The bible..
- Started
- Last post
- 571 Responses
- gramme0
pandasthumb, thanks for proving that knowledge does not equal wisdom.
The only mistake I will admit to is suggesting the non-word "incredulosity" over incredulity.
You don't know anything about anyone on here, you barge in and write a novel in an attempt to debunk the beliefs of those like flagellum and myself. You haven't really proved anything in your little term paper besides the fact that you are an angry person who thinks very highly of their own intellect.
Are you surprised that I'm not a scientist? Last time I checked, designers and people in design-related fields were the demographic around here. I mentioned the vapor canopy theory not because I am sure I buy it, but because it is a theory that has been put out there in the past. I am very aware that there is a lack of credible scientific literature on that subject. Sorry I didn't clarify, I didn't know we had biologists waiting to pounce from the sidelines.
Show me some literature that disproves the possibility of Creationism. I'll read it tomorrow, as I have work to accomplish today, and will reply in an email with my thoughts.
I'm fully aware of the definition of atheism (a belief that there is no God) and secular humanism (a system of belief and practice that excludes all manifestations of deity in the functions of civilized society). Atheism and secular humanism are intrinsically linked. Have you ever heard of a secular humanist who was not atheistic? Charles F. Potter, a seminal atheist / secular humanist describes secular humanism in the very title of one of his books as "A New Religion". Sounds like any other dogma to me. See, I paid attention in my philosophy classes as well.
FYI my screen name hasn't jack shit to do with science, if you intend to pull a cheap shot then you should know what you're talking about first.
- detritus0
Oh come on, Gramme - "Last time I checked, designers and people in design-related fields were the demographic around here"?
Why else do you think flagellum gets everyone's back up? Yes, he's well-versed in theological dispute, to the point where few here on NT can truly, in an absolute sense, battle him - that doesn't mean we're wrong, just that we're not all scientists, with an expansive knowledge to confront him at every point.
Pandasthumb's coming here to argue this point can, at worst, be taken in the exact-same light as Flagellum's constant popping-up.
Although I don't agree with your worldview, I'm sympathetic to it as you invariably temper your posture with a humility that, to me, befits the level of argument that can be achieved here. Something that I and others (Dobs, I'm looking at you) could possibly do well to learn from.
- gramme0
http://www.secularhumanism.org/i…
"Secular humanists are generally nontheists. They typically describe themselves as nonreligious. They hail from widely divergent philosophical and religious backgrounds.
Thus, secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct."
= functioning atheism. If people choose to believe in such a worldview...fantastic. I suggest they just be honest with themselves instead of attempting to cloak their beliefs in benign, non-committal terms.
- ukit0
2 cheers for secular humanism!
- czawada0
I was going to stay out of this for good but gramme just keeps pulling me back.
You said:
"You don't know anything about anyone on here, you barge in and write a novel in an attempt to debunk the beliefs of those like flagellum and myself."
and the followed that up with:
"You haven't really proved anything in your little term paper besides the fact that you are an angry person who thinks very highly of their own intellect."
So you don't know him, but assume he's angry because he posted some facts regarding his profession and career. How does that make him angry, because he doesn't agree with you?
You sound like a hypocrite.
- gramme0
Thank you for the compliment detritus. Sometimes my sarcasm still gets the better of me (I fear I may have done so out of initial insult at some of pandasthumb's comments).
I concede your point about flagellum. I agree that while he claims to have an interest in art and design, his presence in any non-spiritual or scientific threads is non-existent. So I guess if I criticize pandasthumb for sauntering in as a complete anomaly and blasting people he knows not in the least, then I should be consistent and criticize flagellum as well (sorry flag...I admire your intellect and agree with your beliefs, but the way we present ourselves often speaks louder than the words we say).
I'm certainly not perfect on that front, but I do believe it is possible and advisable to interact with the non-Christian world we live in on more levels than spiritual and scientific debate alone. A little humor, a little discourse that has absolutely no direct correlation to God can be a breath of fresh air for the rest of the world. It shows that we are human, that our blood is the same color as theirs.
- gramme0
So you don't know him, but assume he's angry because he posted some facts regarding his profession and career. How does that make him angry, because he doesn't agree with you?
You sound like a hypocrite.
czawada
(Oct 26 07, 10:08)Did you read all of his post, or all of my response? I don't criticize him for the information he posts, I criticize him for being rude and insulting in the MANNER in which he presents his ideas. That is it and that is all. I actually respect the amount of knowledge he has amassed, it's impressive at any rate.
- ukit0
It never ceases to amaze how creationists will dismiss out of hand the mountain of evidence for evolution, yet will eagerly buy into a ridiculous fantasy like the green-canopy "theory" (or whatever it's called) because it agrees with the mythology of their religion.
pandasthumb
(Oct 26 07, 08:47)Well-said pandasthumb, that pretty much sums up what is wrong about some of the arguments in this thread. It seems to me we should approach the world with an open mind, not flailing around to find evidence wherever we can that supports whatever ancient myth we want to be true.
- czawada0
I did read all of his post and it was anything but rude or insulting.
If you're offended by that post then I would love to hear how you handle criticism.
- gramme0
For the record I am completely secure in that knowledge that a vaast number of people, including pandasthumb, disagree with me.
I do think a touch of levity and respect for one another is woefully lacking in these threads. There are a few who speak respectfully more often than not, such as detritus/Nairn and wunderbra/Crouwel/whatever his name is this week.
Perhaps a more direct term I'm looking for is TACT. Goes a really long way in keepig things civil. When you plow people over or beat them up with your brain, it sends the message that you aren't interested in discourse as much as hearing yourself speak, or reading the words you type as the case may be.
