|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
The originator of the topic gave examples which show that "dumb" was used as in "not brilliant" and possibly "not logical", but there is no implication that "dumb" referred to immorality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Please read the Opening Post in that thread.
Morality deals with right and wrong, not smart or dumb. This thread is not about God's morality or yours.
originator writes: This brings me to the point of this thread, please list any examples that you have of the Bible making God (or Moses or whoever) out to look unreasonably dumb. While we feel that murdering innocent people is wrong and not a smart thing to do, I feel that the OP is pointing more towards silly, stupid or ridiculous. Yes you can say that murdering innocent people is stupid or ridiculous, but read the OP and the example given. The direction the thread was taking was not in the spirit of the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Read the Admin message following your post and show me how your post deals with understanding the Trinity Doctrine or the scriptures used to support it.
Although I tagged your message, the thread had veered away from the spirit of the topic. Even the post you replied to had already strayed from the path. I'm not going to spend the time tagging everyone. As I said in the Admin Msg, the topic is not about the validity of the doctrine or whether it makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:You can, but I wouldn't advise it? Notice Faith's response?
The fire myths and the earthquake myths are EXPLANATION stories, something else altogether. She's asking for a specific type of story. A disaster account, not an explanation of accquisition. We try to keep the topics narrowly focused. How does opening the door to fire disaster stories help answer the questions you posed in the OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This is the part tagged:
You'll have to do better. What gets me, is how you think you have it all explained, like no-one before you in the last 2000 years could have figured it out the way you did. If your not going to believe what it says, then that's up to you. But the only way your going to start to understand is to seek God more in His word. You have falsified the whole bible, congradulations. So let me ask you this. Take into consideration that God will forgive anything, except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists today? Any response to those personal statements will potentially lead the discussion away from whether Jesus lied or not and to possible bickering. None of those statements supports or furthers the discussion concerning whether Jesus lied or not. That is the purpose of the off topic tag with the warning not to respond to those portions.
quote:I don't see that it hurt your discussion, you and Legend seem to be continuing quite well. Admins go through stages of over warning and under warning; and sometimes it's just right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
The crux of the discussion, IMO, is:
My question here, is are creationists (those that make such arguments) afraid of removing all purposes for God, or afraid of believing in something that has no purpose? My take on it is that for those who believe, it only makes sense to believe in an entity that has a purpose. So we need God to have a purpose, which does not necessarily mean that God does have a purpose, only that we ascribe him one to make his existence more palatable. Not really whether God exists or what his actual purpose is. It's more about the argument that science removes God from the equation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
But you didn't address the fallacies or misconceptions in the OP. You blasted evolution and other science theories and said that the OP is fallacious silliness.
In the Trinity thread, I squashed those who are anti-Trinity because that was not what the originator wanted to discuss. The anti-Trinity group had the potential to overrun the thread because the Trinity folks were spending their time defending it. It would shut out the discussion of what the Trinity is. In the thread in question, you are the anti with the potential to drag the topic into the same old argument concerning the Bible and the stories within, which is exactly what happened and Iceage picked up the bate and ran with it. That's not what this thread is about. The originator also voiced that he didn't want to go that direction but to stick with the OP.
Woodsy writes: Message 39I would prefer to stick to the original descriptions of the fallacies. I'm not sure if considering myths as true really is reification. Another thread might be a better place for this ongoing debate. I would be very interested in any other fallacies I did not include, further examples, reasons (if any) why they are not fallacies in religion and anything else relevant to the OP. I have seen allusions to work by Pascal Boyer that indicates that we have an innate tendency to personification, but I haven't yet managed to lay hands on his writings myself. Would anyone who has read his work care to comment? Another notion that Jar's post brought to mind is that, in the absence of real knowledge, fallacies may be all one has to fall back on, unless aware of and willing to admit ignorance. Any comments? This topic isn't automatically about the Christian religion. It is religion in general and you've already made it very clear from your first answer that you don't feel that religious beliefs develop from misconceptions or fallacies. Even in your response to crash you didn't give any alternative explanation for the conditions he presented. You just crabbed because he didn't provide evidence and your subsequent responses get defensive and then it falls into the same old battle. I would have no problem if you were actually providing alternative explanations to what the OP presented, but I don't feel that you are. Take notice that there is a nice debate going on and it isn't everyone patting each other on the back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
The off topic warning is put there to stop the discussion from continuing along those lines, which you were continuing while AdminJar was tagging the posts. Now you and Faith are continuing the discussion here. Stop!
