Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 46 of 1725 (502305)
03-10-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by CosmicChimp
03-10-2009 7:08 PM


The original thread I hoped to focus on never really went anywhere, but having a Peanut Gallery to make meta-comments about discussions elsewhere seems like a good idea. So why don't we keep this thread open and allow comments about any threads and see how it goes. The Forum Guidelines still apply here, of course.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-10-2009 7:08 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 47 of 1725 (502309)
03-10-2009 8:57 PM


The point I bring up here is out of place in the thread itself (it being off topic), nor is this any type of official thread problem for the problem thread. But the idea of a peanut gallery for these type of side comments I think is just right. Again this is a comment about another thread and not an issue to be debated. Nor will I debate it.
For hundreds of posts in a thread and its follow up thread, I have noticed that forum member Kelly is not responding to posts by forum member dwise1. Although technically she replied two times the responses were at first to a strawman type of recharacterization and then a skirting of the issue type of answer.
She may not be responding to others in the thread as well; as I think is probably true too (without checking). But dwise1's posts are so biting and reveal so overwhelmingly much valuable information and I venture to say crucial to the issue info, that her not replying to him becomes glaring. she simply ignores him. It is killing me to see it going like this for so many days now.
I've not read yet the last few posts on that thread but I've been with it all since the first thread and she is just about invincibly ignorant I think. Poor lady.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-11-2009 8:51 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 48 of 1725 (502332)
03-11-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Stile
03-10-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Evidence
Stile writes:
Perhaps you should change that to say "If every single believer loved every non-believer, the way that God loves us, there would be very few problems, and very few without Love."
If believing is all about love, as I pointed out, then there is no difference from the way you worded it, to the way I worded it.
Getting someone "to believe" is all about showing that person the love of God, and nothing more. I don't know about other "believers" but for me, sharing the same love with people, that I feel God shared with me, is what is all about. No condemnation, no judgment, just love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:16 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 7:59 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 03-11-2009 9:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 49 of 1725 (502334)
03-11-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Theodoric
03-10-2009 12:30 PM


Re: Evidence
Theodoric writes:
Even if every believer in the world loved me, I still would not believe that mythology and mumbo-jumbo is true.
I am quite certain it wouldn't have any affect on any of the atheists I know. Religion is about love, it is about control and the need for people to have an explanation for the things they don't, or refuse to, understand.
You are proving my point, by sharing your definition of religion with us. Religion should not be about that at all. Smart people understand that. When they asked Jesus what the most important commandments were, He replied if you love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love others like yourself, then all other commandments would be covered.
You know the difference between good religion, and bad. You are also not qualified to say what you would or wouldn't do if people who called themselves "believers" truly loved you the way God loves them, because you haven't experienced it yet.
Believers loving you is not the exclusive way to know God either. God can just come to you directly, He does everyday, that is what I believe. Your unbelief, might well be your path to belief. It was for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2009 12:30 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 03-11-2009 8:47 AM riVeRraT has replied

Stile
Member (Idle past 131 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 50 of 1725 (502337)
03-11-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by riVeRraT
03-11-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Evidence
riVeRraT writes:
If believing is all about love, as I pointed out, then there is no difference from the way you worded it, to the way I worded it.
Sure there is. Non-believer's are also quite capable of Love. In fact, they are capable of Love at least equal to any Love ever shown by any believer. Sometimes they are even capable of Love greater than that shown by believers.
If Love is the prominent issue, then it no longer matters if one is a believer or not, it only matters if one loves or not.
If "being a believer" is actually the issue.. then Love most certainly is not the main focal point.
If you're trying to say that "anyone who shows Love" is actually a believer... well, that's just silly. It's quite easy to show many, MANY atheists who Love much more than the general population of believers. And they certainly have that same Love without ever being "shown the love of God" in any way. Take the entire country of Sweeden, for example. And, if you're trying to say that atheists are actually "believers" or have somehow been shown "the love of God" without actually knowing it... then, well, that just reduces God's Love to "nothing all that special."
One would think that "the love of God" would be impossible to confuse with anything else. But, with the simple existence of atheistic people with Love, this is obviously not the case. That only leaves two conclusions (1) Love is actually independent of God, or (2) God's Love isn't powerful enough to uniquely identify itself apart from atheistic Love and, therefore, atheistic Love can be greater than God's Love.
And remember, if Love really is the focal point... it doesn't really matter which conclusion is actually true...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 03-11-2009 7:28 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9283
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 51 of 1725 (502343)
03-11-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
03-11-2009 7:42 AM


