Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:05 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Forum name change
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 91 of 128 (550174)
03-13-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
03-13-2010 7:52 AM


Hey Admin
Hey Percy,

The sole reason for my ready willingness to leave is to avoid further friction. Like Rahvin said, I know I could say a lot that makes them "dislike" me. And vice versa. I don't see a need to continue friction. A lot of people have voiced their opinions about my original post (about the rating system) an I've replied to them with truth. I can with confidence say that I've stayed on and took the comments. But now if I want to leave, I think I'm justified. Unless someone, like Rahvin, actually discusses worthy matters. (as opposed to....you're an idiot, get out!"

I'm happy to reply to selected posts. If I ignore stuff from certain people, I think I'm justified. I've already spent 6 pages worth of time on this thread mostly consisting of personal venting, if you will. Granted, like you say, I infuriate people with my religious talk. And I don't want that to happen. I wish to have a civil discussion. I think there's a modest way of spelling out thoughts even when you strongly disagree with the opposite party. I'm learning that....and so guys, if I've been rude, I sincerely apologize.

Percy writes:

You've been fairly successful demanding respect for your religious beliefs because you're very polite yourself, but what Dr Adequate is really saying is that he isn't buying it, that if you're going to speak nonsense then he's going to call it nonsense. Again, Rahvin hit the nail square on the head when he said, "But please also note that the mockery and sarcasm displayed from the opposite side is typically the result of similar exasperation."

I understand, Admin. If it caused them exasperation, they are justified in mocking me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 7:52 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 11:34 AM Pauline has responded

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 92 of 128 (550175)
03-13-2010 10:47 AM


I ought to add this to slevesque's apologetics thread, it's a good question.

You do that, Dr A. That's a better place to start a religious discussion. I'll meet you there.


  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 93 of 128 (550176)
03-13-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2010 8:17 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

Dr.Sing writes:

I, myself, would like to learn from and contribute to this forum. People like yourself do their part in making it a congenial place to debate. I'm not going to debate the Creation vs. Evolution topic, though.

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed there, aren't you?

No. I choose not to take part in a "Debate" that is meaningless, IMO.

In short, you just have to learn to live with the fact that your religion makes no sense. Only actually you don't. You could believe something, that does make sense.

I am okay with the fact that my religion makes no sense to many human beings.

True. Every other god said that he was a god --- Jesus is the one person to be worshiped as a god by his followers without having claimed divinity.

What's that about?

Take this as a personal invite to take this point to the Faith and Belief forum. I'll be there.

No they didn't. Here's the thread. Would you please try to make your statements more congruent with reality? Thanks.

I'm sorry, Dr Adequate. People did recognize the immense beauty of discussed mechanism. That doesn't mean I'm taking credit for anything. If they think that their theory can explain such a tremendous feature, then more power to them.

Er ... no it isn't.

That's basically where you're going wrong. You think it is, but it's not. The mere fact that you believe an absurdity is not a reason to believe that absurdity.

Here's faith.

It's evidence that people can be idiots, but that's hardly a "thing unseen".

I understand that 9-11 was a tremendously painful incident. And my heart goes out to people who experienced great loss because of it. Such actions which do their thing in the name of religion, are not justified. I completely understand, Dr. A. Religion is abused by many. It is a painful truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2010 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18370
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 94 of 128 (550177)
03-13-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pauline
03-13-2010 10:44 AM


Re: Hey Admin
Dr. Sing writes:

If I ignore stuff from certain people, I think I'm justified.

If you look at the bottom of any reply to you, like this one, you'll see a link that says, "Dr. Sing has not yet responded." If you click on the link it instantly becomes, "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." You can indicate you've seen a message and ignore it all at the same time.

Clicking repeatedly on this link toggles it back and forth between "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" and "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." Once you reply it becomes marked as "Dr. Sing has responded."

If you click on your name you'll be brought to a list of all the threads you've participated in. The New Replies column contains a "Yes" if the thread contains replies to which you haven't responded. The up arrow is a link to the first unresponded-to message, the down arrow to the last. If you click on the "Yes" it becomes "Noted," and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr Sing acknowledges this reply" link. If you click on the "Noted" it becomes "Yes" and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" link.

I understand, Admin. If it caused them exasperation, they are justified in mocking me.

Exasperation isn't a justification for mockery, just an explanation.

I'm not playing an administrative role in this thread. I'm just a participant here, else I might have cautioned Dr Adequate to tone it down a notch.

