Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 9:15 PM
140 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, ramoss (3 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,460 Year: 3,497/19,786 Month: 492/1,087 Week: 82/212 Day: 12/31 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 61 of 103 (681466)
11-25-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
11-25-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
Are you mistaking the white settlers who came to an accord with the Crown for the indigenous peoples who's societies were smashed to bits?

ABE: sorry, miss read your last post and are not making the above mistake. My appologies.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 6:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(4)
Message 62 of 103 (681468)
11-25-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
11-25-2012 5:35 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
I don't think you're getting my point. Saying that the British Empire was a result of God's blessings on the nation is not saying that they behaved rightly as colonial conquerors or anything like that.

What you said and what I took objection to was this;

Faith writes:

The sun went down on the British Empire a long time ago. Sad.

What I am trying to get through to you is that the end of Empire is not even remotely sad. The Empire, for all the good you might find to say about it, was deeply unethical and immoral. It stands as a giant blot upon my nation's copybook. I find it distasteful that you should seek to downplay this or portray it as some sort of lost halcyon age.

The blessings built on the past.

Pious, naive fantasizing. The Empire wasn't founded on some nebulous blessings Faith, it was founded on guns and ships. Glory to God for his bounteous blessings of firearms and warships! Praise him for granting us with the power to kill and enslave people more efficiently than they can resist! Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!

If God ever did bless my country, then the Empire was part of the process of squandering that blessing, not a result of it. Its loss is not sad. Rather, we should celebrate the independence of former colonies.

Clearly those blessings have pretty much all been lost by now, and probably some of it through their mistreatment of their colonies.

Can't you see that claiming those places as "colonies" and those people as "subjects" was a wrong in and of itself, regardless of how they were subsequently treated?

I AM arguing that they weren't nearly as bad as conquerors as you want to paint them,

Fair enough, but saying that we were the "least nasty conquerors" is a little bit like calling someone the "tallest midget".

I'm NOT saying anything about their colonial activity was "Christian"

Fair enough.

I suspect that HAD there been a substantial Christian spirit in their dealings with India, they would more clearly have benefited both themselves and the Indians

Those are weasel words. Those people regarded themselves as True Christians every bit as much as you do. But I know what you're going to say; they weren't filled with the Christian spirit. Well all I can say is that you've changed your tune. In your first post you bemoaning their loss. now you accuse them of not showing Christian spirit. Well which is it?

and possibly India could have evolved into something similar to Canada or Australia in their relations with their conquerors.

a) How highly do you think the Native Australians regard their conquest? Or the indigenous peoples of Canada? How grateful do you think they are for genocide?

b) India and the UK have a pretty good relationship actually, as we do with many Commonwealth countries. The Empire is in the past for the most part. I just don't think that making apologetics for it is any way to improve those relations. Any culture must own up to its past misdeeds and the Empire is certainly one of Britain's, just as the genocide of indigenous peoples is one of America's. You shouldn't be viewing it through rose-tinted glasses.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 5:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 7:24 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 63 of 103 (681469)
11-25-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
11-25-2012 6:17 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
But that isn't what you said is it.

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

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 6:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 64 of 103 (681474)
11-25-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
11-25-2012 6:32 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
Granny Magda writes:

The Empire, for all the good you might find to say about it, was deeply unethical and immoral.

No more immoral than it is today. It is just immoral in different areas. I would say that the british common folk are vastly more immoral than their ancestors during the times of colonialism.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 11-25-2012 6:32 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 11-25-2012 7:37 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 65 of 103 (681476)
11-25-2012 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by foreveryoung
11-25-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
No more immoral than it is today. It is just immoral in different areas. I would say that the british common folk are vastly more immoral than their ancestors during the times of colonialism.

What makes you conclude that?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 7:24 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 8:11 PM Larni has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 66 of 103 (681478)
11-25-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
11-25-2012 7:37 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
The average posting on this forum from people from the UK. The way you people think and your standards of morality and your lack of belief in God are horrible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 11-25-2012 7:37 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2012 8:27 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 75 by Larni, posted 11-26-2012 3:54 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(5)
Message 67 of 103 (681479)
11-25-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by foreveryoung
11-25-2012 8:11 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
The average posting on this forum from people from the UK. The way you people think and your standards of morality and your lack of belief in God are horrible.

Yeah, sure there's less slave-trading, less genocide, less child labor, a lower crime rate, and the age of consent is no longer 10, but the standard of morality of posters on internet forums has gone way down since the colonial era. Why, back in the eighteenth century if you called someone a "conceited jackanapes" on a discussion board the moderators would ban you immediately for caddish behavior. O tempora, o mores! Let's bring back that good old Christian era when a God-fearing Englishman could exterminate a nation of defenseless aborigines for a little light exercise before enjoying tea, crumpets, and sex with a 10-year-old --- and no-one ever disagreed with you on the Internet.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 8:11 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 11:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 103 (681484)
11-25-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
11-25-2012 5:33 PM


Re: What is a creationist?
Yes, I can be rude that way, but even when I'm not, which was the case for long periods of posting at EvC, the level of animosity was no different. I've always been blown away by the level of animosity here, no matter what I say it seems. It's kind of fascinating really.

Sole arbiter? Only if you don't count all the authority I lean on, which is not represented at EvC.

