Comment on GMS' animosity against Matt Walsh

New blog on the kid: Personal Attacks on youtube comment threads within a week - samples I to IV · Am I Targetted by Anti-Theists Trying to Destroy my Faith? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Comment on GMS' animosity against Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh and the Case for Destroying Someone’s Faith
Genetically Modified Skeptic, 26 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMq7UsVHho

6:54 YOUR religion condemns the rights of unborn babies not to be killed.

7:18 Well, I have long since discovered how atheistic or semi-theistic belief in Science extends its power grasp to others.

I had to defend myself against shrinks (or their institutionally very close allies) in 1998.

I was being more or less ostracised for refusing to wear the mask or take vaccines that were made from viruses cultivated on fetal cells.

Just in case you don't know what this is about. "vaccines with fetal cells" is not an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory, as I once thought. An article in NYT, international edition, 4 Aug 2020 about vaccines being prepared in Russia showed me that.

Dry-wax which eradicated smallpox had viruses cultivated on bovine liver cells.
Renal cells from vervets have been used (reminds me of one theory of how AIDS arose, by people getting too close to vervets in some ways).
Cancer cells from dead patients having died naturally have been used.
But now the craze is for cells from an abortion in the 1970's, a genetically modified immortal cell line from renal cells - used both by Astra Zeneca and by Putin.

You know the guy who invaded Ukraine about a year ago? Before that he had made sure every med personnel in the Russian federation took the vaccine or got sacked.

His chase for the vaccine came as a boon, since in 2018 he had faced similar trouble as now Macron is facing in France over pensions devaluation (it setting in later is a devaluation) rather than making an even moderate push against abortions and contraceptives which had produced the aging societies which deplete pension funds faster. Alas, both Navalny in Russia and CGT in France seem to miss this connexion.

8:19 these arguments are not the actual reasons

False. Wiki says:

"Walsh is a practicing Catholic."
This is footnoted 113
Robinson, Nathan J. (June 15, 2022). ""What Is A Woman?" Is a Feature-Length Exploration of Conservative Ignorance and Prejudice". Current Affairs. ISSN 2471-2647. Archived from the original on July 7, 2022. Retrieved June 19, 2022.

Now, the fact is, Catholics believe, revelation does not impose moral ideas not rooted in rational experience. Rather, the Christian revelation just reinforces the rational and empirical bases of the correct moral ideas, and exposes the sham character of some pseudo-rational and pseudo-empirical. Plus gives an extra motive for following the actually rational morality, even if it conflicts with:

• own egoism
• collective egoism or narcissistic "altruism"
• actual state directives, with even the potential to punish real morality with death penalty.

So, being a Catholic actually sets one up on a Crusade to expose the false reasons behind popular immoral ideas of morality.

Bad ideas lead to harmful behaviour. Killing babies harms them, fairly obviously, but it also makes a society get greyer, which is harmful on many levels, including but not limited to pension systems (it seems the US is still nine years behind France in this respect).

8:39 "simply because God told him so"

That's simply not how Catholics view morality.

God saying so is in and of itself sufficient, if you can't be bothered to reason why, but for us Catholics, there is always a tangible reason which can be pointed out.

9:15 "ancient blood magic" .... "superstition"

There are many of your former Evangelical ideas you shed, but it seems your anti-Catholicism is alive and well ...?

9:36 "we need science, for our benefit"

Yeah, right ... mask mandates are hurting children's development, vaccines are correlated to deaths and invalidity with blood clots involved (and anti-bodies, which are what vaccines should produce, do tend to blood clots, and vaccines for Covid seem especially good at it) ... but Fauci told you guys and Salomon told us in France, "science, for our benefit"

Science as such is silent on human dignity. However, one could scientifically have predicted free access to birth limitation without the irksome factor of chastity could very easily lead to an aging society. Which would be harmful for both old and young, the old competing with each other for attention and money from the young, the young being more harrassed by the old - and pension funds getting depleted. But "Science" stood up and said fertility is sometimes bad for a woman's health (true), and chastity is irksome (also true) therefore ... no, the conclusion is not true. But it is still very much part of what people mean when they refer to "Science" and shows "Science" is a religion with sometimes very harmful consequences.

I note how the guy is constantly interrupting Matt Walsh who is too used to polite people to come out impressively before similar loud "Science" bigots.

10:02 "whose only cited source is supposedly miraculous visions and dreams"

St. Luke cites quite a lot of people's eyes and ears with normal functioning at the time.

Is your deconversion starting to make you unaware of basic facts you used to know or are you going to make special pleading for "St. Luke didn't name them, so the source isn't cited" as if this weren't pretty standard procedure in pretty much all historiography? Including modern history text books.

10:25 So, men discussing issues in their own time = no relevance to a discussion in the 21st C.?

That applies for a distance of c. 2000 years.

But for some reason not for a distance of c. 200 years (Communist Manifesto comes to mind with your views on women's rights).

Is there a specific time limit, say 1100 years (medium between 2000 and 200)?

Can we bring in St. Thomas Aquinas, because he died in 1274? That's just 749 years ago, clearly less than 1100 years. Or is the time span even shorter?

Or, is the real rule you apply, you can refer to 200 years of reasoning within your sect, but Catholics cannot refer to 2000 years of reasoning within ours? Because, I am very sure, Voltaire would have agreed with Walsh, not with you. Voltaire would have been even more eager than Walsh to refer to psychiatry when it came to poor Mulvaney (I hope for his sake, he's doing a Tootsie type of flirt with a Lesbian).

