|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hijacked Twilight wrote: |
| You claim to be a "humble emissary of science" and not an anti-theist, but in half your posts you launch literal-minded attacks on religion. |
Maybe there's a God, but he's not represented accurately in any of the world's religions.
| Quote: |
| In Genesis there's a non-corporeal Creator. |
Then why does Genesis 3:8 say that God was "walking in the garden in the cool of the day"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Strange. You claim to be a "humble emissary of science" and not an anti-theist, but in half your posts you launch literal-minded attacks on religion and early Genesis.
|
I have absolutely no idea why explaining the problem of taking an ancient mythical book as literal fact makes one anti-theist. If what I say offends people, I don't care. Too bad, so sad.
You must remember that many theists do not take the Bible literally.
Get it right: I am anti-fundamentalist, one who enjoys reading the Bible as a great work of literature, and believes in free religion as the best civic. If someone here on this board were trying to convince us that the Mbombo creation account was truth and that we should deny good science because of it I would be doing the exact same thing.
So, are you trying to take away my "humble messenger of science" title now? You already banned me from posting before, remember that!? haha...
Another thing: you did realize my take of the Mbombo creation account being more legitimate than Genesis was completely in jest, as I made very clear, right?
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
If you insist on playing this game, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to note conceptual differences with other creation stories and the things it gets right.
|
Things it gets right? Intellectual honesty? I have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. Why should I care about the conceptual differences of myths? They're just myths, and myths are not science. Period.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
In most creation stories, there's a physically existing god (corporeal), operating in some unspecified environment (playground of the gods), during an unspecified pre-creation time period (a time before the universe).
|
That's nice.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
But in Genesis there's a non-corporeal Creator, bringing the universe out of nothing, at a specified beginning of time. This is unique among ancient cosmologies.
|
Ummm. That's great? (You do know it refers to him as corporeal at times, right? see pucciniphile's post...)
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
We have together non-corporeality, ex-nihilo, and an absolute beginning of time. Out of the thousands of ancient cosmologies it's the closest to our scientific understanding. Time itself grabbed a hold at the Big Bang. We know this now, but until halfway through the 20th Century, a majority of scientists agreed with Aristotle that the universe was eternal. When evidence for the Big Bang came in, many scientists felt uncomfortable.
|
So are you trying to apply a literal reading to the creation event described in Genesis by relating it to the Big Bang by saying it is the closest to science? This is getting it right? Say what? I repeat: myths are not science. Period.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
The Jewish Encyclopedia was largely the intellectual product of a splinter group within Judasim called the Wissenschaft des Judentums. Basically it was a turn of the 20th Century subset of the movement that founded Reform Judaism, which at one of its founding conferences ordered a feast of lobster and other non-kosher delicacies and declared Berlin to be its new Jerusalem. It wasn't mainstream Jewry. To claim that an interpretation made by one or two writers of the Jewish Encyclopedia is an admission by "the Jews" as a whole that a given Torah passage is "just ancient thinking" is a distortion of breathtaking scope and daring. I think I'm actually impressed! |
Firstly, I don't care if it wasn't mainstream Jewry. They were Jews nonetheless (Jews who don't believe in fairy tales). My point that theists can accept science stands. My point that the world is not black and white, and that we need not create false dichotomies, stands. Junior's religion is not mainstream Christianity either. It's a fundamentalist version of it.
Anyways, I totally don't get your point, the relevance of your post (whatsoever), nor do I see how I've been intellectually dishonest. If anything it looks like you are trying to take my words, twist them around, and attack my character... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:02 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
...
Nice, Junior.
Since we last did this, I'd like to chuck a few things in:
Gnosticism: The Gnostics were slaughtered as heathens in the early days of AD.
The Gnostic interpretation of the Bible posits that an Angel named Sophia (Wisdom) birthed something called the Demi-Urge, the "God" of the Old Testament.
The Demi-Urge was completely out of hand and, so she provided the tree whose fruit allowed you to see beyond that and the serpent to accomplish the task.
By the Gnostic interpretation of things, the Old Testament "God" is an unworthy ruler and possibly even the Devil himself.
Not that I'm a Christian, but that does measures to reconcile the Bible with reality.
And, for being Gnostic, the Gnostics got what was coming to them: death by a conspiracy of dunces.
Now, a rational explanation of the Bible could "work wonders" for communication here, but...
to recap a long long Junior contribution
We have:
-Stone aged dudes building ships the size of aircraft carriers
-Dinosaurs (like the T-Rex and Allosaurus together) climbing on the ships and crapping in buckets for Noah while he fed them (oh noes, I hope it was more than two sheep, unicorns?)
-The Grand Canyon being created in record time and (possibly Junior's own) "floating species" explanation for why the dinosaurs floated below the squirrels one incredible afternoon
-the debunking of frog evolution based on fishing lures
-Ken Hovind ending up in jail
The saddest thing is that this tripe is reflected in our national politics.
That our global power is mitigated and subdued by a bunch of Jerry-Springer loving, WWE-following Austrolopythicine types who themselves don't believe in Austrolopythicines is a sad state of affairs and an embarrassment to what we could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Get it right: I am anti-fundamentalist, one who enjoys reading the Bible as a great work of literature, and believes in free religion as the best civic. |
Because it allows freedom "from" religion. Yeah, we know.
Look, you�re not fooling anyone. You�ve called stories in the Bible �silly� and the product of �primitive� thinking. You compared the book to Cinderella and Battlefield Earth. And you expect us to believe that�s attacking only a literal reading?
You�ve devoted thousands of words to attacks on religion, from speculation on how it can change your brain circuitry, to absurd tangents about Islam, to saying abandoning religion is a step forward in a person�s life. And when you�re called out on it, you hold up your hands and say "No! I'm not really against the Bible! It�s still a nice story. Enjoy your nice story, children!"
Riiight.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Why should I care about the conceptual differences of myths? They're just myths, and myths are not science. Period. |
Yes, it is a silly game you're playing, reading creation stories like they're supposed to be science textbooks. I agree. But then again, you were the one playing that game.
You've been going on and on, clogging up this thread with endless verbiage about how early Genesis is no more legitimate than any other creation story on Wikipedia. You've written hundreds of words about creation myths (who knows why), trying to tell us that Genesis is the same kind of myth and no better. So just to get you stop already, I explained in a couple short paragraphs why you were wrong. Now in turn you rear up and shout "No! It�s a myth, so I don�t actually care if I'm wrong!"
Too funny. Do you do comedy, Brento?
