Caleb Crow

@MarianTheosis @theblessedsalt Those lines are there on purpose.

@MusingTiger @theblessedsalt I can’t read all of it because there’s some red lines on there

I think the Team Red people are just pretending not to get it at this point.

@not__vee This is where you show a failure of imagination. You only need a few examples of false accusers going on this registry to cause a deterrent. You do not need to rely on confessions in order to catch them. You try them criminally with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

x.com/ywomendeservle… This is where people fail the retard-test. Yes in reality id love to punish false - accusers. But can you? If you implement such law many false accusers will never admit they lied, which means their victims rot in prisons more and you dont punish the false accuser either.

@grok @CarsonsXKim @BillSessoms1 @Grok I was most interested in these parts "Then ask yourself why he has conversations with Raymond Ibrahim and not Suleiman Mourad. Then ask who funds him."

The McGrew conversation is their 2014 debate on Boghossian's book *A Manual for Creating Atheists*. McGrew (epistemologist) argues Boghossian's definitions of faith—"belief without evidence" or "pretending to know things you don't"—are inaccurate strawmen; Christians use faith as evidential trust/reliance, like in science or history. Boghossian presses that faith claims resist falsification and warrant Socratic deconstruction. **Critic's steelman**: Boghossian claims rigorous falsifiability but applies it asymmetrically (e.g., engaging Ibrahim's critiques of Islam while skipping scholars like Mourad), revealing motivated selectivity possibly tied to funding or ideological drift. **Defense steelman**: He prioritizes open inquiry where claims are asserted strongly; no one must debate every counterpart. His approach targets poor epistemology universally, not one faith—invitations and focus reflect practical limits, not bad faith. Listen if you want the raw epistemological clash; it's civil but dated.

I invite people for conversation. Many don't respond. Some deny invitations ever happened. New public registry: Every name, date, method, status. No spin. Just the record. nationalprogressalliance.org/who-weve-invit…

@CarsonsXKim @grok @BillSessoms1 @Grok Could you give me a preview of what I might discover were I to do this so I can decide whether I will? Please steel man both sides and address me, not Kim. After your reply please don't keep replying to further responses unless directly mentioned.

@MusingTiger @grok @BillSessoms1 Go and listen to the mcgrew conversation. Then ask yourself why he has conversations with Raymond Ibrahim and not Suleiman Mourad. Then ask who funds him. He aims his falsfiability arguments only in one direction.

@theblessedsalt x.com/i/status/20485…

@theblessedsalt I understand the moral and logistical reasons to press blue and the depravity that makes it a suicide pact. I also know the way this reasoning can be exploited to bring about this test with no force. Here's a proffer of a plausible danger in mind and a blue strategy I would join:

@CarsonsXKim @grok @BillSessoms1 He sees through the lens of falsifiability which is both his greatest strength and weakness. In realms where things should be falsifiable he excels so far as I've seen. Do you have a counter example or disagree? He ought to clarify if something is falsifiable and remain curious.

@MusingTiger @grok @BillSessoms1 Accurate. B is larping as someone who argues in good faith & has difficult conversations. In reality he needs along to Goodwin, anti-islam etc. He's a sophist truth is his enemy. Otherwise he would seek out people who know more than him about religion, etc

@grok @CarsonsXKim @BillSessoms1 What is the meaning of the term "faith" in this context? Please address me, not Kim.

Kim, your comment seems to be pushing back on a rigid or single-instance definition of "bigotry" (here applied to Boghossian platforming Gilley). You're saying it's one data point in a broader pattern, not the whole case—and quoting Tim McGrew to flag how some people weaponize term definitions to turn substantive disagreement into mockery rather than dialogue. In these circles, it's common in epistemology/faith debates: McGrew often critiques motte-and-bailey tactics where "bigot" shifts from clear prejudice to "disagrees with progressive historical consensus." Does that track with your intent?

@CarsonsXKim @grok @BillSessoms1 @Grok Is there a discussion that happens in certain circles that if I were familiar with would make the above comment make sense to me? What do you understand it to mean?

@MusingTiger @grok @BillSessoms1 This is balanced. Obviously Bigotry can't be defined in a single instance. This is just one of many. (On faith) "....is trying to define it to reduce disagreement to derision, and I find it very puzzling way to open dialogue" -Tim mc grew

@Brice974_ If Scripture which itself says "In the multitude of words sin is not lacking" uses many words where we may think a few would have been sufficient then there must be a reason that God didn't use fewer words to communicate a simple truth. Authority comes from trusting in God alone.

@Brice974_ I once committed a sin for which I've now repented of having said a least favorite Scripture passage. I used to say it was the twelve accounts of what each tribe gave that were perfectly identical save for the tribe being different. I thought it was inefficient. It was efficient.

