Peanut Gallery

Fair enough. See Bilingualism.

As Admin begins to crack down on the poor posting practices of our resident racist and geocentrist, the hilarity continues.Apparently SO thinks that beign asked to produce the calculations that support his argument means he has to redo all of the work his source originally performed...as opposed to simply copy/pasting the numbers his source presumably provides and explaining how they support his position.Or, you know...just conceding that he has nothing at all to base his wacky beliefs on.This, of course, has inspired a temper tantrum from SO, such that he has instructed Admin to ban him.

quote:

---

Thou shalt not tempt Percy thy Admin.

---

I anticipate his request to be granted very shortly. I'm not sure if I'm more happy to see the little racist disappear, or sad at the loss of the constant stream of humor as the forum's favorite target practice is taken away.

But Rahvin he has provided "sources".... What more do you want? Personally I find him hilarious and I will miss him dearly. Alas I suspect that his current suspension is just a sign of more permanent things to come.Oh well. Next.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can anyone remember the name of that ingenious poster who tried to solve the problem of life on the Ark by suggesting that God miraculously made it bigger on the inside than the outside?Thanks.ETA: Never mind, I found it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

ARK: an obvious precursor to the TARDISARK =
Ark of
Recursive
KinematicsIt cannot be done without recursion.

---

- xongsmith

Greentwiga is to be congratulated for the Message 183 below. Here's to hoping he sticks around for a long, long time.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Second. See Message 8 for more.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

In RAZD's message 4 reply to my message 1 at the "Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?" topic: If I had it to do over again (and here I do) I would reply to that:The atheist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.Deism and atheism is functionally the same thing.I proposed a "Great Debate" to try to explore the above. My message 1 ended with the question: RAZD declined the "Great Debate", saying: And so it ends, leaving me at "Deism and atheism is functionally the same thing."Moose

Moose, Excuse me, I thought RAZD banged on about his "faith" ad nauseum making it impersonal? Glad to see it's become a "faith" now, & not an evidentially supported conclusion, though.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Well I still don't understand RAZD's position.On one hand he seems to say that his faith is deeply personal and independent of logic or rationality. (Fine. No argument from anyone there.)Yet on the other hand any suggestion that believing in one immaterial unevidenced entity over any other is irrational and the result of special pleading and he will start banging on about the value of "subjective evidence". Whatever exactly "subjective evidence" is in relation to entities that are wholly materially undetectable?I find it all very contradictory. And all very ambiguous. I hope to rectify this here Immaterial "Evidence"

Hi mark24, Nope.You have confused Straggler's confusing continual misrepresentations with my actual position on the validity of subjective evidence: all I talked about was the validity of subjective evidence. It seems Straggler was completely, and likely still is, unable to separate this from talking about gods and faith, etc, a problem I don't have.Most of what I "banged on about" was Straggler's continual misrepresentation of my position on subjective evidence to involve and be central to my faith, when it didn't and isn't. Curiously, my personal faith has always been a "faith" -- it is something that I just do not talk about -- a point that renders all of Straggler's comments about my faith, hidden agenda, larger argument, etc., etc., rather ridiculous, because whatever he thinks it is, it is necessarily a fabrication of HIS own making. This point should be obvious to anyone when they realize that he has been unable to find a single -- not one -- quote about my faith that he can use to prove his point, even though there were literally hundreds of posts on the topics in question. Not one. Not a single one. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Don't you wonder why that is?Faith is a personal journey, and I can no more tell another person how to find their path than anyone can tell me, which makes discussion of faith rather irrelevant and pointless, hence my declining of moose's invitation.Nor will I be party to any more of Straggler's silly games about "but you said" to my "no I didn't" - as he has demonstrated to me a level of dishonesty in those debates that is pointless to try to continually refute. He will continue to post false statements about things I've said in spite of challenges - and his failure - to substantiate them. Until the day he can, or acknowledges that he can't and apologizes, he will be a dishonest debater and a liar in my book.But this is not the thread to air dirty laundry, it is a topic to discuss debates on other topics.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I am not, and never have been, overly interested in your faith. I am however very interested in what can be evidenced and what cannot. I am also interested in whether atheism or agnosticism is the rational conclusion. It should be noted that it was you who raised the issue of "subjective evidence" in a thread about deism and atheism. Not me. It was you that created any conflation between faith and evidence. Not me.Personally I think your little hissy fits, wild accusations, mock indignation and personal attacks are just a means of evading the real issue at hand. Namely that you are simply unable to justify your assertion that agnosticism is the rational position with regard to some unevidenced gods whilst remaining totally atheistic to equally unevidenced immaterial concepts like our old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn.Special pleading. Indisputably. But you would rather put pins in your eyeballs than ever actually concede that fact, or tackle the issue of how immaterial entities can be evidenced. Immaterial "Evidence" has been specificaly setup to discuss evidence independently of any conflations with faith. Maybe you should take your comments there.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Immaterial Evidence thread.

RAZD, Not really, the whole subjective evidence thing came up because of the deism threads.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

To RAZD,If you cannot discuss a topic without ad hominem then please don't discuss it here.To you and Straggler:This is a peanut gallery, not a discussion thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

see Message 133 on Report discussion problems here: No.2