Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 7:44 AM
426 online now:
Heathen, jar, PaulK, Pressie, ramoss (5 members, 421 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,878 Year: 27,484/21,208 Month: 1,397/1,714 Week: 240/365 Day: 9/73 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Thread Reopen Requests 2
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 61 of 116 (567558)
07-01-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Adminnemooseus
07-01-2010 12:51 PM


Re: God damnit moose
Hi, Moose.

Are you clearing us to talk about theistic evolution on that thread, or is it a personal-introductions thread?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-01-2010 12:51 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-01-2010 9:03 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 62 of 116 (567596)
07-01-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Blue Jay
07-01-2010 3:45 PM


The "Hello" topic open to TE etc. debate
The personal introduction part is probably over. Yes, on to theistic evolution or the lack thereof, and probably wherever else the topic goes. Somewhere along the line I'll get a better topic title on it.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 07-01-2010 3:45 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 63 of 116 (572129)
08-03-2010 11:52 PM


Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Please re-open. My reply to Straggler's message, Message 371 is as follows. I've been on the road, and still am and will continue to be, and things move really fast here... Please just paste my reply there if and when if gets re-opened:

quote:
Well it has been an uphill struggle but DA tipped it over the point of no return.

Because he's exposing your position as the untenable one?

Then you will be delighted to hear that this is not what I am doing.

Huh? Or is that right because your's is the "independent" one?

Hmmm. Whose classification are you imposing?

The generally accepted one that everyone else is using who is trying to tell you how retarded your's is.

Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? A religion-independent use of the term god that you yourself have applied on numerous occasions.

Because I'm using a super-set and you're using a sub-set. Its stupid because you're using your sub-set to encompasss the super-set, while I'm using the super-set to encompass the sub-set, like its supposed to be.

I guess that makes your responses "frivolous" then. For once it seems that we agree.

Oh you!

When has being frivolous ever stopped me? Examples please

From [msg=-372]:

Bob, delighted with his self defined atheist status (all the cool kids at school are atheists). takes you at your word and goes off to one of Dawkin's atheist camps full of confidence.

There he confidently reveals his belief in the one true glod knowing that he will find common conceptual ground with his fellow atheists.

Needless to say things don't work out too well for Bob.......

Well that's just a big old fat non-sequitor, now isn't it?

Consider this:

After Bob's initial "not working out", he finds solice with the animist, the Buddihist and all the other spiritual atheists, then he realizes that the camp wasn't an "atheist" one after all, but a "materialist" one instead.

Then he sends his spirit guide to bitch-slap Straggler for being such a tard... lulz



Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AdminPD, posted 08-04-2010 7:33 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 64 of 116 (572146)
08-04-2010 7:15 AM


Please reopen Definition of Species

I understand that this spiralled off topic but I believe it was necessary to establish some basic definitions before progressing to some ideas about species definition.

eg. We couldn't agree on our definitions of complexity and we had disagreements on species identification. Minor hurdles I think and there can be further discussion on what makes a species a species.


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Admin, posted 08-04-2010 7:44 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 67 by AdminPD, posted 08-04-2010 7:46 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 65 of 116 (572148)
08-04-2010 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2010 11:52 PM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
The thread is over 370 posts and I don't see that you've made any progress with Straggler since you came into the discussion at 150. Your first post made the point clearly.

Now all I see are one line tit for tat posts that don't move the discussion forward and don't provide enough information for viewers to join the discussion.

I don't see a good case for reopening the thread so you can continue to tell Straggler how stupid his point is (Message 368) which is all you're doing with your response.

I'm not inclined to reopen the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2010 11:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 66 of 116 (572150)
08-04-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Big_Al35
08-04-2010 7:15 AM


Definition of Species Reopened.
Definition of Species has been reopened.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Big_Al35, posted 08-04-2010 7:15 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 67 of 116 (572151)
08-04-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Big_Al35
08-04-2010 7:15 AM


Definition of Species
I will reopen the thread, but please do not continue the off topic discussion that started about Message 87.

