Life, The Universe, And All That

[bandcton]

People who publicly fret about rudeness and a perceived lack of "respect" to the detriment of the discussion at hand. Generally they make a lot of noises about a conciliatory approach - again, to the detriment of the discussion at hand.

 

Thank you.

 

bandcton

 

[TAFKAC]

Help me here. What is 'tone trolling'?

 

bandcton

 

Basically it allows opinionated people the right to be rude to those crass enough to disagree with them. I'm an aethiest and probably share many of nacho's views. And I've also formed my views from experience and from testing my parents belief system, and my own. I find evangelical aethiests as difficult to deal with as evangelical christians. Neither can accept that they might be wrong, and reserve the right to shout about it until the cows come home.

 

No one ever wins an argument, or respect, unless they can try to understand where the other person is coming from. Basic rule of engagement, but one that doesn't apply much round here.

[TRVMP]

Help me here. What is 'tone trolling'?

 

bandcton

 

Basically it allows opinionated people the right to be rude to those crass enough to disagree with them. I'm an aethiest and probably share many of nacho's views. And I've also formed my views from experience and from testing my parents belief system, and my own. I find evangelical aethiests as difficult to deal with as evangelical christians. Neither can accept that they might be wrong, and reserve the right to shout about it until the cows come home.

 

No one ever wins an argument, or respect, unless they can try to understand where the other person is coming from. Basic rule of engagement, but one that doesn't apply much round here.

 

[TAFKAC]

I can't quote on here, and it seems neither can you. I didn't say that I found aethiests as annoying as fundamental christians. I don't go in for that level of self hate. I find evangelicals of whatever trait equally annoying, but I'm aware that others will find me equally annoying.

 

I don't feel superior, or that my belief system makes me superior to anyone else. I leave that to others who have been pretty vociferous in flexing their intellectual muscle. I'm all for a bit of toleration. I only wish some others were the same.

[TRVMP]

I can't quote on here, and it seems neither can you. I didn't say that I found aethiests as annoying as fundamental christians. I don't go in for that level of self hate. I find evangelicals of whatever trait equally annoying, but I'm aware that others will find me equally annoying.

 

I don't think you know what evangelism is.

 

I don't feel superior, or that my belief system makes me superior to anyone else. I leave that to others who have been pretty vociferous in flexing their intellectual muscle. I'm all for a bit of toleration. I only wish some others were the same.

 

Who here is anti-toleration, in your view?

[TAFKAC]

I don't think you know what evangelism is.

 

Who here is anti-toleration, in your view?

 

On point 1, i do. I grew up with it. Evangelising is pushing your beliefs onto those that don't necessarily share those views. Most commonly attributed to christians but, in my opinion, can be equally attributed to any belief system.

 

On point 2, the thread is full of intolerance from both camps. A real sense of "the other opinion is rubbish because I can counter it, either with facts or with a belief system."

 

Any views on inaccurate quoting?

[TRVMP]

I don't think you know what evangelism is.

 

Who here is anti-toleration, in your view?

 

On point 1, i do. I grew up with it. Evangelising is pushing your beliefs onto those that don't necessarily share those views. Most commonly attributed to christians but, in my opinion, can be equally attributed to any belief system.

 

I'm not going door to door. I'm posting on a thread which is clearly labled as a discussion about metaphysics and the role of science and religion therein. You really cannot compare this to the kind of evangelism that you grew up with. To cease being "evangelised" by me you need only close a browser window. Compare and contrast that to the priveleged place that goddism has in our society, British government etc. - it's not even the same postcode, much less the same ballpark.

 

On point 2, the thread is full of intolerance from both camps. A real sense of "the other opinion is rubbish because I can counter it, either with facts or with a belief system."

That's not intolerance. That's disagreement. Intolerance would be if we were questioning the right of the other opinion to exist.

 

After that, again, this idea that you're so much better than the rest of us because you transcend facts and beliefs. Facts, garnered from the judicious, falsifiable study of empirical reality and adherence to the rules of logic, are quite literally the only hope the planet has for a non-sectarian, non-violent future, and you're talking about them as if you wouldn't scrape them off your shoe.

 

Any views on inaccurate quoting?

 

Yes, I'm against it.

[TAFKAC]

"I'm not going door to door. I'm posting on a thread which is clearly labled as a discussion about metaphysics and the role of science and religion therein. You really cannot compare this to the kind of evangelism that you grew up with. To cease being "evangelised" by me you need only close a browser window. Compare and contrast that to the priveleged place that goddism has in our society, British government etc. - it's not even the same postcode, much less the same ballpark."

