Subject:
|
Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:12:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> My son wandered in and logged me off when I stepped away and wiped out my
> almost finished reply. I'm not going to go back and type it up all again
> for two reasons. One is that it is too much work. Second is that all I'm
> doing is being forced to infinitely repeat myself. Same explanations that
> were previously ignored, same reliance by Dave K. on the same Straw Man
> arguments, misrepresentations, denials of things he previously said,
> emotional appeals, etc.
>
> For Dave K.'s reliance on the aforesaid techniques, see Dave!'s examination
> of those. He sums it all up nicely and there really isn't a need to repeat
> them. I will limit myself to only one point:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Once more mistaken, this time in the 'I change my story', and also with no
> > proof of the supposed crime of backpedalling. Again, as with the straw man
> > arguement, saying that I'm backpedalling does not mean that I, indeed,
> > backpedalled (ohhh, no allusionary devices to be found! Eep!).
> >
> > I will reiterate--*if* *I* ever said that evolution wsn't a science and *if*
> > *I* said that evolution denies God, *then* I retract and have since that
> > very statement updated my theories as to what makes the world work.
> >
> > Since *I* know that *I* have appreciated the theory of evolution since well
> > before the internet existed, no such statement should be *anywhere* on the
> > internet. (if there is any such statement, I reserve the right to read it
> > and then take myself out back and slap me around a bit... ;) )
>
> Message 17061 on lugnet.off-topic.debate, direct cut and paste of what David
> Koudys wrote:
>
> "And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
> based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago."
>
> This is the entirety of the paragraph.
>
> I can do this with other claims you have made if I want to go to the effort,
> but since I established my credibility, I think it incumbent on you to go
> back and check your own messages first.
>
> Bruce
Good researching. I did take myself out back and slapped myself around a
bit--well, figuratively anyway.
And I have no problem admitting that, in that particular debate about Ev'n
vs Cr'm, things did get a little outta hand (some even had to 'step out'),
and I will be the first to admit that I was closer to the side of the
creationists, for these were, to me (and it's becoming quite apparent that
I'm doing alotta misreading...), attacks about the concept of God vs. science...
In one instance I wrote (16684):
Quoteth Dave K
> Everyone can believe what they, as individuals, want to believe. So you
> don't believe in a creator--seriously, that's your own opinion--stop forcing
> that opinion on me.
In another, which started the ball for what I wanted to discuss, was (16891):
Quoteth Dave K
"
> This is a totally different topic, but showing your bias against creationism
> by saying it isn't reality, is as bigoted as those Bible thumpers who say
> that the world came into existence on October 4, 6006 BC and dumbly adhere
> to that date.
> I myself do tend to err more on the side that God started the ball rolling,
> but I wouldn't say Creationism *is* the de-facto reality anymore than I
> would say that our reality rests on the idea we evolved from amino acids.
> We today don't know what happened back then for certain. We can make
> educated guesses but they would be guesses, or theories. Theories are *not*
> laws and, as such, should not be stated as such to be Reality.
"
So yes, I can construe from all this that I 'erred' on the 'other side', but
I even went on to say 'I wouldn't say Creationism *is* the de-facto reality...'.
I support the idea of *theories*.
And in my tirades here, and about, I tried to get across the idea that, for
*me*, there is no Science Vs. God, for they don't share the same arena. One
is finite, the other is infinite.
Regarding specifically the quote you found, let me throw one in the mix from
thereabouts:
Quoteth Dave K
"
> I'll look into that right after this post, but I do not need evolution
> 'proven'. The issue with *some* Creationists is that they believe that the
> inspired word of God *has* to be taken literally at all times. Well, if so,
> I want my 10 wives and a bunch of concubines, kplsthx! I wanna be able to
> sell my daughter into slavery to pay off my debts, and, for the love of
> everything that's holy, no one can wear purple!! (don't ask me for exact
> passages but they be there...)
"
So *my* stance on the ideas of Creationism are pretty much laid out right
here. As for this quote:
Quoteth Yours Truly (16911)
"
> And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
> based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago."
"
First, I did *not* refute evolution--I said it happened a long time
ago--splitting hairs, I know, but it is there, I did say it--I said
"evolution happened". The debate about macro/micro evolution = (or !=, as
the case may be) each other, is far from this debate.
So dispensing with the splitting of hairs...
My mistake, and it was a mistake, was letting my passions run in that debate
over there. That was a very heated debate, and I did not let the 'better
angels of my nature' guide me. I genuinely apologize.
I know that the theory of evolution is well inside the realm of science.
Scientists, after all, came up with it, and continue to refine it as new
data becomes available.
Do I think the theory of evolution is valid?
Quoteth Dave! (16900)
"
> Then let's restate it this way: Of the explanations currently on the
> table for how we arrived where we are today, evolution provides more
> complete, explanatory answers and makes more accurate, testable predictions
> than Creationism, and understanding of evolution has led to greater advances
> in biology and medicine than 100 centuries of pre-Darwin understanding.
