Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 1:59 PM
31 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, Lammy, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (9 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,829 Year: 9,865/19,786 Month: 2,287/2,119 Week: 323/724 Day: 48/114 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum name change
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 10 of 128 (549900)
03-11-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Pauline
03-11-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
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;

posters who hate who you are more than they disagree or dislike what you write.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 11:03 AM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 11:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 12 of 128 (549905)
03-11-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Pauline
03-11-2010 11:46 AM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
It is clearly noticeable that often posts are demeaned and laughed at just because they come from a creationist.

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?

When I said "who you are", I meant your position, whether you are creationist or evolutionist.

And yet you contrasted that with what people write. The only way we now what people's positions are is by what they write.

Oh and if I had something Christian for my profile pic, I bet that would influence my post ratings.....even though, it really shouldn't.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 11:46 AM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 12:49 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 15 of 128 (549921)
03-11-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Pauline
03-11-2010 12:49 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
Okay,

Ah yes, and as if there's a dearth of rated 1 posts that have nothing to do the creation/evolution debate but are so by virtue of their "pitiful" origin.

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 preliminary conclusion that designates one as a creationist, is enough fuel to keep the 1s coming at him for a considerable period.

The simple fact that creationists spout ignorant codswallop before an audience that largely disagrees with them would seem to suffice.

Ask yourself if I would get the same rating if I was a theistic evolutionist.

Theistic evolutionists do rate higher here than creationists, this is true. However...

Most people would be like, so what if they're Calvinist? they're evolutionist.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 12:49 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 1:54 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 19 of 128 (549931)
03-11-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Pauline
03-11-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 1:54 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lyx2no, posted 03-11-2010 3:10 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 26 of 128 (549940)
03-11-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Pauline
03-11-2010 3:45 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 3:45 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 5:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 29 of 128 (549943)
03-11-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Pauline
03-11-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 4:36 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2010 8:39 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 34 of 128 (549956)
03-11-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Pauline
03-11-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
Doc,

Why don't we do what you want in a different thread, another time?

You mean the science and emotions stuff? Or the No True Scotsman bit? Either way, that's fine. Take your time.

Take a chill pill, GM. I may not be as eloquent as you in saying things, but I do know one thing: Too many words make too little sense.

No real Christian would say that.

Succinct enough for you?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 5:19 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 5:37 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 37 of 128 (549962)
03-11-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pauline
03-11-2010 5:37 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
Sorry Doc,

And why would a real Christian not say that?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 5:37 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 39 of 128 (549966)
03-11-2010 6:54 PM


My Rating! Violated!
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 7:19 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 60 of 128 (549998)
03-11-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
03-11-2010 8:39 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Hi Buz,

I see that Dr Sing's isn't the only humour detector that's malfunctioning around here.

Yah sure, Granny. You mean Johnny Come Lately, Smith's religion

Actually, that was my mistake. I meant those snake-handler guys. They're the only real Christians.

Are you old enough to remember the Heavens Gaters from plush Rancho Santa Fe

Yes, I am old enough to recall the events of thirteen years ago. Not entirely sure what that has to do with anything though...

For the life of me, I can't understand how intelligent folks can't see through the Smith's jibberish.
...
At least the Bible's stuff (lots of it) is coming to pass prezactly as prophesied.

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 Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed double text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 63 of 128 (550002)
03-11-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Pauline
03-11-2010 9:06 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Hey Doc,

So, define a true christian in your own words, will you hooah?

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.

Whoever accused me of that fallacy has a much bigger problem than I do, believe it or not.

I'm going to heaven when I die, and he.....

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?

--Yeah, I sincerely apologize OP. I feel guilty for stealing the conversation.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 9:06 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 10:45 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 66 of 128 (550008)
03-11-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Pauline
03-11-2010 10:45 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Is that it? Oh.

I would not have asked hooah to define a true Christian had I myself not been able to. Truth is, Granny M, that no human need ever come with a original definition because the Bible defines a true Christian.

Chapter and verse please. I'm not just going to take your word for it you know.

That day is anything but blessed, GM.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 10:45 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 11:27 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 69 of 128 (550013)
03-12-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Pauline
03-11-2010 11:27 PM


Re: BOM vs Bible
Okay,

There is no one verse that encompasses everything there is to define in a true Christian.

Indeed not.

If you want to know the defintion, you've got to read the Bible with the intention of discovering it and assimilate what you read.

Don't be silly. Either there is a definition or there is not.

But two verses readily come to mind on this specific occasion:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 11:27 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 99 of 128 (550188)
03-13-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Pauline
03-13-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Hey Doc,

The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless, IMO. Number 2 reason is what you just mentioned. I am happy to ask questions about the theory that intrigue me and that's it.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 12:01 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 2:02 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 113 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 11:10 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 119 of 128 (550295)
03-14-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Pauline
03-13-2010 11:10 PM


Hey Doc
Hi Doc,

Granny writes:

Some may be nice and some may be... not so nice,

Dr Sing writes:

like yourself?

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;

Dr Sing writes:

They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible.

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;

Dr Sing writes:

If I ever make a serious and specific claim on these forums, I'll substantiate it with reason....

and this claim;

Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 11:10 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019