was that blindly following media representations of science is not reliable, but that really is a non-point.  Nobody was arguing in that thread that the media was infallible.  If that was your point, then it was flawed as well, in addition to your introducing it with a misleading post which mentioned science, not popular understanding of it or the media.  I'll quote the thread again:


The fact that there were some scientific papers arguing the theory does not advance the thesis that science as a whole was.  Here you are clearly not talking about media representations, but what scientists had to say ("but back then that conjecture was scientific fact").  And as noted, on that point the science was clearly against the mini-ice-age hypothesis.  The fact that there are minority opinions in science is unremarkable.  Arguing that we should distrust science as a whole because of the existence of minority opinions would just be stupid.  But feel free to clarify your argument here.  At a minimum, you claimed that the theory in question was considered scientific fact, a point which your own source refutes.  How can it be any clearer, Drich?)

(ETA2:  And I just checked the source you just quoted and that contradicted you as well (here). From your own source, "But people who obsess about these few instances of cooling-focused press are being a bit selective."  Of note, the article mentions two articles in popular magazines about the global cooling hypothesis and an "In Search Of..." episode, compared to two stories in national newspapers, including a headline.  So the numbers from your own source don't support you.  This is really basic stuff, Drich, and it doesn't look good.)

I applaud your efforts, Jörg. I got burned out dealing with these dickheads a decade ago. Mostly. When I see something completely egregiously stupid, I just can't help myself, though.

So I get applause if in fact the evidence supports me? of course not. youre just looking to have your ears tickled by what you already want to hear. The truth would be an unpleasant note for you, and why would you appaude that?