TYPO on my part
Religion is about love, it is about control and the need for people to have an explanation for the things they don't, or refuse to, understand.
Should have been
Religion is NOT about love

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 03-11-2009 7:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 4:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 52 of 1725 (502344)
03-11-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by CosmicChimp
03-10-2009 8:57 PM


Time will tell whether Kelly will ever begin seeking the evidence that supports what she believes about the nature of creation science. For the time being she seems firmly ensconced in a superficiality that prevents any meaningful analysis of the information people are providing her. Hopefully she'll become increasingly uncomfortable with the obvious insincerity of refusals to support her position with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-10-2009 8:57 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2009 8:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 53 of 1725 (502346)
03-11-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by riVeRraT
03-11-2009 7:28 AM


The Devil Made Me Do It
Getting someone "to believe" is all about showing that person the love of God, and nothing more. I don't know about other "believers" but for me, sharing the same love with people, that I feel God shared with me, is what is all about. No condemnation, no judgment, just love.
Keep on doing that and let us know how far it gets you in life.
How does one reconcile these two quotes?
God Is good
God is great
Let us thank Him
For our hate
Amen

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 03-11-2009 7:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 4:55 PM lyx2no has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 54 of 1725 (502662)
03-12-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by lyx2no
03-11-2009 9:01 AM


Re: The Devil Made Me Do It
lyx2no writes:
Getting someone "to believe" is all about showing that person the love of God, and nothing more. I don't know about other "believers" but for me, sharing the same love with people, that I feel God shared with me, is what is all about. No condemnation, no judgment, just love.
Keep on doing that and let us know how far it gets you in life.
How does one reconcile these two quotes?
How does one not?
If I let someone do what it is they want to do, as long as it is not life threatening, then I am loving them, and not condemning them, or judging them. We all have a road to travel. No one could tell me what to do, why should I tell anyone else what to do? Just let us know how it works out. If you want or need advice, I am here. You need help, I am here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 03-11-2009 9:01 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by lyx2no, posted 03-12-2009 10:29 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 55 of 1725 (502663)
03-12-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
03-11-2009 8:47 AM


Re: TYPO on my part
Theodoric writes:
Should have been
Yea I knew that. I took it as a sarcastic remark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 03-11-2009 8:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 1725 (502709)
03-12-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
03-11-2009 8:51 AM


I miss Wumpini.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-11-2009 8:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 57 of 1725 (502716)
03-12-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by riVeRraT
03-12-2009 4:55 PM


The Devil Made Me Do It again
How does one not?
Your position was neutral then? Is it your position that unless a preventive act ensues, judgment and condemnation have not preceded? What a very odd definition. You'll note that I've made a judgment about your definition without preventing it. I think it's wrong to use idiosyncratic definitions of common words. Was that not a condemnation of your action? I'd think so.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 4:55 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 1:08 PM lyx2no has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 58 of 1725 (503481)
03-19-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by lyx2no
03-12-2009 10:29 PM


Re: The Devil Made Me Do It again
Your position was neutral then?
I am an innocent by-stander, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by lyx2no, posted 03-12-2009 10:29 PM lyx2no has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 59 of 1725 (505079)
04-07-2009 8:10 AM


Cedre's last post in the Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? thread (Message 109) leaves me feeling like he'll never understand evolutionary views of morality. I'm not talking about convincing him, just bringing him to an understanding.
I thought Dwise1's post was excellent, but Cedre's non sequiturs, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, not to mention concluding with a change of topic to argue for a common world morality, deftly deflected and rendered ineffective all Dwise1's careful explanations.
I'm out of ideas for how to respond at the moment, and Cedre didn't respond to my post anyway, so maybe someone will join me for some sideline commentary for a bit.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 04-07-2009 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 60 of 1725 (505102)
04-07-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
04-07-2009 8:10 AM


He's ignored my responses (and those of others) in the "Prisoners of sin" thread as well.
Cedre's not interested in debate. He's i\preaching.[/i] he views himself as a shepherd reaching out to a flock that's mostly gone astray. There's no real conversation with him, he just repeats his same position over and over while ignoring those points he finds inconvenient. He ignores challenges to the Bible's authority of God's existence, and returns to quoting scripture.
It's rather like trying to argue with an actual Bible. It never addresses your points, and just says the same thing no matter how many times you read it, inconsistencies, self-contradictions and all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-07-2009 8:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 04-07-2009 3:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024