Thread Reopen Requests 2

Hi, Moose.Are you clearing us to talk about theistic evolution on that thread, or is it a personal-introductions thread?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

The personal introduction part is probably over. Yes, on to theistic evolution or the lack thereof, and probably wherever else the topic goes. Somewhere along the line I'll get a better topic title on it.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.

Is Christianity Polytheistic?Please re-open. My reply to Straggler's message, Message 371 is as follows. I've been on the road, and still am and will continue to be, and things move really fast here... Please just paste my reply there if and when if gets re-opened:

quote:

---

Well it has been an uphill struggle but DA tipped it over the point of no return.

​

Because he's exposing your position as the untenable one?

​

Then you will be delighted to hear that this is not what I am doing.

​

Huh? Or is that right because your's is the "independent" one?

​

Hmmm. Whose classification are you imposing?

​

The generally accepted one that everyone else is using who is trying to tell you how retarded your's is.

​

Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? A religion-independent use of the term god that you yourself have applied on numerous occasions.

​

Because I'm using a super-set and you're using a sub-set. Its stupid because you're using your sub-set to encompasss the super-set, while I'm using the super-set to encompass the sub-set, like its supposed to be.

​

I guess that makes your responses "frivolous" then. For once it seems that we agree.

​

Oh you!

​

When has being frivolous ever stopped me? Examples please

​

From [msg=-372]:

​

Bob, delighted with his self defined atheist status (all the cool kids at school are atheists). takes you at your word and goes off to one of Dawkin's atheist camps full of confidence.

​

There he confidently reveals his belief in the one true glod knowing that he will find common conceptual ground with his fellow atheists.

​

Needless to say things don't work out too well for Bob.......

​

Well that's just a big old fat non-sequitor, now isn't it?

​

Consider this:

​

After Bob's initial "not working out", he finds solice with the animist, the Buddihist and all the other spiritual atheists, then he realizes that the camp wasn't an "atheist" one after all, but a "materialist" one instead.

​

Then he sends his spirit guide to bitch-slap Straggler for being such a tard... lulz

---

Please reopen Definition of SpeciesI understand that this spiralled off topic but I believe it was necessary to establish some basic definitions before progressing to some ideas about species definition.eg. We couldn't agree on our definitions of complexity and we had disagreements on species identification. Minor hurdles I think and there can be further discussion on what makes a species a species.

The thread is over 370 posts and I don't see that you've made any progress with Straggler since you came into the discussion at 150. Your first post made the point clearly.Now all I see are one line tit for tat posts that don't move the discussion forward and don't provide enough information for viewers to join the discussion.I don't see a good case for reopening the thread so you can continue to tell Straggler how stupid his point is (Message 368) which is all you're doing with your response.I'm not inclined to reopen the topic.

Definition of Species has been reopened.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I will reopen the thread, but please do not continue the off topic discussion that started about Message 87.Reread the OP and get back on topic. Do not respond to posts after Message 86.

Whoops, sorry for stepping on your toes. I thought you might have just briefly checked in when you posted a little while ago, and since I have a meeting coming up and couldn't stick around I reopened it. I'm stepping aside, please carry on.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

EvC Forum: Identifying false religions.
I would have thought that the point was that it is simply not possible because it relies on a subjective judgement of real and fake. There is no empirical yardstick available to measure validity in matters of faith. Indeed faith is belief without or even inspite of evidence, so it follows that no religious faith can be validated or classified as 'genuine' or 'fake', because evidence is not an accepted measure and any other measure is inevitably subjective or arbitrary or both.
Religion is inherently non-rational or irrational and to attempt to apply a rational measure of validity to such is a category error. Any non-rational measure is, by definition, not subject to validation.

Probably a valid point, which makes the whole topics existence rather silly (or something like that).That said, the topic had run 479 messages, and I would hope that your point was brought up somewhere in there. As I see it, the topics not going to be reopened.And this topic is not the place to debate that topic's theme. So please, nobody else reply to the above message (or to this message).Adminnemooseus

The thread is the Meaning of meaning.My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread it was my attempt to demonstrate meaning by purpose of evidence available, and the rules of evidence, which guides ones decisions in determining what is reasonable and acceptable as factualI think we are proceeding along that line, if it is possible to reopen it, we can work twords that goalThanks for your considerationEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi, EMA. I would like to point out that I didn't actually abandon the thread: I refused to respond to your proposed off-topic discussion about the meaning of the word "Atheist."I sent you an ultimatum (Message 98) about the topic I wanted to discuss, and you failed to respond and got distracted by other discussions with other posters. So, from my perspective, it rather feels like you abandoned it.If you would like to resume the original discussion, I will be happy to rejoin you in a few weeks, after my qualifying exams are over and I will be able to spend some time on it.To make the moderators' job easier, here is a link to the thread--- The meaning of "meaning"---just in case you decide to reopen it (though I submit that EMA's proposed line of discussion should be taken up on a new thread).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Since Bluejay has not abandoned the thread and agrees that your line of discussion is not in line with the thread topic, I'm not inclined to reopen the thread so that you can continue your own line of discussion.I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.The thread will stay closed unless someone does make a case for reopening it to discuss the meaning of meaning as presented in the thread's OP.Thanks for your request and your IDs are merged.AdminPD

Thanks for merging my names, that was not some sneeky attempt by myself.How about the title 'The obvious desgn of desgn' and we pick up where we left off, without me writting out an OP, is that possible?Or do I need an OPDawn Bertot

We need a clear OP to be able to moderate the thread. Work on the title.