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
But in Genesis there's a non-corporeal Creator, bringing the universe out of nothing, at a specified beginning of time. This is unique among ancient cosmologies. |
Ummm. That's great? (You do know it refers to him as corporeal at times, right? see pucciniphile's post...) |
Puccini needs a better translation:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
We have together non-corporeality, ex-nihilo, and an absolute beginning of time. Out of the thousands of ancient cosmologies it's the closest to our scientific understanding. Time itself grabbed a hold at the Big Bang. We know this now, but until halfway through the 20th Century, a majority of scientists agreed with Aristotle that the universe was eternal. When evidence for the Big Bang came in, many scientists felt uncomfortable.
|
So are you trying to apply a literal reading to the creation event described in Genesis by relating it to the Big Bang by saying it is the closest to science? This is getting it right? Say what? I repeat: myths are not science. Period. |
I'm just playing by your rules. I'm actually not a literalist myself, but I'm trying to accommodate you. You were the one who said that if you had a gun to your head you'd dump Genesis for the story of Mbombo vomiting the world into existence. I'm not allowed to explain why I demur? Really, Brento? That�s off-limits? What other special rules should I know about? Do I need to ask permission from Dave Sperling before writing my next post? Do I need to type with one hand tied behind my back?
| brento1138 wrote: |
| I don't care if it wasn't mainstream Jewry. They were Jews nonetheless (Jews who don't believe in fairy tales). |
You wrote �even the Jews admit that it�s just ancient thinking.� Everybody knows what you meant by that. The distortion couldn�t be more obvious. You represented the views of a whole people based on a single encyclopedia entry written by one or two writers. That's bad enough, but it's even more ridiculous when those views are atypical of the group you�re trying to (mis)represent.
I mean, really, Brento, who do you think you�re fooling? The lurkers? You�ve already admitted they�re your real audience. So I have to ask: do you really think lurkers are that dumb?
| brento1138 wrote: |
| My point that theists can accept science stands. |
How about next time you make your point more clearly and without distorting the beliefs of a whole people.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Anyways, I totally don't get your point, the relevance of your post (whatsoever), |
That�s pretty funny coming from a guy who regularly writes thousand-word replies that have little to nothing to do with what the other person wrote. Did you really think it was necessary, for example, to cut-and-paste the creation story of Mbombo? What does that have to do with anything? I know you want to keep your title as cut-and-paste champion of Dave�s ESL Caf�, but please spare us.
As for the relevance of my post, I was correcting your errors and distortions. What's so hard to understand about that?
| brento1138 wrote: |
| nor do I see how I've been intellectually dishonest. If anything it looks like you are trying to take my words, twist them around, and attack my character... |
Twisting your words? Hardly. Impugning your character? What I wrote was merited.
You said one thing well in your last post:
| Quote: |
| If what I say offends people, I don't care. Too bad, so sad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leicsmac wrote: |
FWIW...I can't personally believe (in light of all the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary) that a rational person can believe in YEC in this day and age. I'm firmly agnostic, and certainly open to the idea of intelligent design and theistic evolution...but the idea that God/Creator/Supreme Being created the world and everything on it less than 10000 years ago? No...I can't get there. I think it's certainly possible to consider that a creator started everything off/tweaked the numbers a bit to get life the way they wanted it, but as a physicist specialising in space I've seen incontrovertible evidence that the Universe is aged in the billions of years. And furthermore...the evidence that we have through various means shows that the Earth is billions of years old too. Yes, it could all be wrong, but surely the same result produced by the same scientific method multiple times can't be wrong every single time, can it? Unless we're all being tricked and are subject to some grand cosmic joke. 
If and when we discover life on other worlds (and I think that's actually inevitable if our race survives long enough)...that will lead to another interesting debate. |
Whoa, a physicist specializing in space! What are you doing in Korea? And where was your ten pennyworth when we were debating the multiverse and initial conditions?
It's always nice when you can make an Argument from Authority without quoting anyone. 
Anyway, that ship may have sailed.
btw I think your views listed above are eminently reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Because it allows freedom "from" religion. Yeah, we know.
|
I'm merely against others imposing their beliefs on me.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Look, you�re not fooling anyone.
You�ve called stories in the Bible �silly� and the product of �primitive� thinking. You compared the book to Cinderella and Battlefield Earth. And you expect us to believe that�s attacking only a literal reading?
|
The portions of the Bible that are products of "primitive" thinking are due to human kind's past ignorance when it came to scientific knowledge about the world they live in. The comparison (Cinderella & Battlefield Earth) are examples of fictional works (Cinderella contains magical elements in the story, Battlefield Earth was written by a man who later created a religion out of similar science fiction stories). They are valid comparisons by any means because the point I was making is that one should think critically before believing everything they read and basing the real world on a fictional account provided in a fictional book.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You�ve devoted thousands of words to attacks on religion, from speculation on how it can change your brain circuitry, to absurd tangents about Islam, to saying abandoning religion is a step forward in a person�s life. And when you�re called out on it, you hold up your hands and say "No! I'm not really against the Bible! It�s still a nice story. Enjoy your nice story, children!"
|
I think you feel I am attacking it more because I think rationally, logically, and scientifically about the world. By thinking of my explanations as some kind of attack, it indicates to me that you are feeling some sort of emotional response from what I have written.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Yes, it is a silly game you're playing, reading creation stories like they're supposed to be science textbooks. I agree. But then again, you were the one playing that game.
You've been going on and on, clogging up this thread with endless verbiage about how early Genesis is no more legitimate than any other creation story on Wikipedia. You've written hundreds of words about creation myths (who knows why), trying to tell us that Genesis is the same kind of myth and no better. So just to get you stop already, I explained in a couple short paragraphs why you were wrong. Now in turn you rear up and shout "No! It�s a myth, so I don�t actually care if I'm wrong!"
|
Firstly, I don't get how you think I am playing a "game" here. Second, yes, the Jewish Genesis story is no more scientifically legitimate than any other creation story. It's all myth. What was I so wrong about anyhow? If you still don't understand the point I was trying to make for Junior, then give up already.
I think I've been creative and illustrative with pointing out exactly what points I've been trying to make. As for "clogging up this thread" you'll just have to chill and read the posts if you want, skip them if you want. If they bother you so much, don't read them. You are free to skip my posts, I'm not forcing you to read them.
Although I sometimes enjoy the content of your posts, the last couple remind me of someone butting in on someone's conversation, not really understanding what they are talking about, then getting upset because you think they said something they didn't.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Too funny. Do you do comedy, Brento?
|
This guy does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Yet he doesn't know why people are laughing. They are not laughing with him, they are laughing at him. I just want to provide a chance for people like this man come to terms with reality, especially since their warped views of reality are conflicting with the good of humanity (science, progress, etc.). Or at least provide an alternative source of information (a truthful source) for anyone who happens to be "on the fence."