> Therefore, by the criteria employed by the Western world for at least
> several centuries, evolution is a better rational, explanatory model of
> reality than Creationism, and acceptance of evolution as an explanation
> requires fewer (and smaller) leaps of faith than does belief in Creationism.
"
Is possibly the clearest way I could phrase what I think (Dave! has such a
good way with wording, btw--just thought I'd mention that).
Now lets look at what was said in this thread, shall we?
Quoteth Larry (and I hate to do this to ya Lar...) (17060)
"
> I am sorry but christmas is not a trademark, it is not in danger of being
> owned by someone else, and further I have no reciprocal respect for it,
> since christians show me such discourtesy, and so strongly disrespect me and
> my beliefs as to make my life difficult. "As ye reap so shall ye sow", I
> think the saying goes.
> I'm sorry if my lack of respect for christmas and christianity vexes you,
> but personally, I find little to respect in christianity. I do not have to
> use the term as you designate, as it's not a proper noun the way I use it.
> In fact there is much about christianity that is quite improper, using a
> different sense of the word "proper", but I digress.
"
"I have no reciprocal respect for it [Christianity], since christians show
me such discourtesy." "I find little to respect in christianity"--Well, If
I'm one of the little things, then we're okay, but I think that that's not
what Larry is saying.
I mention that I dislike 'those that do something' When I say those, I
specifically mean the ones that *are* doing it--Significance? *I'm* a
Christian, *I* have never been discourteous or not shown Larry respect.
Polite banter and quipps thrown about is one thing, but having 'no respect'
for Christians...
It's either inherently in the wording that reduces, or it's a conscious
effort to reduce.
I even further assert (17066),
"
> I find little to respect from any fundamentalist group that pushes its
> worldview on others. And my form of Christianity has nothing to do with,
> and outright condemns the fundamentalists.
"
(and I did get the baseball analogy wrong as well--my bad...)
And Larry went on to clarify,
"
> I'm also sorry that christianity IS so personally offensive to me, I wish it
> weren't so, but it is, 2000 years of western history can't be all wrong.
> Are you a great person? Ya. Is David K? Ya too.
"
(thanks Larry!)
And I agree with him on this very point--in the history of Christianity, we
have been idiots. The only thing I can say is, I'm trying to make a
positive difference. That's it. I apologize on behalf of my chosen
religion--there have been, and probably now are, and will more than likely
continue to be, idiots in Christianity.
And after a flurry of posts about irrelevant (to me) Christian doctorine
which doesn't affect my *faith* in God, I state
"
> I uphold a system in which Larry can believe what he chooses to believe, as
> I uphold a system in which John can choose to believe what he chooses to as
> well.
"
Further in the same post is where the focus of the current thread took form,
"
> > I try to be entirely rational, that is,
> > entirely human. Don't succeed, but I do try.
>
> As in, rationality is all there is to be human, and nothing else can be
> considered to be as human.
"
And therein is *my* issue, Richard, Dave!, and whoever else is still in the
room.
Did I go on too much about people believing in science so much so that it
became their god? Well, after reading the flurry of replies, I'd say yes.
I mean, Chris got it right from the get-go:
> "
> I don't believe in any god because there is not a reasonable body of evidence
> to support such belief.
>
> When you've been deeply indoctrinated, or when the Lord has whispered into >your
> heart, you don't need evidence. I accept that. But neither has happened to
> me. I was left to make my own choices and I do so based on my perception and
> understanding of reality. It's pretty simple, really.
>
> Chris
"
And note that there is no condescension, no tone of arrogant authority.
Again, with Hop-Frog:
"
No, it's a personal choice. It is also a rejection of faith-based beliefs.
"
Then we start to develop into the discussion, first Chris (replying to me):
"
> > But there is more to life than just the physical universe.
>
> Like what?
>
> > Science is *not* the end all of understanding.
>
> I have not personally discovered a method of inquiry that stands up to >scrutiny
> as well as science does. So what do you mean?
"
Which isn't that bad if his 'Like what' question accepts the annswer,
"something outside science"
and Chris again (replying to John):
"
> Truthfully, I try not to get into this discussion any more because to me it
> seems clear that your beliefs are the result of deep programming and childhood
> trauma. Only the right combination of luck, education, and intelligence (it
> seems) helps people to break their indoctrination. Since I believ that a
> fairly significant wrong was done to you, I feel sorry for you (much as I
> expect -- as a good Christian, you feel sorry for me :-). But for me to
> express feeling sorry for you is condescending. So where do we go with this?
"
Where do we go indeed? 'Only the right combination of luck, education, and
intelligence (it seems) helps people break their indoctrination.' Meaning
that those who are 'indoctrinated' are not educated, intelligent (or lucky).
