Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution of evcforum.net
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 154 (256762)
11-04-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
11-04-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Inviolable Beliefs
I've tried for myself to figure out what my list of beliefs are -those things which I take as true without any evidence
Some people think there is such a thing as private evidence. People don't just believe something for no reason.
Secondly, my point was that the two entities--tooth fairy and God--are not comparable. The tooth fairy is an extraneous entity. God's a different kind of concept since he is thought of as the creator.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-04-2005 09:51 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-04-2005 10:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 9:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 137 of 154 (256765)
11-04-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by NosyNed
11-04-2005 9:23 AM


Re: Literalism and Science
NosyNed writes:
The sooner everyone treats the literalists with the derision they deserve and gets the separation between them and more thoughtfull, sophisticated Christians clear the happy most Christians will be.
Fine, treat their position with derision but don't be surprised when there aren't any of the literalist persuasion left here. I was able to have discussions with Faith without resorting to name calling and labelling.
There was a post earlier on in this thread lamenting the fact that there were no more YECs to convert, yet there seems to be a a lot of complaining about the YECs trying to convert Atheists to their position. Evangelical Atheists seem to be applauded, but evangelical YECs are treated with derision.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 9:23 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 11-04-2005 12:43 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 138 of 154 (256790)
11-04-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by GDR
11-04-2005 10:51 AM


Applause vs derision
GDR} writes:
I was able to have discussions with Faith without resorting to name calling and labelling.
I don't think I ever called Faith names, yet she felt free to call me names. I'm sure many others could say the same thing. So, how do you figure she was "driven" away?
Evangelical Atheists seem to be applauded, but evangelical YECs are treated with derision.
I don't see that at all. I would challenge you to quote a dozen or so threads in which "evangelical atheism" is expressed - and another dozen in which that expression is applauded.
And it isn't so much the evangelical YECs themselves who are being derided - it's their ideas. And their ideas are being derided both scientifically and Biblically.
The problem here is not that there's a double standard - if anything, the YECs are given too much leeway. The problem is that the YECs have nothing but their belief. When their belief is challenged, all they can do is whine and run away.
When YECs drive by with their empty ideas, the scientifically-minded have no choice but to expose that emptiness. The site is called "Evolution versus Creation" after all - not "Creationist Soapbox".

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 10:51 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 1:42 PM ringo has replied
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 1:46 PM ringo has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 154 (256806)
11-04-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ringo
11-04-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Applause vs derision
Ringo316 writes:
I don't think I ever called Faith names, yet she felt free to call me names. I'm sure many others could say the same thing. So, how do you figure she was "driven" away?
I'm only speaking in general terms. There are any number of posts that treat her views with total contempt. Actually one of the main reasons that Faith gave for leaving was that she felt she was being drawn into responding in kind to the posts of others. Take that for what it's worth.
Ringo316 writes:
I don't see that at all. I would challenge you to quote a dozen or so threads in which "evangelical atheism" is expressed - and another dozen in which that expression is applauded.
To be honest I'm only trying to give admin a constructive answer to the question of why Christians and particularly YECs leave the forum.
Here is a quote however from earlier on in this thread.
night train writes:
Regardless of how many creationists we turn away, regardless of how many (or few) converts we make, the fact remains that we have a low success rate with our arguments. If we can`t impress low numbers, how then can we find a formula for mass conversions in the real world?
Ringo316 writes:
The problem here is not that there's a double standard - if anything, the YECs are given too much leeway. The problem is that the YECs have nothing but their belief. When their belief is challenged, all they can do is whine and run away.
It's back to labelling again. Why do you have to say "whine and run away". The use of such pejorative terms just detract from any dialogue, and is in essence name calling.
Ringo316 writes:
When YECs drive by with their empty ideas, the scientifically-minded have no choice but to expose that emptiness. The site is called "Evolution versus Creation" after all - not "Creationist Soapbox".
"Empty ideas" Another example of pejorative language. It is called "Evolution versus Creationism" so presumably both points of view should be respected and in order to do that one has to accept that, it is legitimate to express as evidence something that isn't scientific.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 11-04-2005 12:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 11-04-2005 3:16 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 5:37 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 154 (256809)
11-04-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ringo
11-04-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Applause vs derision
Just deleting post that wound up getting posted twice. (It wasn't that brilliant that it needed posting more than once. )
This message has been edited by GDR, 11-04-2005 10:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 11-04-2005 12:43 PM ringo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 141 of 154 (256829)
11-04-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by robinrohan
11-04-2005 9:01 AM


Re: Rudeness
Why don't you get off your highhorse, Crashfrog? Your beliefs are just as inviolable as everybody else's.
No, actually, I've made the case several times, with no successful rebuttals, that agnostic atheism is the conclusion that is most reasonable and best supported by the evidence.
On the other hand, the best the believers can seem to do is assert "hey, all belief is equally unsupported, so just believe what you want to believe." Well, no. There's reasons to conclude atheism; the fact that there is no good reason to conclude theism is a prominent, celebrated aspect of that belief - they call it "faith."
Please . . . total nonsense.
Yes, absolutely. So what's the difference between tooth fairy nonsense and God nonsense? Why do people like you treat one with derision and one with respect, when they're the same thing? Why the inconsistency?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by robinrohan, posted 11-04-2005 9:01 AM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 142 of 154 (256831)
11-04-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
11-04-2005 1:42 PM


Re: Applause vs derision
GDR writes:
... she felt she was being drawn into responding in kind to the posts of others.
-------------
... both points of view should be respected and in order to do that one has to accept that, it is legitimate to express as evidence something that isn't scientific.
So, where do you draw the line? What constitutes "legitimate" evidence and what does not? Should The Big Book of Fairies be considered evidence alongside the Bible?

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 1:42 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by robinrohan, posted 11-04-2005 4:26 PM ringo has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 154 (256852)
11-04-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
11-04-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Applause vs derision
The Big Book of Fairies
Great book. I read that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 11-04-2005 3:16 PM ringo has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 144 of 154 (256870)
11-04-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
11-04-2005 1:42 PM


Other forms of evidence
It is called "Evolution versus Creationism" so presumably both points of view should be respected and in order to do that one has to accept that, it is legitimate to express as evidence something that isn't scientific.
We have had some short discussions on this kind of thing. This is not the forum for it but if you want to PNT something it might be interesting.
The problem is I haven't heard anyone propose any other way of arriving safely at what might be "knowledge".
We know that individuals are both easily foold and can be very deluded. We know that supposed "evidence" of something other than a scienticfic kind has lead people very badly astray many times. (NB. this is not to say that we can't mess up with a scientific process as well, it is just that it is both more unlikely and seems to get corrected eventually).
In your PNT you can describe a form of "evidence" that is explicitly not scientific and we can figure out how it would be dealt with and be useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 1:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 11:37 PM NosyNed has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 145 of 154 (256983)
11-04-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NosyNed
11-04-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Other forms of evidence
Hi Ned
Frankly I don't want to start another thread that will deteriorate into more of the same. (Equating the Bible to the Book of ferries etc.)
I think it is up to the admins to decide what they want to include as evidence. I also think that the admins should decide just what is allowed as debate on the forum.
I'm in a minority here but I don't think that equating Christianity with a belief in Santa or the tooth fairy is reasoned debate, and I think posts like that should be deleted and the poster should have be sanctioned.
On the other side, I personally believe that anybody who can look at the strange world of QM and the BB, or consider the range and depth of human emotion and come to the conclusion that this all happened through some huge cosmic accident, with no intelligent thought behind it, is seriously deluded and completely out to lunch. I've never posted that in any of the discussions on religion.
I don't think a post like that adds to the debate, and is just a case of me labelling those who have come to a different conclusion about the genesis of this world than I have.
As for myself I enjoy the science threads and mostly disregard the threads on Christianity because it inevitably seems to go the same way that this one has.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 5:37 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 11:41 PM GDR has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 146 of 154 (256984)
11-04-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by GDR
11-04-2005 11:37 PM


Re: Other forms of evidence
As for myself I enjoy the science threads and mostly disregard the threads on Christianity because it inevitably seems to go the same way that this one has.
Exactly! Without what we call scientific evidence it doesn't seem to be possible to settle any debate and they go on for decades and centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 11-04-2005 11:37 PM GDR has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 147 of 154 (256993)
11-05-2005 4:28 AM