Umm, it still says "walking." OK, so non-corporeal Creators can walk. I understand. Because anything is possible if you translate something any which way you want to.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
I'm just playing by your rules...I'm trying to accommodate you. You were the one who said that you if you had a gun to your head you'd dump Genesis for the story of Mbombo vomiting the world into existence.
|
I think you must have just gotten offended and emotional after reading that and quit reading. If you had continued reading, you would have figured out the comment was firstly making a point at why it is *wrong* to choose one creation myth over the other, as the whole story was in jest:
| brento1138 wrote: |
Now you probably ask me "have you gone crazy? do you actually believe that!?!?! do you really think the Mbombo story is more legitimate?!?" The answer, of course, is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haha.
|
As you can see by the above quotation (which comes after the example I gave, where I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose a myth) I was merely illustrating to Junior that one's reasons for choosing one creation myth over another mean nothing. I used an intentionally funny creation myth to do so to further shed light on the "silly" aspect of it all. (You really thought I would actually choose the Mbombo creation myth? That's nuts!) I believe it was a creative, and funny way to make my point. If you didn't understand it, I don't think it's because of my bad writing, but a lack of reading comprehension on your part. Perhaps I give too much credit to certain members of my audience? Then again, this is an ESL forum and I suppose anyone (yourself in this case) can all be guilty of glossing over things. I know I have once or twice.
| brento1138 wrote: |
I'm not allowed to explain why I demur? Really, Brento? That�s off-limits? What other special rules should I know about? Do I need to ask permission from Dave Sperling before writing my next post? Do I need to type with one hand tied behind my back?
|
I really don't care much one way or another. Frankly, I think a bunch of your posts here to be the 'gristle' of the conversation (no offense).
| brento1138 wrote: |
You wrote �even the Jews admit that it�s just ancient thinking.� Everybody knows what you meant by that. The distortion couldn�t be more obvious. You represented the views of a whole people based on a single encyclopedia entry written by one or two writers. That's bad enough, but it's even more ridiculous when those views are atypical of the group you�re trying to (mis)represent.
|
You are just nitpicking language now to try and make me look bad. This is an example of what I mean by "gristle" of the conversation.
Your distortion is considerably worse than mine, saying these views are written by "one or two writers" as if no Jewish people interpret the "the Earth rest[ing] between waters and that the firmament divided the waters" as "ancient thinking" as I described in the original post. It seems like you are trying to twist my words around to make it sound as if I said that all Jews admit everything in Genesis is ancient thinking. Read the words I wrote:
| Quote: |
The ancient Hebrews believed that the Earth rested between waters and that the firmament divided the waters.
Even the Jews (the very people that wrote the book) admit that it's just ancient thinking |
Firstly, I am referring to the parts of Genesis which describe things like the firmament which anyone can attribute to "ancient thinking." They didn't know what the sky was made of, so they invented an explanation for it. That's called "ancient thinking" is it not? I didn't make this up, it's well known. No point in blaming me for it, right?
Second, how can you think I am the one who views lurkers with a low intelligence? I assume they already know that different Jews think different things. We all know there are several sects of any religion. People say "Christians think this" or "Muslims think that" and are not required to refer to the very specific sect in which they are speaking of. I didn't think I needed to spell it out.
I think if you took a moment to do your research you'd find that an overwhelming number of people of the Jewish faith do not read the passage I wrote there in Genesis literally. It's not limited to that group, or the two guys who wrote that encyclopedia. Here's some reading for you to do:
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2011/06/22/why-can-judaism-embrace-science-so-easily/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
So as you can see, there is tons of discourse within the Jewish community. Some read Genesis literally, others don't, while some of them read some parts literally, and other parts allegorically.
The example I provided was indeed an example of ancient thinking, and a large number of the Jewish community would agree that there is no firmament above our heads, and that there is not an ocean of water leaking onto us once in a while. They would say that is ancient thinking.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
I mean, really, Brento, who do you think you�re fooling? The lurkers? You�ve already admitted they�re your real audience. So I have to ask: do you really think lurkers are that dumb?
|
I think I've made my point earlier about which of us views the lurkers as "dumb."
I do my best to provide nice examples, cutting and pasting relevant information, videos, etc., not because I think of them as dumb, quite the opposite. I've got teaching in my blood, and I like presenting information to those who want to learn stuff. And sometimes I write my posts with a dash of humor, personality, to keep things interesting (as with the Mbombo example).
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Did you really think it was necessary, for example, to cut-and-paste the creation story of Mbombo? What does that have to do with anything? I know you want to keep your title as cut-and-paste champion of Dave�s ESL Caf�, but please spare us.
|
I provided links but Junior wouldn't click them. So, to appease Junior's laziness I cut and paste. You're chastising me for accommodating someone.
Go back and see for yourself where Junior is angered that I do not cut and paste the relevant text. Actually, to accommodate you and save you time, let me cut & paste it for you:
Here is what Junior told me to do on page 6 of this thread:
| Junior wrote: |
If you have any specific point to make, make it. Don't simply point to some website to debate everything for you. If you must, then paste the relevant sentence or stanza that illustrates the point you are making.
|
There ya go, just doing my job. Think of it as a nice service, a good deed. Saving you from clicking.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
As for the relevance of my post, I was correcting your errors and distortions. What's so hard to understand about that?
|
Still irrelevant. You've failed to point out an actual error and / or distortion.
I think what you might be trying to do is prove that I am biased. Well, I can save you lots of work. Everyone is biased. Absolutely everyone. Even myself. I admit that.
I've said clearly where I stand on many issues. People can take that in as a fact-checker if they wish, and use it to judge whether they can trust what I've been saying or presenting. I'm not here to fool people. Everything I write is backed up, and if I find I make a mistake, I will admit to it. Pride is much less important to me than truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leicsmac
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Whoa, a physicist specializing in space! What are you doing in Korea? And where was your ten pennyworth when we were debating the multiverse and initial conditions?
It's always nice when you can make an Argument from Authority without quoting anyone.
Anyway, that ship may have sailed.
btw I think your views listed above are eminently reasonable. |
In answer to your first question...enjoying a very different culture and putting some money away for my Masters degree next year. I have some teaching experience back home so I thought this would be a nice change of pace, and a chance to get to know a foreign culture in some depth. 
Multiverse theories are interesting - it's certainly unusual that this particular universe has come into being with the correct fundamental initial conditions in order to allow Universal expansion, stellar and planetary formation and (eventually) life, but in all honesty for me the whole discussion is moot - I don't think it'll ever be proven by humans whether this was the result of luck or design. If we do prove it either way - well, that will be an interesting day for science, religion - and everyone else come to that. But it is certainly interesting to speculate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
| The comparison (Cinderella & Battlefield Earth) are examples of fictional works (Cinderella contains magical elements in the story, Battlefield Earth was written by a man who later created a religion out of similar science fiction stories). They are valid comparisons by any means because the point I was making is that one should think critically before believing everything they read and basing the real world on a fictional account provided in a fictional book. |
You wrote that you were only attacking fundamentalism. That's absurd at this point. You might find an excuse to give plausible deniability for one or two jabs and bodyblows you've thrown, but together they amount to an attack on religion, not just on a literal fundamentalist reading.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| I think you feel I am attacking it more because I think rationally, logically, and scientifically about the world. |
But you only think you do. You are heavily biased, which wouldn't be so bad in itself, but you don't recognize where your bias affects your judgment. You also have large blind spots, you don't recognize the boundaries of your expertise, and you have difficulty in drawing distinctions.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| By thinking of my explanations as some kind of attack, it indicates to me that you are feeling some sort of emotional response from what I have written. |
When all else fails, portray your opponent as emotional.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| yes, the Jewish Genesis story is no more scientifically legitimate than any other creation story. |
But you've now changed your reason for saying so. You were previously painting it as illegitimate because it was as inaccurate as other myths. When I showed you why that's not so, you suddenly changed it to "it's illegitimate *because* it's a myth." Shifting the goalposts and setting up an argument in a circle.
| brento1138 wrote: |
Umm, it still says "walking." OK, so non-corporeal Creators can walk. I understand. Because anything is possible if you translate something any which way you want to. |
A "voice" was walking. Doesn't seem possible, right? So either the writer is mentally retarded, or there's something deeper going on here. The main point is that there's no physical being walking.
| brento1138 wrote: |
If you had continued reading, you would have figured out the comment was firstly making a point at why it is *wrong* to choose one creation myth over the other, as the whole story was in jest:
| brento1138 wrote: |
Now you probably ask me "have you gone crazy? do you actually believe that!?!?! do you really think the Mbombo story is more legitimate?!?" The answer, of course, is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Haha.
|
|
Yes, dude. I understood the first time. You think they're both equally ludicrous. Wow, that's so much nicer. 
| brento1138 wrote: |
| You are just nitpicking language now to try and make me look bad. |
You made yourself look bad, I just called you on it.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Your distortion is considerably worse than mine, saying these views are written by "one or two writers" as if no Jewish people interpret the "the Earth rest[ing] between waters and that the firmament divided the waters" as "ancient thinking" as I described in the original post. |
You're trying to move the goalposts again. I never implied that no other Jews would agree. Your assertion was that "the Jews admit it's just ancient thinking," and your dubious proof was the encyclopedia entry. So even if you could now somehow support your claim, you still used the encyclopedia entry inappropriately.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| It seems like you are trying to twist my words around to make it sound as if I said that all Jews admit everything in Genesis is ancient thinking. |
Another failure of reading comprehension.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Second, how can you think I am the one who views lurkers with a low intelligence? I assume they already know that different Jews think different things. |
So even if you mislead people, they should be smart enough to see through it? Nice! I'll have to try that line sometime!
| brento1138 wrote: |
| I think if you took a moment to do your research you'd find that an overwhelming number of people of the Jewish faith do not read the passage I wrote there in Genesis literally. |
It's not just about a literal reading. We first need to pass step one, establishing that the interpretation in the encyclopedia is the consensus Jewish view of the biblical world.
Then we can go to step two, getting a consensus that it's "just ancient thinking."
I don't know if step one could succeed, but step two could not. The Orthodox don't believe the Torah is ancient thinking at all, they believe it's the word of God. The other major branches of Judaism except for Reconstructionist believe it is at least divinely inspired, hence not "just ancient thinking." Non-religious Jews wouldn't even know what you're talking about, and you can't say "they admit" to something they didn't know about. We need a pre-existing consensus. So this can never work for you.
More hilarity. Now you're telling me to read up on my own religious group!
Brento, please tell me when I can come see your next comedy set. I'm dying to know!
btw this should illustrate why some of us have stopped clicking on your links. When they're not irrelevant, they're comically condescending, presuming to teach us what we already know better than you.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
That�s pretty funny coming from a guy who regularly writes thousand-word replies that have little to nothing to do with what the other person wrote.
|
I am a writer. I write. Dave's ESL cafe is one of many places I write. And you'd be amazed at how much I cut and paste. This is not all original material. I've had these conversations before, many times. |
Brevity is the soul of wit. I recommend the Elements of Style, by Strunk and White.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| I provided links but Junior wouldn't click them. So, to appease Junior's laziness I cut and paste. If you go back and look for where Junior is angered that I do not cut and paste the relevant text. You're chastising me for accommodating someone. |
He wasn't giving you carte blanche to fill the thread with Mbombo's vomit. He was seeking relevant backup on scientific points about evolution.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
As for the relevance of my post, I was correcting your errors and distortions. What's so hard to understand about that?
|
Still irrelevant. You've failed to point out an actual error and / or distortion. |
Okay...
Our posts are public record at this point. People can decide for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is what you are doing:
| Quote: |
| A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are. |
I will illustrate how you are guilty of this. Keep reading.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You wrote that you were only attacking fundamentalism. That's absurd at this point. You might find an excuse to give plausible deniability for one or two jabs and bodyblows you've thrown, but together they amount to an attack on religion, not just on a literal fundamentalist reading.
|
You perceive my defense of science as an attack on religion in general. It's a bit of a false dichotomy and a straw man. "You are defending science, therefore you must be attacking religion." Nope. "You are attacking fundamentalist literal readings of ancient mythical texts so you must be attacking religion." Nope. Although I fully admit my bias (I am an atheist who thinks religion in general is almost completely unnecessary) I'm simply attacking the fundamentalist aspects of religion (such as literally interpreting ancient mythical books) that lead to a conflict with science.
If religious folks like reading holy books, helping sick people, finding inner peace, praying, believing in supernatural beings, thinking their loved ones are in Heaven, I'm fine with that. Go ahead, believe in anything you want. But like I have stated many times before: when religion steps on the toes of science, it has gone too far. I have been consistent in this regard.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
...you don't recognize where your bias affects your judgment.
|
My judgment is simply that mythical books are not scientific and therefore should not be considered more truthful than scientific fact. It's really that simple.
Even my atheistic bias need not affect that judgment as it is not my judgment anyways, but that of science itself (if you adhere to the scientific method anyhow).