Did I reduce the arguement? Did I male that into a straw man?
Further, 'Since I believe that a fairly significant wrong was done to you,
I feel sorry for you'. The wrong being Johns belief? Is faith wrong? Is
belief wrong? Maybe in green faeries, but if ohn believes there's a God, if
John has *faith* that there's a God, then there is 'no significant wrong' at
all, is there?
Chris further demonstrates that he *knows* it's condescending--feeling sorry
for that person *because* of his indoctrinated beliefs are not intelligent,
uneducated (and again, not lucky) is akin to saying 'I feel sorry for you,
you're just too dumb to get what you 'believe' is wrong.
The good bit is that Chris, once again, said something great and inspiring
(for me, anyway)
"
> But my map certainly takes me somewhere other than yours. My map is about
> loving on this earth for the sole purpose of being loved in return. It shows
> the way to feel good physically because that's probably all there is and if
> there's an after life then you can worry about feeling good there when you get
> there. My map shows me to keep thinking about what seems like "right and
> wrong" and to figure it all out myself because no one else can tell me.
"
Then Hop-Frog had many good points to say, except he kept using 'wacky' and
'wacko Xians'. Now the issue he was describing was,
"
> When did the deeply private and personal issue of one's relationship to >spiritual matters (including a complete lack of such a
> relationship in the first place) become some sort automatic invitation for
> every wacko Xtian to start yammering on and on about god?
"
And I fully agree with him. It is said that Republicans (mostly 'Christian
Right') want to reduce the size of gov't until it's small enuf to fit into
your bedroom.
Christianity has no place inquiring into your lifestyle choices, so I agree
with Hop-Frog's principle, I disagree with his wording.
And the first twist goes to (at least the first one I found)(drum roll
please)... Chris (in response to my post):
"
> > What makes the body happy in turn, I think, would also make the soul happy,
> > and vice versa. Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
> > soul. Whoever is spouting that brand of whatever hasn't understood the
> > simple and undeniable idea that God created the body, with all it's ability
> > to experience pleasure. Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
> > happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
> > these things?
>
> OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to >covet
> the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a sin to >nail
> your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her husband does >too?
>
> There seems to be no lee-way in the commandments.
"
I asked 'Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
soul...where in my bible does it say to deny these things (as in pleasure, a
la happiness, sensualness, etc)'? And then we went on a moral relativism
tangent, which did not address the question. I was told I was wrong when I
called Chris on his 'twistedness', however, I assert to you, it's right
there--you can see it. Once the quesiton is answered, we can *then* go on
and talk about the moral, ethical and other implications of banging your
neighbours wife, which has *nothing* to do with a flawed concept that states
'to be Christian is to deny the body', which I was writing in response to
Richard,
"
> Just for the sake of argument, let's assume something like the soul and the
> body co-exist. Why deny the body and favor the soul? This kind of duality
> is something I find very peculiar. Who says the body and soul are
> separable? Maybe the body and soul are indivisible. Why not valorize both
> the body and the soul together? Couldn't the things that make the flesh
> happy also make the soul happy, simultaneously? Just a thought...
"
I was pointing out to him that I agree with his very idea, that the body and
soul were intertwinded, and inseparable, which was the topic at hand, and
the sex with consenting adults was a twist, and a pretty good tangent, that
I also appreciated reading. No harm, no foul.
And at the end of the moral relativism theread, I distinctly recall me
saying something along the lines of...
"
> I would want a system where I can live the way I want to, to experience joy,
> happiness, and keep the burdens of pain and suffering to a minimum. I would
> want others to respect my personal choices, as long as they don't interfere
> with others doing what they what to do. I respect your choices and opinions
> as long as they are not detrimental to others. Heck, if they're detrimental
> to yourself, I won't like it, but you have that freedom of choice--your bed,
> you sleep in it.
"
Which was my way of saying 'you live your life, I'll live mine.'
(which Larry agreed with, and had some more valid points to say, but that's
a discussion for another time.)
So we get to it, the crux of why I continue to go on and on an on...
Forgetting my 'flawed' ideas (for just reading thru the entire thread, one
hting is painfully reinforced in me--I have much to learn) forgetting
various emotional appeals and such, forget that even I'm a Christian, the
root arguement is:
"
> So yes, the bottom line for me is the scientific method is wonderful for
> investigating that which can be understood by science (i.e. the physical
> universe). To say it's good for *everything* is making science into a god.
> That would be my assertion.
"
If we can agree, then we can all go home. I'll even take out the i.e.
physical universe bit and not try to reduce science to *just* the physical
universe.
I have read that most agree, so I'm done.
> > Next!<<
Dave K.
-as an aside, after reading most of these posts, I will put forth the
premise--"Those who are attracted to the domain of LEGO, also seem to be
well read and well learned folk."
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
