Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jeeze, he contradicted himself ten times and I really don't think he Knows he did.
be that as it may. Fundy-mentals, We know how they handle people that only seek the truth and only want to help other people through teaching, explaining, and using the students experience as the foundation of learning. before the internet they crucified them. Now they just disengage, change quotes, quote out of context, or post sheer volume of nonsense to keep their "faith" alive.
One group of dopes thinks it book based truth and the other think its anti-book based truth. Remember, put a dog in any room or place you want. It still acts like a dog. It has no choice; that doesn't make it "sinful"; just dangerous. Like a 'car" is dangerous. Thats what jesus meant, and I claim he may have died alright but he didn't wake up and fly away. It doesn't matter to the truth of what he said.
I asked you why/when would it be ok to render my brothers lack of belief in the ort cloud null and void.
So when challenged to name these contradictions, you refuse .
Why am I not surprised .
As to your question, there is no set answer . Why do you think there would be only one right answer to that ? Is your brother an adult with a life and career already established, so that the knowledge would be of no significant value to him? Is he a student needing to understand correct science as he prepares for adulthood, so that the benefit of learning not just about the Oort Cloud ( if you are going to try and impress with astronomy stuff , you should really learn how to spell it ) but much other science would have a positive impact in his life ?
Is there some reason you feel compelled to change his mind on an issue of probably little relevance to him? And if these answers don't satisfy you then explain your meaning clearer and let's get to the gist of what you are driving at .
But I want you to name the contradictions in my posts you claim exist . Let's hear them .IF you can do more than mealy mouth around with GR about these supposed contradictions .
Last edited by wallflash; 05-29-2016 at 07:41 PM..
You can think that if you want...you'd just be wrong, as usual.
I dig high-octane exchanges ..and post to encourage them (and have always admitted that I do)...why would ever intentionally stop what I worked to instigate and perpetuate?
I may phase out of a thread that is played and gotten boring...but if it's at a full boil, that's when I dig it the most.
MEE MEEP!!
And yet despite your claims , we have more than one instance of you abruptly leaving a thread when challenged on a point , and later excusing it by whining that other posters were mean and reported your posts .
So, is your issue here a language barrier problem , a reading comprehension problem , or simply a problem of biased reading ?
You can start proving your integrity by stopping all the childish personal attacks on everyone you disagree with - demonstrate that you can engage in civil discourse with people who hold to other beliefs, finding away to present your perspective without denigrating them in the process.
Not quite. It makes divinity non-personal. The word "impersonal" has specific connotations that do not apply here ("not influenced by, showing, or involving personal feelings"). Pantheism is typified by the exact opposite of the impersonal. Sagan's words typify pantheism: "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." Magnificence, reverence and awe can only be perceived by way of feelings.
So what pantheism does is make divinity immanent. It isn't some wizened old man with a white beard making conscience (and perhaps capricious) decisions about individual people. It is simply a natural process. Nothing up the sleeve, nothing hidden behind a curtain. Still magnificent. Still awe-inspiring. Still worthy of reverence.
So when challenged to name these contradictions, you refuse .
Why am I not surprised .
As to your question, there is no set answer . Why do you think there would be only one right answer to that ? Is your brother an adult with a life and career already established, so that the knowledge would be of no significant value to him? Is he a student needing to understand correct science as he prepares for adulthood, so that the benefit of learning not just about the Oort Cloud ( if you are going to try and impress with astronomy stuff , you should really learn how to spell it ) but much other science would have a positive impact in his life ?
Is there some reason you feel compelled to change his mind on an issue of probably little relevance to him? And if these answers don't satisfy you then explain your meaning clearer and let's get to the gist of what you are driving at .
But I want you to name the contradictions in my posts you claim exist . Let's hear them .IF you can do more than mealy mouth around with GR about these supposed contradictions .
I went back and looked and found only 2 things that I saw. They were contradictions on the notion that you don't mind pantheist believing. You will have to say you do or you dont, you cant hav both. But, in this case, I overstated it and I WAS/AM WRONG.
no, you are mistaken again. It is not a challenge to me, you are not a challenge. If you are into spelling and content is lessoned, that's on you. I used to worry too about spelling. Now I am only interested in content. In fact, when a texted resonates with me, I go back and list the facts to make sure I wasn't hood winked. I did this with milli and ex-fundy. I was hood winked.
Don't bring the area of "science" into this discussion. We are talking about when it may be appropriate or inappropriate to render someone's personal need null and void. Stay on topic please.
to topic:
That is right, there is no set answer.
That's what we have been saying. And you keep telling us we are wrong. Everything you said is correct. For example: A pantheist god fits nicely with the notions of the ort cloud, dark energy, and dark matter. It fits because the amount of evidence for these three conclusion isn't so clear and very little types of observations. We have tried to point this out to you.
To my brother, who is old and life is set, the ort cloud doesn't mean a whole lot. And most times I don't care what he says. His opinion in null and void to me really. But there are most certainly times when his opinion on the subject needs to be addressed as null and void.
1) If I am talking to somebody who is interested in just learning about the ort cloud and he walks up and says "Ah, don't listen to him, they don't have any evidence anyway." I know I do this in Christian forums. I am wrong for doing it sometimes too. But I have to when they talk science.
2) what if some one comes up and asked me "I know the evidence is thin, but what is out there?" Shouldn't I tell them "something" is out there and causing these things to happen as we see them? Should my brother come up and say "don't even think about them, they are meaningless? Don't answer, we both know he shouldn't.
3) What if I over hear my brother telling people there is no evidence for the ort cloud? The comets can be coming from anywhere? That the comets are totally random events? ... This one is tricky, be careful how you answer.
These are just some interactions. And you can make up more. But let me end with your notion. I should not tell my brother that he is wrong for saying the "Oort" cloud is meaningless to him MOST TIMES.