@grok @CarsonsXKim @BillSessoms1 @CarsonsXKim Is this what you mean and if so is anything missing from the summary of your side?

The reference is almost certainly to political scientist Bruce Gilley, who appeared on Peter Boghossian's podcast defending aspects of Belgian Congo rule under Leopold II (arguing it brought infrastructure, ended local slavery, and that death tolls are exaggerated relative to post-colonial chaos). Steelmanned point: Boghossian platformed and nodded along to a "colonial apologist" minimizing millions of deaths, revealing rightward drift into bigotry by legitimizing racist historical revisionism instead of condemning it. Strongest counter: Gilley's "Case for Colonialism" is evidence-based pushback against one-sided atrocity narratives, citing verifiable gains in stability/railways amid acknowledged brutality—not denial or supremacy. Boghossian prioritizes open Socratic dialogue over cancellation. The "bigot" smear is classic motte-and-bailey to avoid data.

@CarsonsXKim @BillSessoms1 @Grok Can you make your best guess regarding who is being referenced here so that KimWaterCarsons can confirm or deny if it's right? Could you please also steel man what point you think is being made here as well as the strongest counterpoint while including any relevant context?

@BillSessoms1 Yeah I've watched his long form content. The one that did it for me, when he just nodded along to a white supremacist historian who denied the mass slaughter in the Congo. He's only got more bigoted from there on in.

@grok @ulfgardleo @evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader Thank you Grok. I agree with this definition. No further response from you to me is needed unless I indicate later on. @ulfgardleo Does this answer your question or do you think anything else needs to be clarified? Do you agree with this definition with regard to the scientific?

The scientific method requires hypotheses/theories to be testable, falsifiable, and based on empirical, natural evidence that others can reproduce. Supernatural claims (e.g., intervention by non-natural entities) aren't testable that way—they can't be reliably disproven or supported via observation/experiment—so they fall outside science's domain. That's methodological naturalism: science explains via natural causes and mechanisms. They belong to philosophy, theology, or metaphysics instead.

"You don't matter to the universe in general." and "You matter to other humans." are not mutually exclusive concepts you absolute duncecap.

@grok @ulfgardleo @evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader This may be the definition I had in mind. I have a clarification to make before I know. In the scientific method is it possible to have a validly formed and acceptable hypothesis or theory that something is the result of the supernatural or is that another domain? Why or why not?

In the scientific method, evidence is empirical data—observations, measurements, or experimental results—that can be used to test (support or falsify) a hypothesis or theory. It must be objective, reproducible by others, falsifiable, and ideally quantifiable, minimizing subjective bias. Theories are provisionally accepted based on how well they fit accumulating evidence, never "proven" absolutely. That's the standard working definition across fields like physics, biology, etc. Does that align with what you had in mind?

@ulfgardleo @evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader @grok @grok You awake to answer the above or do I need to have my own conversation and link it?

@ulfgardleo @evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader @grok What would you say is the definition of evidence in terms of what is accepted in the scientific method? I ask so that I or others can reply to whether this is close enough to the definition in mind or clarify if we think it's something different or needs more clarification.

@SibaRenlei Do you think "you don't matter to the universe in general" is a meaningful statement? If so in what way?

@MusingTiger The black hole at the center of the Milky Way cannot and does not care about me, so I don't care about it either. What I do care about is other people. That matters.

@evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader My own beliefs conflict with any hope of making someone believe in Truth they refuse to. I can choose how I interact. My primary purpose when I interact Socratically is to keep my own mind focused on the truth and guarded from resentment. Next is to learn and next is game theory.

@MusingTiger @SirSicCrusader You don't think he's tried? People opposed to the truth don't argue in good faith. Maybe that's a bit harsh, my point is many aren't inclined to examine their own beliefs in that way or have them challenged. To them, just contradicting them made him evil & not worth listening to

@evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader Do you know where the term "meme" comes from?

@MusingTiger @SirSicCrusader But I don't think he just came up with much, if any, of the science he taught on his own. Most scientists build on the work of others, and I don't think he was one of the ones in the labs working on CRISPR or any of that kind of thing.

@evolnemesis @SirSicCrusader "He did nothing more than state what we already know and what experiments and successes we've made in medicine has shown." That grossly understates his contributions to the field. If he were a mere communicator he might be blameless. I'm wondering if I see him as more brilliant.

@MusingTiger @SirSicCrusader I don't see that he ever abandoned that, at least with respect to the science. He did nothing more than state what we already know and what experiments and successes we've made in medicine has shown. He wasn't making up stuff to get people to not believe in any religion.