EvC Forum: Believing it is not proving it

Faith writes:

I am not sure what this topic is to be.

Looks like a rant to me!

Faith writes:

I am going to reproduce some seven or eight posts from the Moderation complaints thread, because one thing it is about is how jar gets away with egregious illogic and few seem to recognize it and nobody calls him on it from the evo side, which leaves creos and the ever-neutral robinrohan right but called wrong over and over again.

Phat writes:

So this is a personal issue with jar? Now Faith...you know that as Christians, we need to be good witnesses! You are a feisty lady, and I occasionally admire your tenacious nature in regards to your beliefs, yet I think that singling jar out is an example of violating the spirit of our forum. Nevertheless, I am prepared to listen to your response here in PNT, but only because this opening post of yours is already so lengthy. We may as well get this laundry aired!

In this case what brought it to attention was admin action which -- perhaps inadvertently, but the effect remained uncorrected -- supported jar in his outrageous illogic and labeled his opponents as off topic when they were completely on topic and had answered him with exactitude.

Phat writes:

Now Faith! Outrageous logic is something which many here accuse you of having! Briefly explain to me why jars logic is/was so outrageous?

In this case it was robinrohan who had delivered the perfect rejoinder, truly a coup de grace, but as so often happens, nobody noticed. Jar simply repeated and embellished his ridiculous excuse for logic after the admin interruption, and others who joined in to answer him were also ignored, so jar's senseless argument stood as if it made sense, and the whole thing just fizzled out as so often happens. Victory for chaos.
The topic may also be about the thread that this occurred on -- What evidence would absolutely prove there is no Creator -- but really I see no point in rehashing it though I know it will get rehashed.

Phat writes:

Yet by starting this topic, it appears that we are rehashing something already!

The lines are drawn, the arguments have been made.

Phat writes:

And? Thats what debates are all about. Lines drawn in the sand of logic or illogic. Usually, science-based empiracal logic gets directed one way, while Faith/Belief arguments get directed another way. Its when someone tries to argue faith in science or science in faith that we usually have powderkeg situations.

The problem is that there are no standards. Who wins a debate at evc is purely a subjective matter.

Phat writes:

Because often there are no "winners"! Why does there always have to be a winner?

When such ridiculous illogic as jar's is passed over as if it were logical the game is hopeless. And I know from how the moderation thread went that it is going to continue hopeless.

Phat writes:

Faith! Dear! You would not be so tenacious if you truly believed that all of this is hopeless! Am I not right?

So why complain? I don't know. Anger that this could happen at all, that supposedly bright people are so stupid.

Phat writes:

Now stop right there! If you want to be respected at all, you can't call anyone stupid!

Perhaps hope that I must be wrong about that, that somebody here will recognize what I'm saying for a change.

Phat writes:

Im listening!

In fact this latter hope is probably a lot of what keeps me posting. Of course it sounds arrogant: I know I'm right. Well, I do know I'm right about this.

One quick question: Are not we Christians supposed to attempt to be humble? Also....

There is a difference between the necessity of biological evolution and the necessity of a godless Cosmological origin. Lets focus on which fort we are going to defend.

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-31-2006 05:59 AM

1 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0