I would say, to him "could you say you don't know anything about the Oort cloud, "Something is out there" and I don't know a thing about it, but it is meaningless to me anyway."
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-30-2016 at 06:55 AM..
You can start proving your integrity by stopping all the childish personal attacks on everyone you disagree with - demonstrate that you can engage in civil discourse with people who hold to other beliefs, finding away to present your perspective without denigrating them in the process.
I have said this already but I guess it bears repeating . Your opinion is of no concern to me, so I feel no need to prove anything to you . I get rough and tumble when others get that way. That this may not sit well with you does not matter to me .
I went back and looked and found only 2 things that I saw. They were contradictions on the notion that you don't mind pantheist believing. You will have to say you do or you dont, you cant hav both. But, in this case, I overstated it and I WAS/AM WRONG.
There were no contradictions , but since you admit you overstated it I will leave it at that and not pursue it any further . Not many admit errors, so I do acknowledge and appreciate your willingness to do so.
Quote:
no, you are mistaken again. It is not a challenge to me, you are not a challenge. If you are into spelling and content is lessoned, that's on you. I used to worry too about spelling. Now I am only interested in content. In fact, when a texted resonates with me, I go back and list the facts to make sure I wasn't hood winked. I did this with milli and ex-fundy. I was hood winked.
Don't bring the area of "science" into this discussion. We are talking about when it may be appropriate or inappropriate to render someone's personal need null and void. Stay on topic please.
My response , and my spelling policing, was strictly due to your comment about not needing a sledgehammer when your pinkie would do . You threw down a gauntlet, and I accepted it . That you do not know how to spell something that's Basic Astronomy 101 shows that you are not as learned in that area as you wished to pretend with your sledgehammer and pinkie comment . But it started with your denigrating comment .
And you brought the science into the discussion with the Oort Cloud question .
Quote:
to topic:
That is right, there is no set answer.
That's what we have been saying. And you keep telling us we are wrong. Everything you said is correct. For example: A pantheist god fits nicely with the notions of the ort cloud, dark energy, and dark matter. It fits because the amount of evidence for these three conclusion isn't so clear and very little types of observations. We have tried to point this out to you.
To my brother, who is old and life is set, the ort cloud doesn't mean a whole lot. And most times I don't care what he says. His opinion in null and void to me really. But there are most certainly times when his opinion on the subject needs to be addressed as null and void.
1) If I am talking to somebody who is interested in just learning about the ort cloud and he walks up and says "Ah, don't listen to him, they don't have any evidence anyway." I know I do this in Christian forums. I am wrong for doing it sometimes too. But I have to when they talk science.
2) what if some one comes up and asked me "I know the evidence is thin, but what is out there?" Shouldn't I tell them "something" is out there and causing these things to happen as we see them? Should my brother come up and say "don't even think about them, they are meaningless? Don't answer, we both know he shouldn't.
3) What if I over hear my brother telling people there is no evidence for the ort cloud? The comets can be coming from anywhere? That the comets are totally random events? ... This one is tricky, be careful how you answer.
These are just some interactions. And you can make up more. But let me end with your notion. I should not tell my brother that he is wrong for saying the "Oort" cloud is meaningless to him MOST TIMES.
I would say, to him "could you say you don't know anything about the Oort cloud, "Something is out there" and I don't know a thing about it, but it is meaningless to me anyway."
You are in error here . Once again, my position has been that it's fine for people to believe in pantheism. I don't care , and do not oppose it in the least . It is (normally) as harmless and tolerant a belief as there is . My point is , and has always been , that pantheists don't have the right to decide that atheism or agnosticism FOR ALL has been rendered null and void because THEY choose to believe in pantheism .
So you continue to accuse me of an action I have not committed .
There were no contradictions , but since you admit you overstated it I will leave it at that and not pursue it any further . Not many admit errors, so I do acknowledge and appreciate your willingness to do so.
My response , and my spelling policing, was strictly due to your comment about not needing a sledgehammer when your pinkie would do . You threw down a gauntlet, and I accepted it . That you do not know how to spell something that's Basic Astronomy 101 shows that you are not as learned in that area as you wished to pretend with your sledgehammer and pinkie comment . But it started with your denigrating comment .
And you brought the science into the discussion with the Oort Cloud question .
You are in error here . Once again, my position has been that it's fine for people to believe in pantheism. I don't care , and so not oppose it in the least . It is as harmless and tolerant a belief as there is . My point is , and has always been , that pantheists don't have the right to decide that atheism FOR ALL has been rendered null and void because THEY choose to believe in pantheism .
So you continue to accuse me of an action I have not committed .
Screw spelling. You need it. that's fine. And believe me, I never throw down a gauntlet with and unarmed person in a battle of whit. If they become to troublesome I just snuff them. As I did here.
You won't answer the question because you statement is a special case for you. So outside of that case is not real for you. It does not exist. In science, we don't know many things so if our solutions can predict more conditional changes the more valid it becomes.
I said you are not out for just "how the universe works". I predicted you would never answer my question because you are out for revenge and you are trying to make your limited world on level ground with the pantheist world view. I predicted it three times. three times I changed up the wording as to give you a reasonable change. But, you have proven again, unreasonable people can't act reasonably can they.
The reasonable answer is when a person pushes off observations in favor of personal needs that person should be clear about it. No pantheist should tell you what to believe. But you can't tell someone either.
My brothers lack of belief in the Ort cloud is null and void because he doesn't know enough, so his reasoning is meaningless. Your reasoning is less than null and void because you are only out for revenge.
Your reasoning is deceitful. I predicted three times you would not answer reasonable questions because of you emotional state. And you didn't. Three times.
Steam Rolled
You lose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