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
When all else fails, portray your opponent as emotional.
|
Who is failing? I've completely held my ground against your accusations. And you do seem to have a sort of emotional agenda(which becomes more illustrated in your dirty 'reveal tactic' which I will mention later). Your posts here are not about trying to reveal truth, or advance the thread in any way, it's just an attempt to make me (someone who says things you disagree with) look bad by misrepresenting their position (aka. straw man). To me that 's not only dirty, but a big FAIL.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
But you've now changed your reason for saying so. You were previously painting it as illegitimate because it was as inaccurate as other myths.
|
But Genesis is as inaccurate as other myths because all myths have no scientific backing to them whatsoever. You can twist around the words in any myth and interpret them to fit reality, but that doesn't mean the stories in your Holy Book are any more or any less scientifically accurate than other myths. They are all equally inaccurate, scientifically. My jest that one is more equal than another (based on one's opinion of why it should be more equal) was proving a point.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
When I showed you why that's not so, you suddenly changed it to "it's illegitimate *because* it's a myth." Shifting the goalposts and setting up an argument in a circle.
|
Both statements are true: the Genesis myth is scientifically illegitimate for both the reasons that it is as inaccurate as other myths and because it is a myth. Myths are NOT science. Period.
I have not shifted any "goalposts." The goalposts are your creations, and you are creating them to try and make me look as if I am changing my reasons on something when I am not. They are goalposts made of straw. It's twisting around what I am saying, assigning your own meaning to them, and presenting it in a dishonest way to trick other users on this forum into misrepresenting my position.
This amounts to creating more "fat" in this thread which bogs down the actual interesting discussion.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
A "voice" was walking. Doesn't seem possible, right? So either the writer is mentally retarded, or there's something deeper going on here. The main point is that there's no physical being walking.
|
To address your point that there is no physical being walking, you can interpret it that way, or not, based on how you decide to interpret it. It is written in such a way where half of it seems as if the creator's voice is coming out from nowhere and where half of it seems as if the creator is a physical entity. Yet it still refers to walking, a physical act that moves a physical corporeal being through physical space. That seems pretty corporeal to me. So you can pick and choose whatever you want when it comes to interpretation.
Anyways, this further illustrates my point. How can a voice walk? It's logically impossible.
That's why we need to read it poetically, allegorically, not literally. The same writers wrote the rest of the story, so why should we take that literally also? If I say "the think sings" you can interpret that any way you wish. How can a "think" sing???? How can a "voice" walk???
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Yes, dude. I understood the first time. You think they're both equally ludicrous. Wow, that's so much nicer.
|
You seem offended.
Believers in Bumba would be offended if you say that Genesis is more valid than their myths. I wonder why you so vehemently attack me when I claim they are equally valid? Hmmm... I wonder why? Why, oh why...
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You're trying to move the goalposts again. I never implied that no other Jews would agree. Your assertion was that "the Jews admit it's just ancient thinking," and your dubious proof was the encyclopedia entry. So even if you could now somehow support your claim, you still used the encyclopedia entry inappropriately.
|
As I said before, the straw goalposts are in your imagination. It's a valid example of how theists (even of the very religion that wrote the book) need not read ancient myths literally. Furthermore, the encyclopedia entry was provided by Wikipedia anyways, not me. So get mad at them, not me. I just linked to it and pasted it for you.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
More hilarity. Now you're telling me to read up on my own religious group!
|
Saving the "reveal" for your particular religious faith is a dirty tactic. You seem as if you are presenting the situation as if I somehow knew that in order to match your view of me as "condescending." How was I to know what faith you are? Dirty trick.
Anyways, no wonder my post seems to have offended you enough to play dirty, present straw men, and attack my character. I suspect that your bias (as you are a member of the religion we are discussing) indicates that you think your myths are superior to the Kuba tribe's, and therefore feel offended because I (along with science) describe them as equal. I don't care about your opinion on the matter. All I care about is that they are scientifically equal. A myth is a myth, not science. PERIOD.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
this should illustrate why some of us have stopped clicking on your links. When they're not irrelevant, they're comically condescending, presuming to teach us what we already know better than you.
|
You assume I should just magically know what you already know. Well, I am not psychic and I cannot somehow preconceive what you know, and stop myself in advance in posting a link. The "comically condescending" aspect of my providing links to explain myself better and provide evidence for what I have said is your straw man based in manipulating my actions to make it look like "brento is a bad guy" who thinks people reading this thread are idiots, or as if I am some "comically condescending" guy who claims to know your religion better than you do. False claims there, dirty tactics.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
He wasn't giving you carte blanche to fill the thread with Mbombo's vomit. He was seeking relevant backup on scientific points about evolution.
|
Seeking relevant backup on scientific points about evolution? Just do a Google search.
I was trying to make a point concerning Junior's bias (which lead to the Creationist eye-blinders / earplugs) and I am allowed to illustrate my points as I see fit. Presenting another creation myth might just get Junior thinking, questioning. If not Junior, perhaps someone who isn't familiar with this topic. (Just because someone isn't familiar with it, doesn't mean they are an idiot, by the way). If you didn't want to read what I posted, then skip it. It's not really your concern anyways, as the post was not even addressed to you or meant for you. You're just butting your head into our conversation and saying "Hey, you can't do that! Why? Because I don't like it!"
Anyways, I have just illustrated that you are not trying to advance this conversation. You are merely partaking in an attack against someone with whom is providing information which you do not like. You are scanning every word of mine, every action, to find the smallest possible flaw, and thinking you have found one, "exposing" it like some kind of Watergate scandal.
The thread format of this message board works to your advantage in trying to keep getting the last word in. It will appear as if you have "won" if I do not reply.
I would rather have not replied, because it simply adds unwanted fat to the thread. But alas, I stand my ground because what you are doing is wrong.
This dialogue devolves the thread and I don't think anyone is interested in reading it the same as they are not interested in eating a Beef Steak made of pure fat / gristle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's not much of substance to respond to in your last post because you've basically given up on making rational arguments. You're now simply rambling and accusing me of dirty tactics. My intention wasn't to hurt your feelings but to show some problems in your arguments. Let's touch on a few points.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| You perceive my defense of science as an attack on religion in general. |
It's an insult to science to say that in order to defend it you need to write about religion the way you have.
If anyone reading this thinks that to defend science you need to compare the Bible to Peter Pan, lecture us on Islamic gas attacks, link to videos making fun of believers, speculate about the effect of belief on brain chemistry, disparage sacred texts, and write multiple posts about Mbombo vomiting the world into existence, then they're as delusional as you are.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| But it is as inaccurate as other myths because all myths have no scientific backing to them whatsoever. You can twist around the words in any myth and interpret them to fit reality, but that doesn't mean the stories in your Holy Book are any more or any less scientifically accurate than other myths. They are all equally inaccurate, scientifically. |
That doesn't make sense. By that logic one story could represent reality perfectly, and another could be a theater of the absurd, and you'd dismiss them both as being "equally inaccurate."
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Both statements are true: the Genesis myth is scientifically illegitimate for both the reasons that it is as inaccurate as other myths and because it is a myth. Myths are NOT science. Period. |
I see. You're just going to repeat the assertion that Genesis is as inaccurate as other creation stories, even though I already proved you wrong. If that fails you retreat to your backup plan, the tautology of "it's a myth and therefore it's inaccurate and if you show me that it's not inaccurate it's still a myth and therefore it's inaccurate."
| brento1138 wrote: |
| This amounts to creating more "fat" in this thread which bogs down the actual interesting discussion. |
Like your endless Wikipedia cut-and-pastes on creation myths? So interesting! So relevant to the discussion of evolution!
| brento1138 wrote: |
| It's an attempt at an ad hom attacks meant to discredit me by making me look bad. It's twisting around what I am saying, assigning your own meaning to them, and presenting it in a dishonest way to trick other users on this forum into misrepresenting my position. |
This, like so much of your thread, is empty, angry bluster with nothing to back it up. So I'm going to pass over it.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
A "voice" was walking. Doesn't seem possible, right? So either the writer is mentally retarded, or there's something deeper going on here. The main point is that there's no physical being walking.
|
This then illustrates my point even more. How can a voice walk? It's logically impossible. |
Your point was the corporeality of God. Repeat: your point was about corporeality. So this does not "illustrate your point even more."
Do you even notice when you shift the goalposts?
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You're trying to move the goalposts again. I never implied that no other Jews would agree. Your assertion was that "the Jews admit it's just ancient thinking," and your dubious proof was the encyclopedia entry. So even if you could now somehow support your claim, you still used the encyclopedia entry inappropriately.
|
As I said before, the goalposts are in your imagination. The encyclopedia entry was provided by Wikipedia anyways, not me. I just linked to it and pasted it for you. It's a valid example of how theists (even of the very religion that wrote the book) need not read ancient myths literally. |
No, it wasn't my imagination. You falsely accused me of implying that no other Jews would agree with the encyclopedia entry, and you tried to make it out like that was what we were arguing about to begin with. In other words, you tried to shift the goalposts.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
More hilarity. Now you're telling me to read up on my own religious group!
|
Saving the "reveal" for your particular religious faith is a dirty tactic. |
Revealing my faith is a dirty tactic? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| You are presenting the situation as if I somehow knew that. How was I to know what faith you are? |
Never said you should have. But it was so typical of your style, patronizingly assigning reading to someone who knows way more than you about the subject. It's not that you should have known in advance, but you constantly *assume* the person you're debating is ignorant (or maybe you just act that way for the lurkers, "playing to the crowd" as it were).
| brento1138 wrote: |
| Dirty tactics, logical fallacies. Not looking good for you here. And no wonder my post seems to have offended you enough to play dirty, present straw men, and attack my character. I suspect that your bias (as you are a member of the religion we are discussing) indicates that you think your myths are superior to the Kuba tribe's. I don't care about your opinion on the matter. All I care about is that they are scientifically equal. A myth is a myth, not science. PERIOD. |
You're just rambling here. There's nothing for me really to contradict, it's a string of frustrated, empty assertions.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| The "comically condescending" aspect of my providing links to explain myself better and provide evidence for what I have said is your straw man based in manipulating my actions to make it look like "brento is a bad guy" who thinks everyone reading this thread is an idiot. False claim there. Straw man galore. |
Straw man? As Inigo in the Princess Bride says, "You keeping using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
And by the way, don't play dumb. Don't pretend as if you didn't know that linking to videos on "critical thinking" and "open-mindedness" isn't a way to make your opponent look bad. I'm surprised you haven't linked to something about "How to chew your food like a grownup."
| brento1138 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
He wasn't giving you carte blanche to fill the thread with Mbombo's vomit. He was seeking relevant backup on scientific points about evolution.
|
Relevant backup on scientific points about evolution? Do a google search. |
Huh? That's your answer? "Google is your friend?" If you feel that way, why are you even participating in the thread?
Oh, I forgot: your dissertation on Mbombo.
| brento1138 wrote: |
| I was trying to make a point and I am allowed to illustrate my points as I see fit. Presenting another creation myth might just get Junior thinking. If you didn't want to read it, then skip it. It's not really your concern anyways, as the thread was not even addressed to you. You're just butting your head into our conversation and saying "Hey, you can't do that! Why? Because I don't like it!" |
Ah, okay, more rules I didn't know about. Note to self: Don't participate in thread unless posts are specifically addressed to you. Brento will get upset, worrying that he's looking bad in front of his lurkers.
Brento, I can see you're upset and, as I said, you're not even forming rational arguments anymore. So let's take a break. Hopefully someday, maybe months or years from now, some of what I've said will sink in and you'll realize you don't have reality and the world quite as worked out in your mind as you thought you did.
Til then, nighty night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the debated passage in the Korean Bible:
동산에 거니시는 여호와 하나님의 음성을 듣고
You can go either way with the Korean Bible, too.
Let me take a few minutes to collect some more ambiguous modifiersL
Anyone on this thread who is as old as I am will remember the song about the Purple People Eater.
In that song, there is some confusion about whether this monster was a purple eater of people or an eater of purple people.
Also, what is an abnormal psychology professor--
A professor of abnormal psychology, or an abnormal professor of psychology?
Say, did you know that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while riding on the back of an envelope?
Finally, there is also this gem from a Marx Brothers movie:
"One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas.
How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
| Then why does Genesis 3:8 say that God was "walking in the garden in the cool of the day"? |
I don't see why you are trying to limit God to being in one form or the other, or why this even matters to your argument.
Scripture clearly outlines that he can exist physically or non-physically.
But why are we debating religion anyway? Is it because evolutionists are trying to divert from the fact that they can't defend their theory again?
| HijackedTwilight wrote: |
| If anyone reading this thinks that to defend science you need to compare the Bible to Peter Pan, lecture us on Islamic gas attacks, link to videos making fun of believers, speculate about the effect of belief on brain chemistry, disparage sacred texts, and write multiple posts about Mbombo vomiting the world into existence, then they're as delusional as you are. |
He's just doing what darwinists and their atheist cohorts have been doing for decades: bulldozing, ridiculing, persecuting and attacking anyone with a different viewpoint. It shows their extreme insecurity. In reality evolutionism represents a new dark age of intolerance, not enlightenment. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler- all of them keen ape cult members, trying to "give evolution a helping hand" with their mass euthanasia and genocide projects.
Anyhow, thought this was of interest: a two-faced "Janus" cat, another deformed victim of mutation.
Brento and Pucciniphile think mutation is awesome. I wonder if they would want to have one?
| Quote: |
Frank and Louie has a case of craniofacial duplication, an extremely rare congenital condition resulting from a protein with the odd name of sonic hedgehog homolog (SHH).
