The closing of the political threads is really becoming annoying

[Agent0028]

But that's just it. Creationism is in the realm of fairies and gnomes. You can insist otherwise as loudly and often as you want but at the end of the day there's not even the first piece of evidence that God exists at all, let alone created the universe a few thousand years ago....

So what does that make someone who believes in creation?

 

[monkeydad16]

So what does that make someone who believes in creation?

As crazy as someone who believes we came from apes. Oh, wait...

 

[Agent0028]

Sorry MonkeyDad, but I was asking Barbelith. I want a better understanding of his viewpoint on it. Making comments like that doesn't help, it only inflames the situation.

 

[devilof76]

...it only inflames the situation.

Kinda like throwing fire on a fire...

 

[Agent0028]

I guess, but if its already burning what's the point of adding more fire?

 

[devilof76]

Exactly. There is no point. Though it may convince those who think there's no fire as long as you don't call it a fire, that their assessment of the situation might bear re-evaluating.

 

[CelticPredator]

You know what I hate? When people use Christantity to fuel their own hate.

 

[devilof76]

You know what I hate? When people use Christantity to fuel their own hate.

That's a sword with too many edges to count.

 

[barbelith]

Don't call Dave in.

Where did I imply I would?

You've already had several slams in this thread, so be cautious of where you throw your stones.

I haven't slammed anyone.

So what does that make someone who believes in creation?

It doesn't make them anything. Evolution by natural selection doesn't really have anything to say about abiogenesis.

 

[Agent0028]

I mean if you believe creation is in the realm of gnomes and fairies what do you believe that says about people who believe in it?

 

[barbelith]

I mean if you believe creation is in the realm of gnomes and fairies what do you believe that says about people who believe in it?

It says they have faith. Who is going to argue that?

 

[Darklord Dave]

Or the discussion could turn to principles, in which case the real divisions would become perfectly, undeniably clear.

For me, this statement is just as condescending and presumptuous as anything typed previously. It implies a underlying "fact" of rightness that apparently eludes some of us.

 

[Agent0028]

It says they have faith. Who is going to argue that?

People do though, unfortunately. Thanks for clarifying your point though, the way you stated it came across (at least to me and it would seem others) as derogatory to people who believe in creation. But now I see that is not how you meant it, or you're being very diplomatic, but either way its polite.

 

[Darklord Dave]

You seem to be confused about what actually constitutes an attack. His opinion by definition is a layman's opinion (indeed contradicted by the consensus of experts in their fields). Holding that opinion demonstrates a lack of basic grounding in the subject and there really is no point in having a conversation with someone like that. That's an observation; you'll note I didn't include a judgment call.

Perhaps there is a disconnect there. You have presented something that may be true (in your perspective) but the way it's presented comes off superior and undiplomatic, which just raises the ire of the debaters.

I've said in the rules that we aren't going to be the PC police here, but if we are to discuss such inflammatory subjects, then everyone will need to put effort into not using such language that presses buttons.

 

[barbelith]

Perhaps there is a disconnect there. You have presented something that may be true (in your perspective) but the way it's presented comes off superior and undiplomatic, which just raises the ire of the debaters.

How would you phrase what I wrote?

 

[devilof76]

For me, this statement is just as condescending and presumptuous as anything typed previously. It implies an underlying "fact" of rightness that apparently eludes some of us.

I was trying to point out that discussion of issues tends to ignore the fact that most of the issues are framed in terms of only one set of political principles. People insist that we need unity on issues, and that a lot of the conflict will dissolve if we can just come to an agreement on how to implement what everyone thinks the country needs.

I think it would be more productive to debate the principles at the root of people's political ideas. I didn't intend to suggest that no one is aware that there are deeper principles behind stances on particular issues; just that people seem to shy away from discussing those principles, almost as though they'd prefer that the popular context be the only one given serious consideration.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I was trying to point out that discussion of issues tends to ignore the fact that most of the issues are framed in terms of only one set of political principles. People insist that we need unity on issues, and that a lot of the conflict will dissolve if we can just come to an agreement on how to implement what everyone thinks the country needs.

I think it would be more productive to debate the principles at the root of people's political ideas. I didn't intend to suggest that no one is aware that there are deeper principles behind stances on particular issues; just that people seem to shy away from discussing those principles, almost as though they'd prefer that the popular context be the only one given serious consideration.

I got from your statement that there can be only one "right" position on those deeper principles. That is what I cited as presumptuous.

 

[Malice]

The biggest issue for me is the spillover. We have folks who take their grudges into other threads and try t start flaming eachother and to me that is more annoying than the bickering back and forth in the thread of origin.

As Atom Hues used to say:

Yay TOYS!

Lecture..............


i love toys and specially polystone like p!tu says in his videos, "sidesshow where's our polystone air freshener"!

 

[Darklord Dave]

How would you phrase what I wrote?

You've used the "it's impossible to continue the debate if you refuse to acknowledge the science" excuse many times. The fact that you do continue to debate it belies this excuse.

The fact that some aren't convinced by scientific evidence is part of the reason there can never be agreement on these subjects. There is no common ground for the argument and thus no relevant conclusion to the discussion can be reached. The best either can hope for is to raise questions in those observing the debate that makes them think about their own position.

If these discussions can cause people to think then they are valuable to this forum. However condescension from some and insults by others just cause observers to discount both opinions.

 

[devilof76]

I got from your statement that there can be only one "right" position on those deeper principles. That is what I cited as presumptuous.

No, because which set of principles is 'right' would vary according to what people value. I do believe that there are things which should be valued, and things which should not, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell anyone else that they should value what I do.

So long as the same respect is extended to me, I don't much care what, how, or if anyone else thinks.