Forum name change

Hi Dr Sing,Whilst I agree with you that the rating system should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt, I can't agree with this; Huh? But all we know of each other on this site is what we write. We know nothing else. That's it. What is it exactly that you think makes people hate you other than what you write? Your avatar pic?Mutate and Survive

Nonsense. Creationists are rated low because most of the folks here think that they talk bollocks. If you disagree, perhaps you would care to provide an example of a creationist post that is rated low despite being eminently sensible? And yet you contrasted that with what people write. The only way we now what people's positions are is by what they write. I think you are being paranoid. No-one hates you. Your rating went down because you moved from slating ID (something that most here agree with you about) to expounding upon Calvinist beliefs (something that most here disagree with). That's all. It's what you write, not who you are.Mutate and Survive

Okay, So you are saying that there are many post, rated 1, simply because the author is a creationist and despite the fact that the content is sensible and well argued?Example? The simple fact that creationists spout ignorant codswallop before an audience that largely disagrees with them would seem to suffice. Theistic evolutionists do rate higher here than creationists, this is true. However... Thus they are saying something that I agree with. If someone is backing an evolutionary argument, I will be more inclined to rate them highly. That's because what they say is closer to what I believe.You perhaps underestimate the distaste that many atheists have for religion, whether it accepts evolution or not. 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.Mutate and Survive

I suspect that you argue this on the basis of nothing other than your own sour grapes and persecution complex. 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. 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. 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. People? You have no idea how many people rated that message. Most likely it was only one person. 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

Hey Doc, So when, in message 9, you said; 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. I like getting worked up. Seems like a good enough reason to me. 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. 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

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

Doc, You mean the science and emotions stuff? Or the No True Scotsman bit? Either way, that's fine. Take your time. No real Christian would say that.Succinct enough for you?Mutate and Survive

Sorry Doc, I'm just yankin your chain. It's just that I see this pattern all the time;

1. Someone makes a claim about Christians,
2. a Christian denies it,
3. an example is given that proves the claim to be reasonable,
4. the Christian responds with "Oh, those people aren't real Christians...".

It's kinda annoying. You should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's like a disease with Christians, really.Mutate and Survive

Right! Who rated all my messages at a 1?! Which bastard is responsible for this travesty? Don't they realise what they've done? My member rating has dropped by 0.1 - 0.1! - What kind of monster could commit such a calumny? I'm devastated.Clearly this a malicious creationist conspiracy, and not, definitely not, just the work of one person who disagreed with what I had to say. I shall now leave this forum in a state of umbrage, never to return.Mutate and Die in a Fire, you big bunch of meanies.PS; the appalling behaviour of creationist bullies on this site proves without doubt that evolution is true. QED.

Hi Buz,I see that Dr Sing's isn't the only humour detector that's malfunctioning around here. Actually, that was my mistake. I meant those snake-handler guys. They're the only real Christians. Yes, I am old enough to recall the events of thirteen years ago. Not entirely sure what that has to do with anything though... Looks like your irony meter could do with a service as well. Also, is "prezactly" a word? Does it mean "in no way similar to"?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Removed double text.

Hey Doc, Why should hooah be able to define a true Christian? For that matter why should you?There are many versions of Christianity. Who decides which is the right one? You? Me? The Pope? Fred Phelps? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if there is any validity to Christianity, then it's rather up to God to decide which of the splinter-faiths founded in his name are valid and which aren't (that's assuming that he even cares). Now since none of us happen to be God, that leaves us rather stumped when it comes to deciding who's got that golden ticket.There is another reason why I dislike the "Real Christian" argument; it is extremely reminiscent of an argument which is used to excuse murder. I'll explain.Muslims are not supposed to kill other Muslims. Most Muslims take this stricture pretty seriously. This poses an obvious problem for those scumbags who might like to commit terrorist atrocities, atrocities that might claim Muslim lives. So how do they get around this?It's simple; those people are not real Muslims. They don't happen to subscribe to the exact same subset of Islam as the terrorists, so they, by definition, can't be real Muslims. So it's okay to kill them. It makes perfect sense; if you're completely cracked. It also embraces the exact same logical fallacy as you are employing, the No True Scotsman. I hope you can appreciate why I find such arguments illogical and deeply distasteful. That would be me. Implicit threats of damnation eh? Stay classy Doc.Of course, until that blessed day that I receive my richly deserved divine punishment, you are still left with a glaring fallacy as an argument. Care to defend it? Or withdraw it? Or are you just going to resort to implicit threats as a substitute for logic? Well let's see. Ichi's OP went "Wah! You guys are mean! Wah!" (I'm paraphrasing a little).I think your contribution here has been pretty much on topic myself.Mutate and Survive

Is that it? Oh. Chapter and verse please. I'm not just going to take your word for it you know. But that won't stop you from gloating over it and using the threat of damnation in a pathetically doomed attempt to bully folks into agreeing with you. Like I said, stay classy.Mutate and Survive

Okay, Indeed not. Don't be silly. Either there is a definition or there is not. Can't help but notice that neither of those verses mention the word "Christian". Nor do they define anything much of anything. Certainly using the words of Jesus to define a Christian is absurd, since there were no Christians at that time.Pretty weak tea I'm afraid.Mutate and Survive

Hey Doc, That's fair enough, we're all free to talk about or ignore whatever we like. On the other hand, when you make pro-creationist comments on a public forum which is primarily dedicated to the creation/evolution debate, you should know what to expect. If you bring up creationism or dispute evolution, you're going to have a whole bunch of people jump on you. Some may be nice and some may be... not so nice, but nothing is more likely to start a pile-on than pro-creation or anti-evolution posts. When you post material like that, folks are going to want to see you back it up, because that's what we do here (as per forum rule 4; "Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.").I suggest that you take one of two options; either don't bring up subjects you don't want to discuss or put a little steel in your backbone and argue your case.Naturally, I'd rather you took the latter option. In my view, no-one should hold opinions about the world which they cannot back up with evidence or reasoned argument. Certainly, no-one should express controversial opinions in a public forum without expecting to defend them. Believe it or not, presenting rational arguments and evidential backing for your ideas will garner a much more positive response. Cheerleading for creationism whilst refusing to even debate its validity is pretty much guaranteed to provoke a hostile reaction.Mutate and Survive

Hi Doc, That right Doc. Sometimes I'm nice and sometimes... not so nice. It really depends on who I'm talking to and how reasonable they are being. For instance, when someone mis-characterises my position like this; it kinda annoys me. After all, what kind of moron would demand that a historical event be repeatable? Still never mind. You could always prove your honesty by living up to this claim; and this claim; And look! There is a thread newly opened for that very topic - Evidence for the Biblical Record. What luck!Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod