Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   taiji2's complaint
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 85 (737279)
09-21-2014 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by taiji2
09-21-2014 1:18 PM


Re: opening remark
taiji2 writes:
But this is their game, their rules. If I played their game as they do, it might change me in ways I wouldn't like. If i try to play their game, my rules, it is futile. catch 22.
There are no games. This is just debate and discussion - you muster your evidence and arguments as best you can.
Your frustration that your views are finding no traction here fails to take into account the degree of difficulty of what you're trying to do. You're trying to convince people that views with no supporting evidence can be proven. Inherent in this view is that it has no supporting evidence. The foundation for all successful arguments is supporting evidence. You have no supporting evidence, therefore how can you hope to convince anyone?
Not only are you meeting with no success, you're meeting with a great deal of skepticism and even derision, the same as if you were arguing that unicorns are real. You didn't really expect absurd propositions to be treated with respect, did you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 1:18 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:16 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 17 of 85 (737281)
09-21-2014 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by taiji2
09-21-2014 1:18 PM


Re: opening remark
taiji2 writes:
If I played their game as they do, it might change me in ways I wouldn't like. If i try to play their game, my rules, it is futile. catch 22.
As I've said to new members more than once - it's hard to make thousands of posts without saying the same thing more than once - the beauty of Internet debate is that you set your own victory conditions.
For me, if I learn something, that's a victory. If somebody learns something from me - and that's barely possible - that's a victory too. If I get a cheer, that's a victory. So it isn't hard to win but you can't win if you don't play.
And if you decide to lose, you probably will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 1:18 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:20 PM ringo has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 18 of 85 (737282)
09-21-2014 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
09-21-2014 1:56 PM


Re: opening remark
Well Percy,
You keep coming back to this thing called evidence. You say I have no evidence. I say evidence is all around me. Who gets to define evidence? You? If that is your answer, I deny you that right.
A logical debate should begin with a logical constraints on the issues. Show me support for the a priori assumption that only science gets to define evidence. That is the constraint you are presenting. Support it.
I could, at this point, start making references to unicorns and start talking about whether this or that is absurd. I will not, because I have to reason to believe you might take that as inflammatory language designed to make references to your level of intelligence. I choose not to do that.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 1:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2014 4:01 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 5:12 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 35 by ramoss, posted 09-22-2014 9:14 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 19 of 85 (737283)
09-21-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ringo
09-21-2014 2:30 PM


Re: opening remark
ringo,
Your post raises even further my respect for you. Your insights on victory are wise.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 2:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 3:32 PM taiji2 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 85 (737284)
09-21-2014 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by taiji2
09-21-2014 3:20 PM


Re: opening remark
taiji2 writes:
Your post raises even further my respect for you. Your insights on victory are wise.
So come and learn at my feet, grasshopper.
Unless you choose to lose.
Edited by ringo, : Removed redundant O.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:20 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:41 PM ringo has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 21 of 85 (737285)
09-21-2014 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
09-21-2014 3:32 PM


Re: opening remark
Yes, Master Po. Please teach me!

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 3:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 3:42 PM taiji2 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 85 (737286)
09-21-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by taiji2
09-21-2014 3:41 PM


Re: opening remark
taiji2 writes:
Yes, Master Po. Please teach me!
The design thread is still open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:41 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 4:33 PM ringo has replied
 Message 28 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 7:34 PM ringo has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 85 (737287)
09-21-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by taiji2
09-21-2014 3:16 PM


Evidence
Who gets to define evidence?
I would say that science gets to define evidence.
They have a couple of centuries of experience, and have learned a great deal in that time about how to find and treat evidence. Testing is just one of the methods they use.
This is 180 degrees from how religions and most philosophers deal with things.
Along these lines, "dogma" is often defined as a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
What I see you doing is trying to chip away at the scientific method enough so that your particular dogma, while lacking scientific evidence, might be included.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 4:41 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 24 of 85 (737288)
09-21-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
09-21-2014 3:42 PM


Re: opening remark
Master Po,
I have heard other students told "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". Is this something I should consider?

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 3:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 09-22-2014 11:38 AM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 09-29-2014 6:55 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 25 of 85 (737289)
09-21-2014 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
09-21-2014 4:01 PM


Re: Evidence
Coyote,
I selected Taoism after many years specifically because it has very little dogma. It allows the idea of a prime intelligence with the specific advice to not speculate too much about that intelligence (dogma). It allows a cosmological view that does not require faith in the non-existence of god (or whatever you choose to call a prime intelligence), which is where I am at. I chip away at nothing except unresolved questions in my own mind as to what is truth.
I respect what you think as what you think. Please do not jump to conclusion on what I think.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2014 4:01 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 26 of 85 (737290)
09-21-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by taiji2
09-21-2014 3:16 PM


Re: opening remark
Hi Taiji2,
Well, this is ironic. You finally return to your original point, but in the wrong thread. I wasn't trying to discuss that topic here. I was only giving you my opinion about why you've become so upset and frustrated. Your comments belong in the Is there a legitimate argument for design? thread. I'll respond over there.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 7:17 PM Percy has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 27 of 85 (737292)
09-21-2014 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
09-21-2014 5:12 PM


Re: opening remark
No Percy,
That won't be necessary. After my last response to Coyote, the realization came to me that I am in a place I don't need to be. Since being here, I have wondered at the vehemence of attacks.
Coyote's latest comments about me nibbling away at the edges of something brought it into focus. He seems to think I have an agenda. I have been quized on whether I was familiar with various dogmas associated with certain christian movements. Can't quote them without going back.
I answered no. Guess that was not good enough.
What I seem to have wandered into is a venue where a bunch of science folks are lying in wait to duke it out with specific christian folks over what boils down to being politically driven agendas. What is taught in schools was mentioned.
I have heard talk about that stuff over the years through news and such. It was never an issue with me. Too many causes out there and causes just burn you out. I never was in such a crusade and don't want to be.
I came in here out of idle curiosity and walked into a beehive that seems to be driven over an issue that doesn't concern me.
I am here for my own pleasure only and my own intellectual stimulation. Coming into the middle of a political pissing match was not my desire and still is not my desire.
I may yet join RAZD on the other thread because clarifying my notions of cosmology is important to me. I will think on that.
A while back, I mentioned putting a more descriptive title on your threads and it just seemed to piss you off. In all honest sincerity, it the thread title had told me it was about a christian political movement, I would have avoided it.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 5:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 8:08 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 28 of 85 (737293)
09-21-2014 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
09-21-2014 3:42 PM


Re: opening remark
ringo,
I consider you a friendly face here. Please look at my last post to Percy and give me your opinion and advice on whether I can find a thread for interesting and civil conversation. Something without the presumption of political overtones would be nice. the thread on proper pursuit of id has been suggested. Would welcome your thoughts.
Edited by taiji2, : added stuff

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 3:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 09-21-2014 10:27 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 09-22-2014 11:42 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 85 (737294)
09-21-2014 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by taiji2
09-21-2014 7:17 PM


Re: opening remark
taiji2 writes:
That won't be necessary. After my last response to Coyote, the realization came to me that I am in a place I don't need to be. Since being here, I have wondered at the vehemence of attacks.
You're an emotional guy, and you keep interpreting criticism as vehement attacks. We're just trying to have a discussion with you.
Coyote's latest comments about me nibbling away at the edges of something brought it into focus. He seems to think I have an agenda. I have been quized on whether I was familiar with various dogmas associated with certain christian movements. Can't quote them without going back.
I answered no. Guess that was not good enough.
As of the time you wrote that Coyote hadn't yet replied to your Message 25, and still hasn't as I write this. How would you know whether he considered your answer good enough?
I don't myself share Coyote's interpretation of what you're doing. He thinks you're trying to redefine science so as to allow your views to qualify as scientific. I don't think you're trying to redefine science. I see you as trying to define a discipline outside of science whose findings are just as valid as those of science.
What I seem to have wandered into is a venue where a bunch of science folks are lying in wait to duke it out with specific christian folks over what boils down to being politically driven agendas. What is taught in schools was mentioned.
The very first line of the registration agreement that you accepted when you registered says, " EvC Forum hosts the debate between evolutionists and creationists." It was founded out of concern about creationism's impact on public school science education.
But EvC Forum hosts discussions about all kinds of scientific and religious topics. Taoism fits in just fine, particularly in the way you've related it to ways outside of science for gaining knowledge.
A while back, I mentioned putting a more descriptive title on your threads and it just seemed to piss you off. In all honest sincerity, it the thread title had told me it was about a christian political movement, I would have avoided it.
I am not as emotional as you and had no such emotional response. When you said the thread title should have said it was about science I merely pointed out that the thread was in one of the science forums. New threads have to pass through a thread proposal process over at Proposed New Topics where we make sure, among other things, that thread titles are informative. It isn't felt necessary to include in the thread title that the thread is about science when it is in a science forum.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 7:17 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 8:30 PM Percy has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3462 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 30 of 85 (737295)
09-21-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-21-2014 8:08 PM


Re: opening remark
Whoa sir,
This is an obvious failure of written communication. You have read emotional response where none exists at all. Honest injun and all that. Right now I am with less emotion about the whole forum affair than I have been since the first shot was fired.
I am slow, but I finally realized you folks must have suspected I was some sort of christian mole out to make science look bad or something. I get it. I am not mad. I am not disappointed. I have no emotion but relief in thinking I know why things happened as they did.
I am absolutely not strewing sour grapes.
I don't want to be part of partisan discussions.
If there is something else for me here, fine. If not that is fine too.
Please don't read in things that are not there.
Face to face, you would have taken what I said without any interpretation of emotional angst. Written, I run the risk of you reading it with whatever inflection comes to mind. You got the wrong inflection in this case that is all.
Lastly, I did not read the public school thing coming into the forum. If I had, would never have posted. My mistake. Sorry
Please chill a little. I am trying to untangle a mess.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 8:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 09-21-2014 9:09 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024