- gramme0
mythology of their religion.
pandasthumb
(Oct 26 07, 08:47)Calling it mythology is every bit as dogmatic as me calling it truth.
I admire detritus for admitting we are coming at the same problem from different angles (and no, it did not sound trite to me).
:)
- gramme0
Calling someone an illiterate, ass-backwards idiot tends to ruffle most people's feathers. THis is where I infer, and I think with sounds cause, his angry disposition.
I'm sure you wouldn't be a barrel of giggles if I said that to you, Chris.
He would be much more credible if he simply relied on the strength of his arguments.
- gramme0
*infer with sound cause, I mean
- philipdrumman0
aside from all this scientific mumbo jumbo
when shit hits the fan who's name you gonna call on?
i think with all the nuke talk its time to get it right b-rothers!
- czawada0
He didn't call you "illiterate, ass-backwards idiot" that's how you perceived it.
This is why I was staying out of this thread. I can't keep up with your spin doctor skills.
*Exits thread.
- pandasthumb0
i had no intention of dispelling your religious beliefs, just debunking the pseudoscientific nonsense that you trot out about evolution.
I realise that I will never change the minds of the pathologically deluded (deluded about evolution, mind - i don't give a toss about your personal religious philosophy), but individuals such as yourself preach the kind of bullshit that you do to subvert and distort the public understanding of real science. As someone in the know, I feel that I (along with the whole of the scientific community) have a duty to set the record straight for those who may be unsure as to what to believe. It is precisely because creationists such as yourself choose to spread your missinformation in forums such as this one (where you know that the majority of people do not have the training or the background knowledge to challenge your lies and distortions confidently), rather than in a genuine scientific forum (where your arguments would be effortlessly and systematically dismantled) that people with genuine knowledge of the subject seek out your distortions and expose them for the frauds that they are.
Of course I'm not surprised that you aren't a scientist, what surprises me is that you seem to feel confident enough in your scientific knowledge to claim that one of science's most watertight theories is a fraud.
As for showing you some literature that disproves the possibility of Special Creation, it doesn't work like that. The onus is on creation "scientists" to provide one single shred of evidence that suggests any more than superficially that it DID happen. It's ridiculous to accept something as fact simply because it's impossible to show that it couldn't be the case, otherwise we could all go around believing that invisible pink unicorns hold up the clouds (hey - show me one piece of evidence that say that they COULDN'T).
As for atheism/secular humanism and the definitions thereof, if you knew what the terms meant, then why did you willfully and grossly misrepresent them in the way that you did? Is it because it's easier to beat down a strawman than to provide a real argument? And yes the terms are related to some extent, but they do not always go hand in hand. All fish have scales (i think) but not all animals with scales are fish.
As for Charles F. Potter saying that secular humanism is a religion - so what? Your using a simple appeal to authority here - just because Charles say it don't necessarily make it so. And in any case, when i said atheism was not dogmatic, i was referring to atheism - not secular humanism. That much should be plainly obvious to anyone who read my post.
What's interesting is that in your response you fail to directly address any of the points that I have made about evolution, and instead resort entirely to ad hominem attacks, vitriolic bluster and a pointless and fallacious argument against my comments on secular humanism/atheism. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by exposing you as a fraud, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
- gramme0
no actually he did, in more than one place, but that's ok. I'm a grown man. The term "ass-backwards" is a direct quote. Not a big deal, just don't call me out for making things up when I simply read more carefully than you did.
- pandasthumb0
What I said was that your argument was ass-backwards, not you. And as for being rude - I admit that it irks me to hear people abuse science in the way that yourself and flagellum have here, and yes, I tend to respond with a certain lack of tact and respect. I should clarify that my lack of respeect is for your scientific opinion on this matter - not for you as a person. I apologise for those instances where I got a bit personal. I also apologise for making an unqualified assumption about the origin of your screen name.
PS - thanks for the warm welcome everyone. I realise I'm not a typical kind of patron here, but I did get my ass kicked out of a painting degree at Art School a few years ago, before I switched to science, so I'm not a complete artistic ignoramous :)
- gramme0
I am just fine panda. I didn't answer all of your questions and claims because I and others have answered those same questions from other people in the greatest amount of detail I/we can gather. This discussion has been going on long before you stepped in, so you'll forgive me if I don't pull up every thread where I have ever made a coherent argument for creationism and it's attendant wolrdviews. I intend to discuss this with you via email when I am not actually under a deadline, hopefully this weekend. I actually have work to accomplish, believe it or not, and I really need to stop getting embroiled with you lot.
I think it's hilarious that you call me "vitriolic" in light of the way you talk. I didn't get mad because you "exposed me as a fraud" (nice try), but because you are rude and can't seem to just let your arguments speak for themselves. That ultimately waters down your argument and makes it difficult to take you seriously.
On atheism/humanism, you are simply dissecting my words and taking me out of context. Again, nice try. There's not really much I can do to argue against your unassailable "logic" in that regard...why do I even bother.
It's obvious that you refuse to buy the notion of ID (forget about specifics like Christianity for the moment) mainly because you cannot conceive of something more powerful than your own logic. I learned some years ago that such an approach to life is arrogant, deluded and leads to nowhere but misery and loneliness.
And that my friend is where it all falls down, and that is why we are chasing our tails.
If you care to continue the conversation in a civilized manner, email me:
- grunttt0
*drops off sandwiches, waters, and cigarettes.
I assume this thread could use some supplies.
y'all have fun!!