The disorder, also known as diprosopia, can cause part or all of an individual's face to be duplicated on its head. It has been recorded multiple times in the domestic cat (Felis catus), but few of the resulting two-faced kittens survive into adulthood, Wilcox said.
Frank and Louie was born on September 8, 1999 and his remarkable life will be commemorated in Guinness World Records' new 2012 edition, Wilcox said.
The cat's owner, a woman only identified as Marty who lives near Worcester, Massachusetts, has asked to remain otherwise anonymous. She was a veterinary technician in 1999 when a day-old, two-faced kitten about the size of her thumb was brought into her clinic to be euthanized.
"The normal life expectancy is one to four days for cats with this condition," because afflicted animals typically have other disorders and defects, Marty told a local radio station on Tuesday. "When he was first born, every day was a blessing." |
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-faced-cat-sets-record-oldest-living-janus-230048051.html
But overall yeah, i agree with the apparent general feeling that this thread is going nowhere. Its a matter of entrenched positions.. and its time to just give it a rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Anyhow, thought this was of interest: a two-faced "Janus" cat, another deformed victim of mutation. |
You're really hepped on inductive reasoning.
If you present enough life forms which prove to originate earlier than formerly believed,
that will somehow prove that reptiles, mammals, and amphibians date all the way back to Cambrian times.
If you present enough life forms which did not evolve for millions of years,
that will somehow prove that no life forms ever evolve.
If you present enough Evolutionist tyrants,
that will somehow prove that all Evolutionist rulers are tyrants.
If you present enough harmful mutations,
that will somehow prove that all mutations are harmful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In response to HijackedTw1light:
Your depiction of what I've been posting here is inaccurate, exaggerated, misleading, and logically fallible.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
...you've basically given up on making rational arguments. You're now simply rambling and accusing me of dirty tactics. My intention wasn't to hurt your feelings but to show some problems in your arguments. Let's touch on a few points.
|
1) How have I given up on making rational arguments? That the creation story in Genesis is just as scientifically inaccurate as any other creation myth stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret it, all myths (by definition) are not scientifically accurate. If you feel that the story of Genesis is not a myth, and more akin to a scientific account of creation, then say so. If you do, then it is irrational and you are guilty of not making rational arguments.
2) Rambling? I have responded very well and backed up absolutely everything I've said. I am certain you would like others to think of it as "rambling."
3) My feeling were never hurt, and there were no problems in my arguments. They are not even my arguments, but merely the arguments of basic logic, rationalism, and science. I'm merely passing on information here, not making grand claims.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
It's an insult to science to say that in order to defend it you need to write about religion the way you have.
|
Then you do not understand where Junior's denialism comes from. The denialism stems from a religious belief that the Bible is a literal document which contains actual information about past events. Junior's belief that all of the events in Genesis as being "real" conflicts with the reality that science tells us. The is not just religion, but fundamentalist religion. This denialist system is what I have been exposing as intellectual fraud. Therefore, it is not "insulting to science." What is insulting to science is that you think the events in Genesis are somehow more "scientific" than other creation accounts. It's merely your own bias as you are a member of the religion that takes that particular myth to heart.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
That doesn't make sense. By that logic one story could represent reality perfectly, and another could be a theater of the absurd, and you'd dismiss them both as being "equally inaccurate."
|
THEY ARE MYTHS. Get it through your head. Definition of myth as according to dictionary.com:
| Quote: |
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. |
Do you actually think the myth of Genesis has a determinable basis in fact? There's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for a single event, even Noah's flood and more recent events which we should be able to nail down with certainty. The world is *not* 6,000-10,000 years old. Junior thinks that there is evidence of a flood, but 99.98% of scientists would disagree with that evidence.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
I see. You're just going to repeat the assertion that Genesis is as inaccurate as other creation stories, even though I already proved you wrong. If that fails you retreat to your backup plan, the tautology of "it's a myth and therefore it's inaccurate and if you show me that it's not inaccurate it's still a myth and therefore it's inaccurate."
|
Your weak attempts at arguing the "non-corporeality, ex-nihilo, and an absolute beginning of time" as being more scientifically accurate than other creation myths have inherent flaws which all depend on how you interpret the Bible. For example, the "absolute beginning of time" is incorrect as time was never mentioned as being created by God, just order out of chaos. Weak interpretations argue that God created time when God creates the Earth and the Heavens. You could interpret "Heavens" any which way you wish. You could interpret the Earth being "without shape" and "empty" in any which way you wish. It's all irrelevant to science. One could even argue that the creation myth found in Pastafarian is much more scientifically accurate. I do not, but one could.
So you have no idea what you're talking about. It leads me to wonder if you've jumped on the nutty creationist bandwagon along with Junior.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Like your endless Wikipedia cut-and-pastes on creation myths? So interesting! So relevant to the discussion of evolution!
|
It is relevant as I mentioned that the creation myth in Genesis is the root of Junior's denialism. It's not really only about bias, but denialism, as it's about denying valid scientific evidence from pre-conceived beliefs. And that's why I provide easily readable information in order to prove my point. If you are uncomfortable with that, then like I said before, don't read my posts.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
This, like so much of your thread, is empty, angry bluster with nothing to back it up. So I'm going to pass over it.
|
This is merely your emotionally charged interpretation of it. Furthermore, you seem to be assigning your own feelings on to me. If I feel any type of emotion here, it's that I feel somewhat amused by your digging yourself into your own trap of intellectual dishonesty, straw men, and logical fallacies. Your reactions to my post show a mixture of agitation, frustration, and irrationality.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Your point was the corporeality of God. Repeat: your point was about corporeality. So this does not "illustrate your point even more."
|
Yes it does, because it shows that God in the Bible can be interpreted as both corporeal or non-corporeal. It doesn't matter, no version is right or wrong (even Junior agrees with me here). My point is that you must not assign literal interpretation to something which is totally ambiguous: an ancient, allegorical, symbolic myth. Keyword: myth.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Do you even notice when you shift the goalposts?
|
As I mentioned before, "my" goalposts are merely your creations meant to distort what I have been arguing in order to make me look bad. They are "straw man goalposts" meant to misrepresent my actual position.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
You falsely accused me of implying that no other Jews would agree with the encyclopedia entry, and you tried to make it out like that was what we were arguing about to begin with. In other words, you tried to shift the goalposts.
|
There was no shifting of goalposts. Your original accusation was that I was trying to say "all of the Jews" read a particular passage referring to the "firmament" literally by presenting an encyclopedia passage from a sect within Judaism. You missed the overall point of my post which was that it is possible for theists to read Genesis as allegorical myth and therefore accept scientific facts, even people from the very religion that wrote the stories. That example was for pointing out that even the Jews can read their own stories as non-factual.