Respect
Right on cue, our national daily had an article on the decay of respect
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...15%255E28737,00.html
A couple of quotes
It's the kind of incident that appalls Lynne Truss, columnist, broadcaster and author of the newly published Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life.
In her international bestseller Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Truss went to war against bad punctuation. Her new target is the collapse of civility in a "f--- off" age she says is characterised by "lazy moral relativism combined with aggressive social insolence". The stories she recounts to back her theory of a society gone to the dogs include a man on a London bus set on fire after he told off a gang of boys and another stabbed to death when he objected to someone throwing food at his girlfriend.
Respect has been debased, says Truss. Whereas the word once implied regarding another with esteem or deference, or treating them with consideration, she argues it has become "a cool street-crime buzz word mainly associated with paying feudal obeisance to those in possession of firearms".
"The end of deference? You've got to be kidding," says influential British sociologist and author Frank Furedi. In a recent essay, Furedi complains about cultural commentators who celebrate the erosion of authority as "an end to deference". Instead of freeing us, he argues, the collapse of respect for authority has made us slaves to a new set of masters. He is weary of a society that venerates children's rights over adult wisdom, blaming this collapse in authority for contributing to a classroom climate in which swearing and challenging instructions "has become the norm".
Under the new deference, he writes, "We doubt the word of our doctors but turn happily to the herbalist, the New Age healer and the osteopath." We encourage victims of crime "to make pronouncements on the issue of law and order" and treat parents of Iraq war casualties as experts in military affairs.
Then there is what Furedi describes as a growing tendency to institutionalise deference to the expert. "Parenting coaches, life coaches, supernannies, all apparently possess the authority to tell us how to live our lives."
Even worse is the political class's shifting its deference to the authority of the celebrity. "Our leaders are happy to listen to Bob Geldof moralising about how to save Africans or Jamie Oliver instructing us how to rescue our children from obesity," Furedi says.
In our little oasis of sanity we call EvC, I hope after spirited battles that we remain friends.

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 2:48 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 148 of 154 (257082)
11-05-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Nighttrain
11-05-2005 4:28 AM


Re: Respect
quote:
"lazy moral relativism combined with aggressive social insolence".
hahah awesome. i blame cultural relativism, though.
quote:
"a cool street-crime buzz word mainly associated with paying feudal obeisance to those in possession of firearms".
i love the academic wording for stuff like that.
quote:
"Our leaders are happy to listen to Bob Geldof moralising about how to save Africans"
hey, don't knock liveaid. SIR bob geldoff raised millions of dollars to feed starving people, and the liveaid foundation continues to raise money and feed people. i think that fact that he IS saving africans qualifies him to make a statement on the matter.
besides, who honestly listens to the boomtown rats? seriously, he's not a very popular celebrity.
In our little oasis of sanity we call EvC, I hope after spirited battles that we remain friends.
i like the chat. people are very friend in there, even bitter debate enemies. and creationists are questioning, not argumentative. i don't think there are many hate-filled tirades here.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Nighttrain, posted 11-05-2005 4:28 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by bobbins, posted 11-06-2005 8:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 149 of 154 (257362)
11-06-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by arachnophilia
11-05-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Respect
WHO LISTENS TO THE BOOMTOWN RATS?!!!!!
Wash out the ears - albums to track down and listen to, 'Tonic for the Troops' and 'Fine Art of Surfacing' - and if a whole album is too difficult and long then listen to 'Rat Trap' at full blast, new wave/post punk greatness in 5 minutes.
Admittedly the US never really got them apart from 'I don't like Mondays'
Your loss. Ho Hum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 2:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 11:30 PM bobbins has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 150 of 154 (259238)
11-12-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by bobbins
11-06-2005 8:41 PM


Re: Respect
WHO LISTENS TO THE BOOMTOWN RATS?!!!!!
Admittedly the US never really got them apart from 'I don't like Mondays'
that was quite a good song. but seriously, at this point sir bob's a lot better known for liveaid than even that song.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by bobbins, posted 11-06-2005 8:41 PM bobbins 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