|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Forum name change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 283 Joined:
|
Sounds like a possible experiment. Perhaps you could talk to Percy about creating a second account and seeing if this holds true. If I may make a few suggestions, why don't you try to portray yourself as an atheist who thinks the moon landings were faked. I would bet that you would end up with the same rating as you do now.
And if I portrayed myself as a theist who thought the moon landings were faked, I argue that I not only would get a more detestable rating but comparatively more loads of "compliments".
Granny M writes: Example? Message 13 So, why a 1? The poster gives some sound advice. Furthermore, this situation is a perfect example to demonstrate that evolution is incapable of providing one with practical wisdom for life. Which you get only from religion. So instead of being appreciative of it, people rate it a 1?
GM writes: I personally detest religion. That would not stop me from positively rating a post from a theistic evo. The fact that many theistic evo's on this board can boast high ratings, despite being surrounded by atheists, rather undermines your argument that we are partisan. And corroborates the claim that religion is often a much more powerful player in these forums than pure ideology when it comes to ratings. Edited by Dr. Sing, : typos Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
And if I portrayed myself as a theist who thought the moon landings were faked, I argue that I not only would get a more detestable rating but comparatively more loads of "compliments". Like I said, you should test it. Try it out on another forum if you want. But in the end, posts like yours remind me of this cartoon:
Instead of whining perhaps you should figure out why your arguments don't carry any weight. You seem to be using your paranoia as a crutch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Furthermore, this situation is a perfect example to demonstrate that evolution is incapable of providing one with practical wisdom for life. Which you get only from religion. 1) the Theory of Evolution is a scientific model. It no more pretends to provide with "practical wisdom" than does teh Theory of Gravity. 2) suggesting the "practical wisdom" comes only from religion is absurd. I have no faith, and yet I'm perfectly capable of making wise decisions in my life. In fact, as a former Christian, I can honestly say that not one jot of "wisdom" in the Bible is unique to theists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
And if I portrayed myself as a theist who thought the moon landings were faked, I argue that I not only would get a more detestable rating but comparatively more loads of "compliments". I suspect that you argue this on the basis of nothing other than your own sour grapes and persecution complex.
So, why a 1? I don't know. And here is my point; neither do you! I admit that the message probably deserved better than a 1 rating, but you seem to think that you have the magical ability to read the mind(s) of the unknown person(s) who rated that message (not me by the way). In your original post here, you put things like this down to hatred. I think you're being presumptuous. Someone might simply have disagreed with ICANT's advice. On the other hand, maybe the post-rater does hate ICANT. Now why would that be? It can only be because of something else he has said; in other words he is still being judged by his words, even if they aren't the words that would be appropriate for that message. Perhaps they dislike him for reasons other than his creationism. I have to say, I'm not exactly ICANT's biggest fan myself, but that's not because he is creationist; it's down to the way he argues and how he behaves. Again, the only thing we know about each other is what we write. How do we know that ICANT is a creationist? He wrote that he is. We know nothing of each other than what we write.
Furthermore, this situation is a perfect example to demonstrate that evolution is incapable of providing one with practical wisdom for life. Classic! You complain about being unfairly low-rated and then you go and say something as manifestly moronic as that! Evolution makes no claim to provide us with advice. Scientific theories are descriptive, not proscriptive. Do you imagine that the theory of gravity should hold some practical advice for our lives? Or that quantum theory should teach moral truths? You are being absurd. You see, if you say silly things, you will get low ratings.
Which you get only from religion. Either you are so grotesquely ignorant that you have never heard of secular moral philosophy or you are lying. Neither seems worthy of high ratings to me.
So instead of being appreciative of it, people rate it a 1? People? You have no idea how many people rated that message. Most likely it was only one person.
Granny writes: I personally detest religion. That would not stop me from positively rating a post from a theistic evo. The fact that many theistic evo's on this board can boast high ratings, despite being surrounded by atheists, rather undermines your argument that we are partisan. Dr Sing writes: And corroborates the claim that religion is often a much more powerful player in these forums than pure ideology when it comes to ratings. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? The fact that I am willing to rate messages highly where I agree with their content yet despise the religious beliefs of the poster confirms that I am voting based on religion? What the fuck? It demonstrates the opposite. Do I have to hand-walk you through this? If I always rate someone low when I disagree with their religion that means I'm acting out of bias against religion. If I rate someone high when I agree with their point despite the fact that I disagree with their religion that means I'm not acting out of bias against religion. How could that mean anything else? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
If I may make a few suggestions, why don't you try to portray yourself as an atheist who thinks the moon landings were faked. I would bet that you would end up with the same rating as you do now. If I may assume that by this you do not intend that Dr. Sing is going to get the samish* low rating due to her inability to argue any questionable point well, but that the subject matter is getting the low rating then I think this would be a problem. If someone come in with well presented and reasoned arguments for the moon landings being faked I for one would tend to give them a high rating. If all they did was present "The flag was flapping in the breeze." then they get a 1. (Yes, we did land on the Moon.) Take Peg for example: In a science thread We'd need negative numbers to be accurate; but, in the religious threads she should be getting much better ratings. (At least I think so, but I'm not too good a judge there so I refrain from rating them. Sorry Peg.) AbE: You are right, Dr. Sing. ICANT got totally robbed on post 13. That's a 4 if one wants to be a jerk. I've gone back and given him a 5. Why don't you do the same? We can raise the average.