Sorry about Geology, sometimes I just let it all hang out. Sometimes I try to be polite about it, and I do admire the British creationist in that link I posted a couple times now, who is very respectful toward establishment Geology. I suppose he has to be since he's one of them.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2012 5:33 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2012 1:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 103 (681487)
11-25-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
11-25-2012 5:15 PM


Re: What is a creationist?
I insist the Bible is God's word, I'm not going to give up even one verse of it for "science" and as I've said I don't believe evolution and old earth science are true science anyway, which is another way my attitude and behavior are offensive.

Well, look, we believe the opposite of almost all of that, but we don't find your insistence at all rude or offensive. What's rude about a full-throated defense of one's position? Right or wrong, people are entitled to make the best case for their views.

That's what I've never really understood about you, Faith, how you take it so personally that we hold unapologetically to a different view than you do, like it's just something we do to piss you off. I don't get that. My conclusions that the Bible is not the word of God - that there is no such thing as God - and that evolution is the scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth are conclusions I held long before we ever met. What on Earth do they have to do with you, and why would telling you that my conclusions are different than yours be something for you to take offense about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 5:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 10:19 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 103 (681492)
11-25-2012 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
11-25-2012 9:16 PM


Re: What is a creationist?
I haven't said disagreement constitutes animosity. I also haven't said I take the animosity personally. Now I forget where this trend of the conversation started but that's the way communication seems to go. I answer a question, somebody thinks I'm declaring something, I use a word that implies something other than I meant or whatnot, I have to go back and straighten out some kind of strange misreading and on it goes. I've at times lost my temper over things said here but generally I don't think I take any of it PERSONALLY. I'm blown away by the animosity, but that's as much amazement as an amotional reaction. The *moral indignation* level here is astonishing, getting up on one's moral high horse to denounce this that or the other, really quite astonishing. Needless to say I most often don't share the moral standard being applied, but that's another subject. Where DID this topic begin anyway? The animosity bit? I can't remember. I'd go back and reread but I'm SO tired.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2012 9:16 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2012 10:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 71 of 103 (681495)
11-25-2012 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2012 8:27 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
Your post just confirmed what evil sons of bitches people from the UK are. Go crawl back under the rock you came from you slimeball.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2012 8:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-25-2012 11:22 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2012 6:38 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 72 of 103 (681496)
11-25-2012 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by foreveryoung
11-25-2012 11:00 PM


Need we have a little "For your own good" suspension?
We're getting hints of an impending nasty meltdown.

No replies to this message, unless they are via PM. And I may be done with the internet for today, and may well not see any PM until Monday night.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 11:00 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 73 of 103 (681499)
11-26-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
11-25-2012 5:35 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
Faith writes:

I AM arguing that they weren't nearly as bad as conquerors as you want to paint them, but I'm NOT saying anything about their colonial activity was "Christian" either. I suspect that HAD there been a substantial Christian spirit in their dealings with India, they would more clearly have benefited both themselves and the Indians and possibly India could have evolved into something similar to Canada or Australia in their relations with their conquerors. Possibly.

Faith I think you should think a little more carefully on these things. In Canada we have a native population that now after years of colonization have largely been consigned to live on large tracts of land called reserves that were assigned to them by the Europeans who colonized the country. They were essentially bought off and marginalized. The conditions on many of the reserves today are appalling. Believe me, in most cases the natives of this country were better off before the Europeans arrived.

In many ways your thinking is very western. It equates quality of life with the level of materialism achieved. Self esteem has far more to do with our quality of life than does a big screen TV.

The British treated the indigenous people of India with great disdain even though they were often kind. The British have a history of class distinction and certainly the Indian people were very much at the bottom rung of the class system. Possibly the country is better off economically, ( a very open question by the way), but socially I don't believe it to be the case. I will allow that the British did introduce democracy but I don't believe that makes up for the psychological damage that colonization does to a nation.

Incidentally, my ancestry is primarily English and my Grandfather, who I was extremely close to, immigrated from Kent England to Canada.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 5:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-26-2012 7:29 AM GDR has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 74 of 103 (681500)
11-26-2012 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
11-25-2012 8:59 PM


Re: What is a creationist?
quote:

Yes, I can be rude that way, but even when I'm not, which was the case for long periods of posting at EvC, the level of animosity was no different. I've always been blown away by the level of animosity here, no matter what I say it seems. It's kind of fascinating really.

Let's say I don't remember any time when you were less hostile and received the same level of animosity.

quote:

Sole arbiter? Only if you don't count all the authority I lean on, which is not represented at EvC.

Really ? Does your "authority" say that geology must be easily overthrown by somebody who doesn't even know what they are talking about ?

quote:

Sorry about Geology, sometimes I just let it all hang out. Sometimes I try to be polite about it, and I do admire the British creationist in that link I posted a couple times now, who is very respectful toward establishment Geology. I suppose he has to be since he's one of them.

I'm just expecting a little honest humility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 8:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 75 of 103 (681503)
11-26-2012 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by foreveryoung
11-25-2012 8:11 PM


Re: Just a little "fundamentalist" Anglophilia lamentation
What examples of the lowering of UK morals can you provide to support your conclusions?

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by foreveryoung, posted 11-25-2012 8:11 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019