I should not need to point out that there are different branches within Judaism. You even had the impertinence to later accuse me of treating our audience as "dumb," but it is so blatantly obvious that Jews of different factions read Genesis differently. Everyone knows that. It seems as if you are the one guilty of the crime you accused me of. It is you who seems to believe our audience is too dumb to know that there are different sects within religions, and that these differing sects may interpret things differently or have different views on things.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Revealing my faith is a dirty tactic? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
|
You are pretending that I have said that the 'reveal of your faith' in and of itself was a dirty tactic. Another dishonest accusation. It's also an attempt to get in the "last word" to appear credible and thus "win" the debate. But let me show you how you are being deceptive:
What I clearly indicated earlier was that your reasons for labeling me as "condescending" was a dirty trick as I had no idea for knowing you were of the Jewish faith. This is what you wrote to me:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
More hilarity. Now you're telling me to read up on my own religious group! ...btw this should illustrate why some of us have stopped clicking on your links. When they're not irrelevant, they're comically condescending, presuming to teach us what we already know better than you.
|
Comically condescending? Presuming to teach you what you already know better than me? And how am I to know that?
How can I possibly be providing "condescending links" if I did not know you were of the Jewish faith? You reveal that just at that moment in order to make me look like a fool who presumes to teach you what you already know. It's a dirty trick, and a dishonest attack on my character. Period.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
...you constantly *assume* the person you're debating is ignorant (or maybe you just act that way for the lurkers, "playing to the crowd" as it were).
|
All I have done is link to the relevant sources of information which I bring up. If I am not allowed to link, nor am I allowed to cut and paste, nor can I read minds to find out who knows what. What shall I do? Are you trying to revoke my thread privileges again?
When I accuse you of making a straw man, you reply in this style:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Straw man? As Inigo in the Princess Bride says, "You keeping using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
|
It's a weak response to to say the least. It shows how you cannot argue against my valid observation of your straw men tactics. And it exemplifies your desperation in trying to appear "better" or "smarter" than me, inferring that I do not know what "straw man" means. Big time FAIL.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
And by the way, don't play dumb. Don't pretend as if you didn't know that linking to videos on "critical thinking" and "open-mindedness" isn't a way to make your opponent look bad. I'm surprised you haven't linked to something about "How to chew your food like a grownup."
|
Actually, if you even bothered watching those videos, it would explain how not many people actually know how to be skeptical, think critically, or how to know their own bias. I've provided these links because I think they are valid to our discussion. They again related to the problem of "denialism" which is the big cause of fundamentalists rejecting good science. Critical thinking and open-mindedness are paramount to beginning to accept evolution.
Your use of a false comparison (comparing "chewing food like a grownup" to "critical thinking and open-mindedness") is an attempt to simplify my position to the point of absurdity. Furthermore, you are guilty here of doing exactly what you accused me of in the first place: yet another example of you trying to make me look bad. Shame on you.
Furthermore, your replies to my valid advice are nit-picking and sensationalist:
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Huh? That's your answer? "Google is your friend?" If you feel that way, why are you even participating in the thread?
|
The reason I said "Google it" is because anyone can Google evidence for evolution. It's out there, and it is everywhere. But thinking critically, understanding bias, identifying denialism, isn't such an easy task. That information is also available on Google, but people are less willing to look into it and read up about it as people generally assume that they are not biased, or in denial. In fact, Junior probably thinks the word "skeptic" describes the creationist denial of evolution. In reality, it is absolutely NOT skepticism. It is denialism.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Ah, okay, more rules I didn't know about. Note to self: Don't participate in thread unless posts are specifically addressed to you. Brento will get upset, worrying that he's looking bad in front of his lurkers.
|
Don't think that my exposure of how you butt your head into another's conversation without properly understanding it is banning you from the dialogue as you tried to ban me. I was explaining simple conversational etiquette. There's having good manners, and there's having bad manners. If butting in, at least take the time to read a post properly, understand the position of the person making the claim, and do not try to distort their claims or use dirty tactics to try to make them look bad. That's basic board etiquette.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
...you're not even forming rational arguments anymore. So let's take a break. Hopefully someday, maybe months or years from now, some of what I've said will sink in and you'll realize you don't have reality and the world quite as worked out in your mind as you thought you did.
|
1) All of my arguments are perfectly rational.
2) You are not actually serious that someday I will remember HijackedTw1light and have everything "sink in" as I realize oh HijackedTw1light was right all along. Wow, I don't know how the real world works. Haha. That's ridiculous. All I have been doing on this thread is to provide rational, logical, scientific arguments about reality in contrast to those (like Junior) who live in fantasy land.
The reality of the situation is that you are desperately trying to portray me as some angry, irrational person who currently does not have reality and the world worked out as much as I think I do.
Yet time and time again I've absolutely destroyed you in the logic & reason department. All that's left for you to do is nit-pick my writing and try to get in the last word, as my non-reply would make you appear a "winner" in this little argument. Again, I assert that your aim here is not in furthering this thread. It's simply in identifying perceived flaws in my writing and distorting my position which amounts to dishonest personal attack. This is likely because you feel emotional about what I have written in defending science and using logic and reason in explaining how your holy book (Genesis) is not representative of reality.
Let's look at what Junior wrote here in response to your misrepresentation of my posts:
| Junior wrote: |
He's just doing what darwinists and their atheist cohorts have been doing for decades: bulldozing, ridiculing, persecuting and attacking anyone with a different viewpoint. It shows their extreme insecurity. In reality evolutionism represents a new dark age of intolerance, not enlightenment. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler- all of them keen ape cult members, trying to "give evolution a helping hand" with their mass euthanasia and genocide projects.
|
You see? Junior thinks evolution is a viewpoint. Obviously this is due to being in denialism. I have tried to explain what denialism is, but Junior doesn't read my links (or understand them) and you simply accuse me of attacking religion. All I have been doing is defending scientific facts, and explaining why Junior is wrong. I do not even have to "back up" the Theory of Evolution to do this. The Theory is so accepted it is not debated within the scientific community. The only debate is among creationists, political conservatives, I.D. "scientists" and lawyers, and other biased denialists (or merely uninformed / ignorant people).
Junior devolves into conspiracy theories, thinking as if Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are members of some kind of ape-cult. You devolve into personal attacks, misrepresentations of another's position, and weak evidence to support your claims.
In conclusion, I have done some major *** kicking on this thread. Thank you very much. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To learn more about denialism in America concerning global warming and evolution, please watch this presentation.
Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT2pNg4oxYE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brento wrote: |
| In conclusion, I have done some major *** kicking on this thread. Thank you very much. |
Behaving like an ape does not enhance your claims to family ties I'm afriad.
Imitation does not prove ancestry.
You still haven't replied to about 100 points I posted against you earlier in the thread.
The only thing you've kicked away is any credibility you may have formerly posessed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