Faith made her point, you made your point and iano made his point. There is no more need for it to turn into a discussion. No need to convince each other of your reasoning. This discussion is now over. Anyone continuing this discussion will receive a 24 hour timeout.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Yes you will get your first suspension as soon as I post this msg.
Listen carefully. Faith made a post, you responded about the evolutionism and gave your choice of logo. Iano responded to your comment: You all are attacking the science, which is why evolution is defending itself. While you were composing a rebuttal, which was unneccessary in this thread; AdminJar saw that your post (even though mostly on topic) sparked an off topic remark and had the potential to spiral into an off topic discussion. Which he was right since you were composing a rebuttal and iano and possibly Faith would have followed suit. Don't get so hung up on the wording. One off topic comment doesn't threaten a thread, but when people start to respond; we either act or it gets out of control. So the point in marking yours is so that others don't try to respond and AdminJar already told why he didn't catch Faith's. The purpose of the thread is to vote and comment on the EvC logo options. Again this discussion is over and if you still don't understand, then come into the chat room. Any response to this will receive a 24 hour timeout.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
My error. The first sentence caught my eye.
The most compelling reason for not believing in a god or gods is the knowledge that people will believe anything if you prime them enough. But I missed the last sentence. Now I see that the previous leads to her position.
So it is science of psychology and the fact that we are prone to various cognitive distortions that lead to erroneous conclusions (which I see borne out every day in practice) that lead me to believe that the bible is not the word of the xian god. I apologize Larni. I will remove the Off Topic but will leave a note so that others don't make the same mistake and continue in the wrong direction. Acceptable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
I don't know if Larni is a he or a she. Not sure why I went with she.
Anyway the deed is undone, but a note left for good measure. Hopefully you and Legend won't continue the short banter. Have a great day!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
You know as well as I do what happens when we start proving or not proving that a prophecy has come about. Major snowball effect.
That thread isn't about proving the evidence that convinces you that the Bible is the Word of God. Since you have probably made the prophecy point in another thread at another time, maybe you could link to someplace you have supported your prophecy position before. I have no problem with you responding to Straggler in that manner (even with the OT tag on it), by referring him to past arguments, but don't try to convince him in the "Bible: Word of God or Not" thread. Refer him and let it go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:The warning is so that you and Legend don't start rehashing the meaning of genea, Matthew 24:34, and whether Jesus lied or not. The rest of the warning was to participants in general, not you specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:I know you didn't find his apology acceptable, but that was his apology. You demand an apology and he says he gave one. Round and round it goes wasting posts along the way. We don't always get apologies wrapped up the way we like with the bow on top. Even though you found his apology wanting, you needed to realize you weren't going to get any more of an apology than what you already had. While NJ didn't direct his comments at you personally, I do suggest that NJ be sensitive, as we all should, to the diversity of this community when wording analogies or comparisons, etc. I'm glad that most were pleased with my efforts and I appreciate the kudos. I probably should have acted sooner, but thought it would die out once it came to light in the Mod thread. Maybe we need a complaint thread that doesn't deal with Moderation Actions. Something to think about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thank you for the kudos, I do appreciate it.
quote:I'm not too harsh concerning the first post after the warning because I also have a habit of starting a reply and finishing later and I know that posters do that. I also tend to look at who is online to see if the particpants are online at the time I'm tagging. That gives me a heads up that they may be typing and miss the tag. In my personal posts, I try to look at the post again and make sure nothing has changed before I post. I understand your concern, but I try to watch for those possibilities. I may not always succeed, but I try. Again thanks.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024