Or, it is relevant, if it agrees with your modern ideas, and irrelevant if it doesn't?

How is that criterium not ... 1984?

Or your old Evangelical type of putting your agenda everywhere, but applied to a reversed agenda?

10:43 What science opposes the Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Miracles being impossible, because God doesn't exist? W a i t ... was that chemistry, was that physics, was that - materialistic metaphysics, perhaps? The latter, unlike gynaecology, not being exactly a natural science.

Veridicus Maximus

Magic is not science!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus Sounds like materialistic metaphysics, and therefore, what you appeal to is not an actual natural science.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not make an appeal. Appeals to gods are not natural - period!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus You appealed to an authority about "magic" and the authority you used was not an actual natural science.

Therefore it was to sth which is not an actual natural science. A philosophy. Materialism.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nope, no appeal to any authority in saying magic/miracles are not science. You should learn what science actually is! Science is not based in or upon supernatrualism, magic, miracles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus I did not state that science is based on supernaturalism.

I said sciences are authorities of reliable information, but what you said doesn't come from one of them.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not say you did say that! You seem to have comprehension problems.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus You have comprehension problems about what you mean. I e about what the words you use mean. You recall Inigo Montoya's famous meme?

The fact that a specific information is not from natural science does not meant it opposes it. There is no natural science saying there is no such thing as miracles or magic or sacraments. That's not the kind of question that natural science studies.

So, do I just take your word for the obvious?

Or do I take it as what you seem to think it implies, just because you think it implies that?

Or do I ask what you have as assurance of the comment being meaningful?

The latter. You seem to have serious comprehension problems with the question. And with the meaning of the words you try to use answering it with.

10:43 bis

I was perhaps asking you the wrong question in "What science opposes the Catholic view of the Eucharist?"

Perhaps I should have asked, do you find it insincere to use science as a reliable (at least on occasion) source of information, and to not use it as the only such?

How is this not reversing your old views on the Bible by simple transfer from one loyalty to another one, as narrow, and actually less well based (which you seem too unaware of history to realise it is)?

Mikolmisol

Science is not a faith-based knowledge system, but an evidence-based one. It's invalid to pretend that trusting science is equal to trusting religion. The former is evidence-based, the latter is faith-based. They are a different type of thing, hence why religious people can still trust science.

Your question is loaded with the assumption that, apart from science, there is any other evidence-based system for approximating reality. I certainly know of none.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol Science, like all of history, involves having faith in sources one cannot check - because one believes them reliable.

"I certainly know of none."

History and journalism are nothing? Your own personal memories are nothing? Neither of these is science.

@Mikolmisol So, for you, I take it, the answer is "to accept science as at least on occasion a reliable source is only consistent if you accept it as the only one" ... interesting, but I was first and foremost asking the producer of the video, since his question about Matt Walsh seemed so skewed - like you do.

Mikolmisol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, science does not require faith, past the faith that there is an objective reality, which all humans require to function.

In what sense can you not check those sources? You can read a research paper and examine the materials and methods. If something feels off, you can contact the authors of the paper. If you see errors, you can write a letter to the editor of the journal and get it published. Methodologically flawed papers get retracted.

None of what you mentioned is an evidence-based system for approximating reality. The knowledge that your senses alone give you is superficial and cannot be used to understand nature. History and journalism are simply recording and reporting existing knowledge.

Oat Miser

Why did you post 8 separate comments

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Oat Miser Because I commented on 7 (?) different parts of the video, at 10:43 this is the second one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol "past the faith that there is an objective reality, which all humans require to function."

That faith also implies general reliability of information taken from others - on faith.

"History and journalism are simply recording and reporting existing knowledge."

Sure. So are the Gospels, the knowledge existed since the Resurrection and Ascension.

I have nothing against superficial.

@Mikolmisol Me: "involves having faith in sources one cannot check"
You: "In what sense can you not check those sources? You can read a research paper and examine the materials and methods. ..."

I cannot go out into the field to repeat the observations for each and every one. And I cannot be on all 0 - 90 ° N, 0 - 90 ° S, all 360° meridians to observe what journalists observe.

11:05 Yes, we believe God is a mystery and we worship God.

You worship man, and as a result, you come to treat man, ourselves, as a mystery.

Not quite as much of a religious necessity for us who worship God and not man.

Mikolmisol

Wrong, I don't worship anything and anyone. Don't project your worship onto others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol Are you GMS?

I adressed the "you" to GMS.

My words also don't mean that you do acts you would classify as worship, it means what you do amounts to worship, of the collective self and of individual selves.

11:11 Yeah, in the Middle Ages exactly one man in the kingdom of Sweden was burned at the stake for denying the Eucharist.

In England, the grand total of Lollards burned at the stake is 283 or 282 or sth ... very close to the total of Catholic martyrs after that.

HOWEVER in Spain, your side killed 12 bishops, 3000 religious who weren't priests (including nuns) and 40 000 priests.

11:31 Yeah, right.

It's been quite a while I have followed your channel, and you pretty constantly seem to prefer psychological blabla over cool rationality and hard evidence.

13:10 You just proved St. Augustine right in his prophecy of pluralism.
It's tolerant of every error, but not of the Catholic truth.

Genetically Modified Skeptic

Of course the first video with the new mic would also be the one where I have Covid voice. Enjoy!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did you get it after a vaccine, or did you have the sense to not take those things?