 

Of course you are posting on a thread, and flexing your intellectual muscle. What kind of evangelism did I grow up with? And can an aetheist evengelise to another aethiest?

 

"That's not intolerance. That's disagreement. Intolerance would be if we were questioning the right of the other opinion to exist.

 

After that, again, this idea that you're so much better than the rest of us because you transcend facts and beliefs. Facts, garnered from the judicious, falsifiable study of empirical reality and adherence to the rules of logic, are quite literally the only hope the planet has for a non-sectarian, non-violent future, and you're talking about them as if you wouldn't scrape them off your shoe."

 

But you are, in my opinion, questioning the other persons right to hold that opinion by rubbishing it.

 

I get the feeling that I've really touched a nerve with you. I know you don't think you're putting yourself above everyone else, but some people may get that inference from your posting style.

 

I don't transcend anything, and stop trying to formulate a position or me. I'm capable of doing that myself, and have done so. I'm on the side of the scientists and will happily debate that with people. I just don't see the need to revert to showing how much cleverer I am because i have no religious faith.

 

Do I get an apology for the misquoting. I'm off for a pint. Have a good day.

[maccaboy]

Maccaboy, if you have something better to do please for the love of all that's good don't let us keep you.

 

Delighted to leave the field to you so you can continue to come across as a smallminded erse. You do it ever so well in this thread and others like it.

 

Over to you.......

 

 

 

PS - Irrespective of who made it or didn't make it, there's a great big world out there. You should get out a bit more, maybe you'd enjoy the change from hunching over that keyboard demonstrating your lack of tolerance of other opinions.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TRVMP]

Of course you are posting on a thread, and flexing your intellectual muscle. What kind of evangelism did I grow up with? And can an aetheist evengelise to another aethiest?

 

The kind of evangelism that actually does "push" belief, e.g. through force of law and in schools.

 

I suppose an atheist can evangelise to the "wrong sort" of atheist.

 

But you are, in my opinion, questioning the other persons right to hold that opinion by rubbishing it.

Then your opinion is wrong. I "rubbish" St. Mirren Football Club - I don't want to see them outlawed or persecuted.

 

I get the feeling that I've really touched a nerve with you. I know you don't think you're putting yourself above everyone else, but some people may get that inference from your posting style.

 

Yes, it annoys me a lot when someone condescends to join a thread, shake their head sadly, and basically say "I think you're all as bad as each other" when they don't know what they're talking about.

 

I don't transcend anything, and stop trying to formulate a position or me. I'm capable of doing that myself, and have done so. I'm on the side of the scientists and will happily debate that with people. I just don't see the need to revert to showing how much cleverer I am because i have no religious faith.

 

Neither do I, and thankfully that's not the aim of the enterprise. I'm glad we have that one settled, so you can stop hand-wringing now.

 

Do I get an apology for the misquoting. I'm off for a pint. Have a good day.

 

I've looked over the last page and I don't see where I misquoted you. If I did so, I will apologise unreservedly. Where did I misquote you?

[TRVMP]

Delighted to leave the field to you so you can continue to come across as a smallminded erse.

 

Great! Bye, then.

[Flyerton]

Not sure about the Universe, but the ride into space must be some experience; 0-17,000mph in 8 minutes.

 

Approx dates for the final Space Shuttle missions this year:

 

Discovery STS-133: 24 Feb

Endeavour STS-134: 19 April.

Atlantis STS-135: 28 June

 

After that, everyone going to the International Space Station will have to go from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the desert steppes of Kazakhstan.

 

Shuttle Atlantis launch (solid rocket booster cam)

 

vPQvTgD2quQ&hd=1

[bandcton]

Help me here. What is 'tone trolling'?

 

bandcton

 

Basically it allows opinionated people the right to be rude to those crass enough to disagree with them. I'm an aethiest and probably share many of nacho's views. And I've also formed my views from experience and from testing my parents belief system, and my own. I find evangelical aethiests as difficult to deal with as evangelical christians. Neither can accept that they might be wrong, and reserve the right to shout about it until the cows come home.

 

No one ever wins an argument, or respect, unless they can try to understand where the other person is coming from. Basic rule of engagement, but one that doesn't apply much round here.