Reread the OP and get back on topic. Do not respond to posts after Message 86.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Big_Al35, posted 08-04-2010 7:15 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 08-04-2010 7:50 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 68 of 116 (572153)
08-04-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AdminPD
08-04-2010 7:46 AM


Re: Definition of Species
Whoops, sorry for stepping on your toes. I thought you might have just briefly checked in when you posted a little while ago, and since I have a meeting coming up and couldn't stick around I reopened it. I'm stepping aside, please carry on.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AdminPD, posted 08-04-2010 7:46 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

    
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 2548 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 69 of 116 (572256)
08-05-2010 12:27 AM


Spotting fake religions
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=571741
I would have thought that the point was that it is simply not possible because it relies on a subjective judgement of real and fake. There is no empirical yardstick available to measure validity in matters of faith. Indeed faith is belief without or even inspite of evidence, so it follows that no religious faith can be validated or classified as 'genuine' or 'fake', because evidence is not an accepted measure and any other measure is inevitably subjective or arbitrary or both.
Religion is inherently non-rational or irrational and to attempt to apply a rational measure of validity to such is a category error. Any non-rational measure is, by definition, not subject to validation.
Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-05-2010 12:40 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 70 of 116 (572258)
08-05-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bikerman
08-05-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Spotting fake religions
Probably a valid point, which makes the whole topics existence rather silly (or something like that).

That said, the topic had run 479 messages, and I would hope that your point was brought up somewhere in there. As I see it, the topics not going to be reopened.

And this topic is not the place to debate that topic's theme. So please, nobody else reply to the above message (or to this message).

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bikerman, posted 08-05-2010 12:27 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 71 of 116 (577200)
08-27-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminPD
07-18-2007 5:00 AM


The thread is the Meaning of meaning.

My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread it was my attempt to demonstrate meaning by purpose of evidence available, and the rules of evidence, which guides ones decisions in determining what is reasonable and acceptable as factual

I think we are proceeding along that line, if it is possible to reopen it, we can work twords that goal

Thanks for your consideration

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminPD, posted 07-18-2007 5:00 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2010 3:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 73 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 4:14 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 72 of 116 (577207)
08-27-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
08-27-2010 1:48 PM


Hi, EMA.

EMA writes:

My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread...

I would like to point out that I didn't actually abandon the thread: I refused to respond to your proposed off-topic discussion about the meaning of the word "Atheist."

I sent you an ultimatum (Message 98) about the topic I wanted to discuss, and you failed to respond and got distracted by other discussions with other posters. So, from my perspective, it rather feels like you abandoned it.

If you would like to resume the original discussion, I will be happy to rejoin you in a few weeks, after my qualifying exams are over and I will be able to spend some time on it.

To make the moderators' job easier, here is a link to the thread--- The meaning of "meaning"---just in case you decide to reopen it (though I submit that EMA's proposed line of discussion should be taken up on a new thread).


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-27-2010 1:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 73 of 116 (577211)
08-27-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
08-27-2010 1:48 PM


Meaning of Meaning
Since Bluejay has not abandoned the thread and agrees that your line of discussion is not in line with the thread topic, I'm not inclined to reopen the thread so that you can continue your own line of discussion.

I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.

The thread will stay closed unless someone does make a case for reopening it to discuss the meaning of meaning as presented in the thread's OP.

Thanks for your request and your IDs are merged.

AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-27-2010 1:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-27-2010 5:42 PM AdminPD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 116 (577224)
08-27-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AdminPD
08-27-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Meaning of Meaning
I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.

Thanks for merging my names, that was not some sneeky attempt by myself.

How about the title 'The obvious desgn of desgn' and we pick up where we left off, without me writting out an OP, is that possible?

Or do I need an OP

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 4:14 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AdminPD, posted 08-27-2010 6:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 75 of 116 (577242)
08-27-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
08-27-2010 5:42 PM


Re: Meaning of Meaning
We need a clear OP to be able to moderate the thread. Work on the title.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-27-2010 5:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017