Avoiding friction isn't a reasonable goal here. The creation/evolution debate is one where passions run high. We attempt to keep discussion focused and on-topic through active moderation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 10:44 AM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 12:01 PM Percy has responded

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 95 of 128 (550179)
03-13-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
03-13-2010 11:34 AM


Re: Hey Admin
If you look at the bottom of any reply to you, like this one, you'll see a link that says, "Dr. Sing has not yet responded." If you click on the link it instantly becomes, "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." You can indicate you've seen a message and ignore it all at the same time.

Clicking repeatedly on this link toggles it back and forth between "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" and "Dr. Sing acknowledges this reply." Once you reply it becomes marked as "Dr. Sing has responded."

If you click on your name you'll be brought to a list of all the threads you've participated in. The New Replies column contains a "Yes" if the thread contains replies to which you haven't responded. The up arrow is a link to the first unresponded-to message, the down arrow to the last. If you click on the "Yes" it becomes "Noted," and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr Sing acknowledges this reply" link. If you click on the "Noted" it becomes "Yes" and all your unresponded-to messages get the "Dr. Sing has not yet responded" link.

Great. That takes a good deal of pressure off of me. Thank you, Percy.

Avoiding friction isn't a reasonable goal here. The creation/evolution debate is one where passions run high.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 11:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 12:13 PM Pauline has responded
 Message 97 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 12:27 PM Pauline has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2010 12:53 PM Pauline has responded
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 3:49 PM Pauline has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18370
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 96 of 128 (550180)
03-13-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Pauline
03-13-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Dr. Sing writes:

The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless, IMO.

I'm sure there are many reasons why people enter the debate, but for me the primary reason is science education. Religious beliefs are a private matter that deserve consideration and respect so long as they remain private, but promoting religious beliefs as science and then advocating they be included in public school science classrooms makes a religion fair game for public scrutiny.

--Percy


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 98 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 12:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 97 of 128 (550182)
03-13-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Pauline
03-13-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Dr. Sing writes:
The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless, IMO.

I would not call it meaningless. However, it is highly polarized. It is entirely reasonable to not want to participate in such polarized debates. It is just a matter of being selective as to which threads you read, and as to which threads you decide to debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 12:01 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 98 of 128 (550187)
03-13-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
03-13-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Percy writes:

I'm sure there are many reasons why people enter the debate, but for me the primary reason is science education. Religious beliefs are a private matter that deserve consideration and respect so long as they remain private, but promoting religious beliefs as science and then advocating they be included in public school science classrooms makes a religion fair game for public scrutiny.

I agree 100 % with you. Religion must not be taught in schools as an alternative to science. I'm a strong proponent of not teaching evolution and creation alongside each other as "science". Both are polar opposites. An adherence to creationism needs to be based solely on faith. And that's a totally different line of thought altogether....and for the same reason must not be proclaimed or taught as science.

nwr writes:

I would not call it meaningless. However, it is highly polarized. It is entirely reasonable to not want to participate in such polarized debates. It is just a matter of being selective as to which threads you read, and as to which threads you decide to debate.

Yeah, that too, it is indeed, highly polarized. But polarization does not inhibit me. The mere fact that there is no basis for reasonable, scientific comparison between the two is what convinces me. One of the two views does not incorporate anything of the scientific method in its structure, unlike the other. Which excludes it from the realm of science.....etc etc. If people were so broad-minded as to incorporate a separate class for religion in schools, then yeah, creationism could be taught there. But I'm not totally comfortable with this idea, either. Maybe children could be exposed to religion like any other discipline this way, but it need not result in personal decisions. IMO, faith is a personal matter. A person has got make a very intimate connection with faith before he subscribes to it.....which obviously does not result from academic lessons. So....ultimately, its up to family and personal choices when it comes to faith and religion.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : refining...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 03-13-2010 12:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 2:25 PM Pauline has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
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

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 100 of 128 (550206)
03-13-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Granny Magda
03-13-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Hey Admin
GM writes:

Hey Doc,

Dr. Sing writes:

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.

Granny, IMO, this thread was more of a war of words rather than war of ideas. I may have said some pro-creation and anti-evolution things in this thread, but I won't go back and provide my argument for them for they followed in with the flow of the thread..... If I ever make a serious and specific claim on these forums, I'll substantiate it with reason....

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2010 12:53 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 101 of 128 (550209)
03-13-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Pauline
03-13-2010 12:48 PM


Teaching creationism
Dr. Sing writes:
If people were so broad-minded as to incorporate a separate class for religion in schools, then yeah, creationism could be taught there.