 

TAFKAC,

Thanks for reply - not so much for definition of 'tone trolling' (nach0king explained much the same a bit earlier) but for telling me a little bit about yourself and how you come to hold the position you do. I guess that's the kind of thing I find lacking in a lot of this stuff - something about the person behind the Post so that debates can be a little more open and generous. I know that we need to be careful not to reveal our identities on fora such as these (for obvious reasons), but let me reciprocate as best I can. We have quite a bit in common:

 

First religious views formed by parents - in my case, good, kind, but conservative and non-questioning Irish Catholics. I dropped all that after Uni, not as a result of a major intellectual analysis or a sign of revolt, but for less praiseworthy reasons such as - boredom, couldn't see relevance to my life and rejection of the 'magic' and supernatural stuff. Only came back (10-15 years later) through living in a Hertfordshire village where local Vicar had 3 children, roughly same ages as ours and who made friends. We met, talked and I was totally knocked out at meeting someone (in his position!) who shared all the cynicism, doubts that I had and yet could talk intelligently, passionately and powerfully about his faith. Started going back to church - intermittently (didn't matter that it wasn't RC). Stayed like that until Redundancy around 50. This often gives you heightened sense of urgency in life, but was very VERY surprised by my reactions which were to re-discover books (fiction) and, would you believe it, Poetry! Still not fully bought in to whole package, but feel I'm where I need to be. Fascinated by the whole thing.

 

Also, can you help me with some stuff about this thread?

 

Why do I feel I'm being insulted when I am called a Goddist? If others can be atheist, why can't I be a theist? Or a 'religiously-inclined agnostic' which is most accurate description? Am I missing something?

 

Why do I feel under severe attack from some people who, if they read what I said, would see that I readily concede a lot of their arguments such as, apalling historical track record of organised Christianity, and necessity for faith Base (Bible, tradition, dogma etc) which must either respond to what science is telling it or wither and die?

 

Why is everybody concentrating on the low hanging fruit - those obvious areas (like evolution, Darwin, creation etc) where S wins hands down? The big breakthroughs will come further up the tree at the the real jewels in the religious crown (and where S could really deliver a killer blow but seems somehow to want to avoid)?

 

This time I really am off to bed. hanks again and no doubt we'll e-meet again.

 

bandcton

[TRVMP]

Why is everybody concentrating on the low hanging fruit - those obvious areas (like evolution, Darwin, creation etc) where S wins hands down? The big breakthroughs will come further up the tree at the the real jewels in the religious crown (and where S could really deliver a killer blow but seems somehow to want to avoid)?

 

This time I really am off to bed. hanks again and no doubt we'll e-meet again.

 

bandcton

 

What is science "wanting to avoid"? Remember that science can, by definition, concern itself only with areas that can offer us evidence to study.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

What is science "wanting to avoid"? Remember that science can, by definition, concern itself only with areas that can offer us evidence to study.

Indeed, Science is completely and utterly impartial. If evidence that supported ID or creationism were ever to become available it would be peer reviewed and its validity would be confirmed or dismissed with the same rigour and fairness as any other evidence or theory. It has no agenda, other than discovering the truth.

[xj2006]

Indeed, Science is completely and utterly impartial. If evidence that supported ID or creationism were ever to become available it would be peer reviewed and its validity would be confirmed or dismissed with the same rigour and fairness as any other evidence or theory. It has no agenda, other than discovering the truth.

 

yes, I agree, but ID scientists can't get their findings peer reviewed because if they do somehow manage it, the atheist scientists take a hissy fit and brand it as "pseudo science".

 

its a bit of a catch 22 situation in more ways that one.

 

A lot of highly educated scientists believe in ID, but when they "come out" they are often expelled or demoted for their secret shame.

 

This is where an agenda does actually come into it, sadly.

 

As I said earlier, for historical events, a comparative scientific method can be applied. We can ALL perform our own scientific inquiry by just comparing and contrasting based on our prior understanding.

 

In my (limited) life experience I have yet to encounter something that forms itself into a fully functioning, working machine with no intelligent input. So why should I take a leap of faith and believe in abiogenesis? To me, that would require an even bigger leap of faith, as I have no idea how "science" will ever find out how the first life came into existence.

 

I guess all I am saying is every theory should be explored, no matter how whacky it may sound, and scientists should not be so insecure, because true science will ALWAYS win in the end.

[TAFKAC]

The kind of evangelism that actually does "push" belief, e.g. through force of law and in schools.

 

What do you base that on? My old man was a lay preacher, but don't let stop you making wrong assumptions.

