Evolutionists at it again ...

[oxmixmudd]

Ah, it's Mr. Tolerance again. Just tired of people whose views differ from yours.

You are so freekin sensitive to what you see as insults to your imaginary god that you consistently toss the baby and attack the bathwater.

Clue: This is the natural science form. Gods play no role in natural science. If you wish to discuss the science, ignore the gods for once and discuss the science.

Thanks for so clear an example of what I am talking about. For examples of how not to be a jerk, take a gander at Roy, or Roland, or Rogue, to name a few.

Jim

[sfs1]

Clue: This is the natural science form. Gods play no role in natural science. If you wish to discuss the science, ignore the gods for once and discuss the science.

This is the natural science forum on a site called "theologyweb". Posts about the interaction between science and belief in God are entirely on topic here.

[phank]

Thanks for so clear an example of what I am talking about. For examples of how not to be a jerk, take a gander at Roy, or Roland, or Rogue, to name a few.

Jim

Ironic, considering that I was responding to a perfect example of what I was talking about.

For an example of how not to be a preacher, Roy and Roland are very good.

[phank]

This is the natural science forum on a site called "theologyweb". Posts about the interaction between science and belief in God are entirely on topic here.

Yes, I agree. The intereaction is interesting, and definitely worth discussing. But taking one's god for granted and working from there is much like taking science as infallible and working from there. Posts that basically say "here is my god's opinion" aren't "about the intereaction between science and belief". They are statements of faith.

Your mileage may vary, but I see a qualitative difference between "here is what the evidence suggests is happening" and "here is how my god does things." Notice that even your pious preaching, you take your particular god as a given, and do not even consider any of the thousands of others. Your very semantics PRESUMES the existence of your god. That's not discussion.

But I understand what you are saying, intentionally or not: If you ain't a member of this particular choir, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

[KingsGambit]

But I understand what you are saying, intentionally or not: If you ain't a member of this particular choir, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Does anybody other than Jorge actually believe this?

[sfs1]

Yes, I agree. The intereaction is interesting, and definitely worth discussing. But taking one's god for granted and working from there is much like taking science as infallible and working from there. Posts that basically say "here is my god's opinion" aren't "about the intereaction between science and belief". They are statements of faith.

True. Relevance? I responded to a statement of yours that seemed to suggest that the introduction of God was inappropriate to discussion in this forum.

Your mileage may vary, but I see a qualitative difference between "here is what the evidence suggests is happening" and "here is how my god does things." Notice that even your pious preaching, you take your particular god as a given, and do not even consider any of the thousands of others. Your very semantics PRESUMES the existence of your god. That's not discussion.

I did no preaching, pious or otherwise, in my post, and in fact cannot recall ever doing any preaching of any kind here. Likewise, my semantics revealed nothing at all about my own beliefs about God; the two sentences I wrote could have been written by a Christian or a Buddhist, a theist or an atheist.

But I understand what you are saying, intentionally or not: If you ain't a member of this particular choir, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Might I suggest that your interpretive powers are a little lacking here? I responded in measured terms to a single statement of yours that seemed to reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of this forum. Your completely over-the-top response has little connection to what I actually wrote.

[Duragizer]

For examples of how not to be a jerk, take a gander at Roy, or Roland, or Rogue, to name a few.

Ah, Rogue's a dirty theist. He don't count.

[oxmixmudd]

Ah, Rogue's a dirty theist. He don't count.

The idea was to give examples on both sides that understand how to communicate effectively without excessive rancor. My original post was looking for recognition of good people on both sides. So I provided examples of the same. Weighted in favor of non-theists so as to make clear this is not an issue of theist vs non-theist, but simply an issue of overall character independent of religious persuasion.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Ironic, considering that I was responding to a perfect example of what I was talking about.

For an example of how not to be a preacher, Roy and Roland are very good.

I'm not a preacher - you just don't like being called on your rude manner. There is no reason on the face of the earth you have to be rude. You just are. Just as Jorge is. And it is unpleasant to interact with a rude person - no matter who one is. But I doubt you care, any more than Jorge does. Civilized discussion is, by all evidence, not valued by you or him.


And that is all I have to say on the subject. So enjoy your one last nasty little retort on this particular exchange. You can only be what you are.


Jim

[rogue06]

Ah, Rogue's a dirty theist. He don't count.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, more than ten. See I can counts.

[Juvenal]

I don't think the "other guys" are villains or anything like that. I've not said word one about them being evil/sneaky. I just don't think they care. It's a 'good enough' answer, and that's all they need. There's nothing dishonest about that, but it's not anything anyone should take seriously, either.

At one time, I imagined if you went high enough up the creationism feeding chain, you'd find someone being deliberately dishonest, but it turns out Orwell was prescient: The higher the position, the more fervent the belief that "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."