Personally, I would not have a problem with such a class if it was taught fairly and with no attempt to indoctrinate. But there is so much polarization in America, I don't think that is possible. A fair, non-indoctrinating treatment would be criticized by the religious right who would claim that it was indoctrinating secular values by virtue of its even-handedness. And then some of the more vocal critics of religion would sue on the basis that it violated the first amendment, unless that class spent as much time on other religions as it spent on Christianity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 12:48 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 2:38 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 102 of 128 (550210)
03-13-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by nwr
03-13-2010 2:25 PM


Re: Teaching creationism
Personally, I would not have a problem with such a class if it was taught fairly and with no attempt to indoctrinate. But there is so much polarization in America, I don't think that is possible. A fair, non-indoctrinating treatment would be criticized by the religious right who would claim that it was indoctrinating secular values by virtue of its even-handedness. And then some of the more vocal critics of religion would sue on the basis that it violated the first amendment, unless that class spent as much time on other religions as it spent on Christianity.

There are plenty of problems with a hypothetical class of this nature. It cannot be considered fair if it does not encompass religions other than Christianity with the same degree of importance. Furthermore, there is danger in exposing kids to religion without sufficient explanation behind the claims it makes. (you can cater only so much time, and answer only so many questions in a classroom setting). Religion does not make immediate sense, like science does. And so, we're left with one alternative that is best and fairest IMO, and that is to encourage parents to teach it to their kids at home....To detach academics and religion and place religion in an entirely different domain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 2:25 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 128 (550220)
03-13-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Pauline
03-13-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Dr Sing writes:

The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless,

Hi Doc Sing. I appreciate your participation here and do hope you will continue to bless us with your participation.

I do contribute to the creo/evo debate. Face it. If Evolution and the BB is factual, the Biblical record is fiction. If The Bible is fiction, evo/BB is fiction. It's one or the other.

Given the prominency of the majority science view, it's a David vs Philistine giant conflict. Biblicalists have dropped the ball on this long enough for secularist humanist interpretations of observed phenomena to prevail.

Essentially, it's logic vs the BB, biogenesis and evolution. Logic's argument is that the alleged BB singularity event had no space in which to have existed, no time in which it could have happened and no outside of into which it could have expanded. Logic says that the probability of a sub-particle, sub-sub-sub........microscopic area of whatever progressing in complexity and volumn into all (and more) of what we can observe today void of any intelligent planning or design, is less than the probability of the Biblical record which is supported by significant corroborating evidences.

Logic argues that the relative uniformatarian math model for the BB is at least (I say at least) as non-falsifiable as the Biblical record.

I'll wager my soul on the probability of the Biblical record any day rather than on the probability of the mainline scientific model.

It greives me that so many intelligent apostate ex-Christians whom I encountered here on this board have sold their soul/birthright for this, imo, profusely propagated pot of porrage.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
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 104 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 4:04 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 105 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 6:08 PM Buzsaw has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 104 of 128 (550222)
03-13-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Buzsaw writes:
If Evolution and the BB is factual, the Biblical record is fiction.

No, that does not follow. You can only conclude is that parts of the Bible are metaphorical.

Buzsaw writes:
I'll wager my soul on the probability of the Biblical record any day rather than on the probability of the mainline scientific model.

Oops! You just made a bad bet.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 3:49 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 6:37 PM nwr has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1843 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 105 of 128 (550231)
03-13-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Hi Doc Sing. I appreciate your participation here and do hope you will continue to bless us with your participation.

Hey Buzsaw. Thanks. You've been here for while, I noticed. 7000+ posts, that's a lot!

I'll agree with you....

Buz writes:

Logic argues that the relative uniformatarian math model for the BB is at least (I say at least) as non-falsifiable as the Biblical record.

I'll wager my soul on the probability of the Biblical record any day rather than on the probability of the mainline scientific model.

It greives me that so many intelligent apostate ex-Christians whom I encountered here on this board have sold their soul/birthright for this, imo, profusely propagated pot of porrage.

Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul. They'd want to physically behold it to know for sure..... When people disconnect themselves with their spiritual inner man, they become too acquainted with the material man.... And within such a worldview, life is pre-occupied with accuracy, numbers, and evidence (among other things)....souls and spirits belong in fairly tales....and it becomes ever harder to convince....No matter how logical and authentic an argument is provided, it will be bushed off as inaccurate or irrelevant to their worldview....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 3:49 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 6:14 PM Pauline has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 6:14 PM Pauline has responded
 Message 111 by bluescat48, posted 03-13-2010 9:30 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-14-2010 9:51 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019