 

I suppose an atheist can evangelise to the "wrong sort" of atheist.

 

Oh dear, " the wrong sort of atheist"! That's mud slinging, not debate.

 

Then your opinion is wrong. I "rubbish" St. Mirren Football Club - I don't want to see them outlawed or persecuted.

Yes, it annoys me a lot when someone condescends to join a thread, shake their head sadly, and basically say "I think you're all as bad as each other" when they don't know what they're talking about.

 

It may well be. As may yours.

 

Neither do I, and thankfully that's not the aim of the enterprise. I'm glad we have that one settled, so you can stop hand-wringing now.

I've looked over the last page and I don't see where I misquoted you. If I did so, I will apologise unreservedly. Where did I misquote you?

Look at your cartoon. You didn't read my quote and got on your high horse. I'm not bothered particularly, as I enjoy reading most of our posts. I find most of them provoking, in a positive way. But a lot, I find do the opposite. I suppose it depends on what your intention is. And if I've mis-read that then I apologise.

 

[xj2006]

Why do I feel I'm being insulted when I am called a Goddist? If others can be atheist, why can't I be a theist? Or a 'religiously-inclined agnostic' which is most accurate description? Am I missing something?

 

I too am not too fond of being called a Goddist or IDiot etc

 

I think it de-values the (often valid) point being made, detracts from the dignity of proceedings, and ultimately makes the person come across as being the smug know it all geek at school who liked to belittle others with differing opinions to theirs. And we all know what people thought of "that guy"...

 

I am sure however that if we all had this conversation over a pint in the pub things would have been a bit more cordial.

 

I suppose that is me "tone-trolling" again but I couldn't care less.

[TAFKAC]

TAFKAC,

Thanks for reply - not so much for definition of 'tone trolling' (nach0king explained much the same a bit earlier) but for telling me a little bit about yourself and how you come to hold the position you do. I guess that's the kind of thing I find lacking in a lot of this stuff - something about the person behind the Post so that debates can be a little more open and generous. I know that we need to be careful not to reveal our identities on fora such as these (for obvious reasons), but let me reciprocate as best I can. We have quite a bit in common:

 

First religious views formed by parents - in my case, good, kind, but conservative and non-questioning Irish Catholics. I dropped all that after Uni, not as a result of a major intellectual analysis or a sign of revolt, but for less praiseworthy reasons such as - boredom, couldn't see relevance to my life and rejection of the 'magic' and supernatural stuff. Only came back (10-15 years later) through living in a Hertfordshire village where local Vicar had 3 children, roughly same ages as ours and who made friends. We met, talked and I was totally knocked out at meeting someone (in his position!) who shared all the cynicism, doubts that I had and yet could talk intelligently, passionately and powerfully about his faith. Started going back to church - intermittently (didn't matter that it wasn't RC). Stayed like that until Redundancy around 50. This often gives you heightened sense of urgency in life, but was very VERY surprised by my reactions which were to re-discover books (fiction) and, would you believe it, Poetry! Still not fully bought in to whole package, but feel I'm where I need to be. Fascinated by the whole thing.

 

Also, can you help me with some stuff about this thread?

 

Why do I feel I'm being insulted when I am called a Goddist? If others can be atheist, why can't I be a theist? Or a 'religiously-inclined agnostic' which is most accurate description? Am I missing something?

 

Why do I feel under severe attack from some people who, if they read what I said, would see that I readily concede a lot of their arguments such as, apalling historical track record of organised Christianity, and necessity for faith Base (Bible, tradition, dogma etc) which must either respond to what science is telling it or wither and die?

 

Why is everybody concentrating on the low hanging fruit - those obvious areas (like evolution, Darwin, creation etc) where S wins hands down? The big breakthroughs will come further up the tree at the the real jewels in the religious crown (and where S could really deliver a killer blow but seems somehow to want to avoid)?

 

This time I really am off to bed. hanks again and no doubt we'll e-meet again.

 

bandcton

I think the constant use of goddist as a term of abuse is what sparked me. Theist is fine, and non-confrontational, as is atheist.

 

What is science "wanting to avoid"? Remember that science can, by definition, concern itself only with areas that can offer us evidence to study.

 

Completely. Science is about setting up a premise and either proving or disproving it. Neither of which can be done without evidence.

 

[xj2006]

TAFKAC

 

put [ quote ] (without the spaces) at the beginning of the quote and [ /quote ] (again without the spaces) at the end of the quote

 

then put your own reply in between

 

hope this helps