*kine-da' the same. Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
People? You have no idea how many people rated that message. Most likely it was only one person. It was only one person. I went back and gave him a 5. The message is now rated (1+5)/2. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I voted it up, too. That was a good post from ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Yes, Rahvin. What you say is true. But unfortunately your theory doesn't conform to your claims...
1) the Theory of Evolution is a scientific model. It no more pretends to provide with "practical wisdom" than does teh Theory of Gravity. So do scientific models deal with things like morality? Kindness, love, anger, guilt? When was the last time the theory of gravity or quantum theory told us that morality is a logical consequence of being human?
I have no faith, and yet I'm perfectly capable of making wise decisions in my life. Okay. And what do you rely on to make these decisions? Mutations? Obviously, your innate sense of morality, right? Which...is that the domain of science? No. Then why does evolution peek its ugly head into matters that are not its domain. If it wants to be called scientific, let it not deal with things for which it has no scientific evidence, like emotions. I don't mean to say that you use evolution (or that you need to) to make your decisions in life, I don't know what you use. You mention that you once believed, well, I'm lead to believe thatsomething has replaced that empty spot. But do you see my point? Any branch that cuts the cord between supernaturalism and man is doing injustice to the abstract qualities man possesses that are unique to him.
Instead of whining perhaps you should figure out why your arguments don't carry any weight. You seem to be using your paranoia as a crutch. And you seem to be using meaningless cartoons? Are you kidding me? Do you really think that this nation is mainly Christian? or that this world is? Really??
GM writes: Perhaps they dislike him for reasons other than his creationism. I have to say, I'm not exactly ICANT's biggest fan myself, but that's not because he is creationist; it's down to the way he argues and how he behaves. Fair enough. That's your opinion. However, it would be unreasonable for you to vouch for the thousands of posters here.
Scientific theories are descriptive, not proscriptive. Do you imagine that the theory of gravity should hold some practical advice for our lives? Or that quantum theory should teach moral truths? You are being absurd. You see, if you say silly things, you will get low ratings. ABSOLUTELY NOT, Granny M (if I may say this, you're getting worked up for no good reason) No scientific theory need ever give us advice for life. (such a claim is idiotic, to say the least) All I'm saying is that, it really would be nice if the very "scientific" evolutionary theory remained within the domain of science. Problem arises when evolutionists bring it into faith's domain and force it to incorporate an explanation for abstract entities such as human love and anger, to name just a few.
Either you are so grotesquely ignorant that you have never heard of secular moral philosophy or you are lying. Neither seems worthy of high ratings to me. Secular ethics is a feeble (and failed) attempt to hold on to your inner supernatural domain for fear of losing it altogether, IMO. But again, that's my opinion. You may not like it. I'm not trying to rub it on you.
lynx writes: AbE: You are right, Dr. Sing. ICANT got totally robbed on post 13. That's a 4 if one wants to be a jerk. I've gone back and given him a 5. Why don't you do the same? We can raise the average. Thank you. I really appreciate it. It bothered me more than my own poor rating. (One considerate person on this forum, thank you)
What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? The fact that I am willing to rate messages highly where I agree with their content yet despise the religious beliefs of the poster confirms that I am voting based on religion? What the fuck? It demonstrates the opposite. Do I have to hand-walk you through this? If I always rate someone low when I disagree with their religion that means I'm acting out of bias against religion. If I rate someone high when I agree with their point despite the fact that I disagree with their religion that means I'm not acting out of bias against religion. How could that mean anything else? You might be saying this in all honesty, GM. But I doubt that everyone here here is as honest you. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Thank you, Rahvin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
And you seem to be using meaningless cartoons? Are you kidding me? Do you really think that this nation is mainly Christian? or that this world is? Really??
"Prior to 1990, the popularity of Christianity had been stable in the U.S. About 87% of adults identified themselves as Christians. The country then experienced a major change. Significant numbers of American adults began to disaffiliate themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. By 2008, the percentage of Christians had reached 76% and is believed to be continuing its decline."
source So the chart is pretty darn close, as is the humor. The poor 76% majority is feeling persecuted. If the nation was 76% atheist and 12% christian you might have a leg to stand on, but you don't. You do understand how silly it is for someone who belongs to a 76% majority to whine about persecution to a group that makes up about 12% of the population, right? When was the last time you saw a state constitution that forbid christians from holding public office? I can show you a handful that ban atheists from holding public office. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hey Doc,
Fair enough. That's your opinion. However, it would be unreasonable for you to vouch for the thousands of posters here. So when, in message 9, you said;
Sooner or later you'll come to realize that it offers great convenience to highly biased, inconsiderate, and partial posters who hate who you are more than they disagree or dislike what you write. you were being unreasonable. Good. That's what I've been trying to get across to you ever since then. You no more know what motivates other people to rate posts than I do. I simply chose to judge people charitably rather than assume the worst of others and spit venom at the entire forum.
Granny M (if I may say this, you're getting worked up for no good reason) I like getting worked up. Seems like a good enough reason to me.
All I'm saying is that, it really would be nice if the very "scientific" evolutionary theory remained within the domain of science. Problem arises when evolutionists bring it into faith's domain and force it to incorporate an explanation for abstract entities such as human love and anger, to name just a few. Eh? None of those are abstract entities. All have a measurable effect in the brain. I thought you were a doctor? Seriously, what possible reason could there be to cede those areas of empirically observable human behaviour to religion? They are amply covered by psychology and neurology. If you insist that human behaviour must be regarded in religious terms, why not all behaviour, including animal behaviour? For those of us who accept evolution, it is quite obvious that those qualities must have evolved as an emergent property of our brains. They have clear survival advantages and can be observed in other species ( usually in more primitive forms, but that's rather what one would expect). The way I see it, we can either trust religion, which has taught that the seat of emotion is in the kidneys or we can trust science. In the case of observable properties of the physical universe, I think science has a rather better record.
Secular ethics is a feeble (and failed) attempt to hold on to your inner supernatural domain for fear of losing it altogether, IMO. Okay then. Simply demonstrate that there is such a thing as the "supernatural" and I will take you seriously. If you cannot do that, I will assume that you're just blowing smoke. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Numbers can play nasty mental tricks. You do realize that not everyone who purports to be "Christian" is a true Bible-believing Christian, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr. Sing.
I also agree that ICANT's message doesn't deserve such a poor rating. The good news is that sympathetic atheists (and now, 1 theisti evolutionist) have managed to bump the rating of that message up to a 4.2! -----
Dr. Sing writes: The poster gives some sound advice. Furthermore, this situation is a perfect example to demonstrate that evolution is incapable of providing one with practical wisdom for life. Which you get only from religion. So instead of being appreciative of it, people rate it a 1? I don't think you can honestly say that ICANT provided any "practical wisdom for life" from his religion in that post. In fact, his argument seemed to be to not let religion get in the way of the practicality of saving one's marriage. You're going to have to count me as one vote against the idea that "practical wisdom for life" only comes from religion. I personally feel like I derive practical wisdom for my life from a number of different sources, including my religion, other peoples' religions, science, mundane conversations with friends and colleagues, etc. ----- Also, I think Percy has plans to replace the current rating system with something better sometime in the future, so I wouldn't get too worked up over it. Aside from this site, I also post on a Mormon forum, and their rating system just counts how many people thank you for your good post, or laugh at your clever jokes. I only ever get thanked when I say an atheist is using a logical fallacy, and nobody there thinks I'm funny, either. I think the ratings you get here are much more honest and objective then you'll find anywhere else. Sure, the system isn't perfect, and you'll still find considerable biases, but it's better than you'll find elsewhere. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
You do realize that not everyone who purports to be "Christian" is a true Bible-believing Christian, don't you? You don't think that you're a "true Bible-believing Christian" do you? You're not. You're a fake. You're not a real Christian. The only true Christians are... {drumroll please} the Mormons! Yup. Only the CLDS is truly Christian. I know this is true, I saw it on South Park. You don't make the grade. You're a sham. I mean, Calvinists? Please! That makes you little better than a Satan worshipper. You're not a real Christian. Or, possibly, just possibly, using the No True Scotsman fallacy to wriggle out of being proved wrong by accusing people you've never even met of lying is bullshit. Just a thought. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
(One considerate person on this forum, thank you) Not me. I'm a jerk. Ask anyone. Edited by lyx2no, : Formating. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024