|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 12:49:03 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Here you're not allowed to judge for yourself. In certain forums here the moderators swiftly remove anything that counters the "accepted truth" or could be perceived as "bearing false witness" to be sure none of the flock scurry off to the dark side where we decide for ourselves. Enjoy it though. I'm sure the protection is comforting.
Critical thinking is allowed here. Evolutionists are also allowed to present their position as well. Here you are, presenting your negative views about this forum, and no one is banning you. But name calling and personal attacks are not allowed.
quote:
Oh the irony, and I repeatedly allow "lashing out" to go completely unmentioned from you lot. Otherwise nothing would get done. What I won't allow is defamation of my character.
I disagreed with you, I did not "lash out" against you. Yet you claimed that I "lashed out" against you. I think that most people on these forums will easily be able to see that. You also accused Jhud of "lashing out" against you when he did not. No one "lashed out" against you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:00:02 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Critical thinking is allowed here. Evolutionists are also allowed to present their position as well. Here you are, presenting your negative views about this forum, and no one is banning you. But name calling and personal attacks are not allowed.
Ah yes but don't dare try to comfort a person who falls asleep in fear for her eternal soul each night because she's not sure if she is saved, especially if you do it by explaining to her that mortality is what gives us purpose and that her life will be more vivid and bright if she accepts her mortality and abandons the "bronze age mysticism and superstition." Imagine trying to help someone on an evolution forum who was having marriage trouble. Imagine you say something like "I know you don't believe as I do but when I'm having the trouble you're having I turn to the lord and pray, and he's always there for me." Now imagine it gets deleted because the big mean "evolution moderator" doesn't want you preaching that false stuff on his site. You would go tell it on the mountain that those evolutionists are so scared and they won't even allow christians to try to help people on their sites. You would tell everyone, "mention god and you get banned over there." And you would know it was because deep down they knew you were right.
You're right that I'm being allowed to write these things now, but we'll see how long it lasts.
quote:
I disagreed with you, I did not "lash out" against you. Yet you claimed that I "lashed out" against you. I think that most people on these forums will easily be able to see that. You also accused Jhud of "lashing out" against you when he did not. No one "lashed out" against you.
You'll have to quote where I claimed you lashed out. I thought it was that you agreed with Jhud and he had lashed out, quite agressively in fact.
But eventually you did something much worse. You misrepresented my name and made it look like I had used very negative language. The assumption for follow on readers could have been that you caught me red handed and clicked quote before I got time to edit my post. They could have believed those really were my words.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:08:16 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
But eventually you did something much worse. You misrepresented my name and made it look like I had used very negative language. The assumption for follow on readers could have been that you caught me red handed and clicked quote before I got time to edit my post. They could have believed those really were my words.
That was not my intent and this is just silly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:09:52 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You'll have to quote where I claimed you lashed out
I linked to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:11:42 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
But eventually you did something much worse. You misrepresented my name and made it look like I had used very negative language. The assumption for follow on readers could have been that you caught me red handed and clicked quote before I got time to edit my post. They could have believed those really were my words.
That was not my intent and this is just silly.
you wouldn't think that if you were ever on the receving end of the censorship here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:30:39 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You'll have to quote where I claimed you lashed out
I linked to it.
Ok, I went and dug up what you were talking about and I think I completely understand you now.
Is this the line you're talking about?
quote:
What Jhud said was more of the same demonstration of an emotional attachment to a way of thinking and then lashing out against any perceived threat for the sake of maintaining the vitally important belief system, just as I have mentioned above.
If so I know what your problem is. If you took this line to mean that I thought Jhud was lashing out at me then you have a low reading comprehension level. This is sincerely not a dig. It's common and it would explain SOOO much of what you've seemed to have trouble comprehending in my posts. The quote above says that Jhud "lashes out against any perceived threat to his vitally important belief system. You took it to mean that I was the threat he was lashing out against, but the threat wasn't me. It was evolutionary theory. I thought his first post to me in this thread was quote harsh so I think that's what I must have thought you meant at first.
Now, I'll admit that I didn't make it as clear as it could possibly have been by including "by lashing out against any perceived threat to the belief system for the sake of maintianing the..." but considering the context of my discussion with Jhud up until that point I think everyone in this thread knew what I meant. Hmmm, sound familiar?
There are websites you can go to to do exercises to get your reading comprehesion level up. Just something to think about, not trying to talk down to you. Much of what you've written does make more sense to me now that I see what's going on. g'night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:31:22 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
you wouldn't think that if you were ever on the receving end of the censorship here.
Who are you to tell me what I would think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:33:16 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
you wouldn't think that if you were ever on the receving end of the censorship here.
Who are you to tell me what I would think?
It's a figure of speach dude. From my perspective, you might feel differently. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:35:08 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Is this the line you're talking about?
This is the line I'm talking about
quote:
That's ok, but while you're on your learning journey, there is no reason to show your emotional attachment to your faith by lashing out against someone for doubting it.
quote:
You'll have to quote where I claimed you lashed out. I thought it was that you agreed with Jhud and he had lashed out, quite agressively in fact.
You claimed I lashed out against you and I did not.
quote:
Now, I'll admit that I didn't make it as clear as it could possibly have been by including "by lashing out against any perceived threat to the belief system for the sake of maintianing the..." but considering the context of my discussion with Jhud up until that point I think everyone in this thread knew what I meant. Hmmm, sound familiar?
Considering the fact that you falsely accused me of lashing out against you and the context of what you said about Jhud was within the same context of your false accusations against me, I think it makes sense that the perceived threat you were referring to was yourself.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2008 1:43:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 1:58:34 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You are a whole different story. Your every other word is abrasive in many of your posts. You are condescending, pushy, impatient, and demanding. You declared my opinions nonsense repeatedly and were just generally foul. I have no trouble saying you lashed out at me, and many others in fact. And no, I won't be bothered with "substantiating it", lol. What a clown.
Yes, because disagreeing with you, asking you to substantiate your claims, and pointing out problems with your statements is "lashing out" against you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:06:25 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
You are a whole different story. Your every other word is abrasive in many of your posts. You are condescending, pushy, impatient, and demanding. You declared my opinions nonsense repeatedly and were just generally foul. I have no trouble saying you lashed out at me, and many others in fact. And no, I won't be bothered with "substantiating it", lol. What a clown.
Yes, because disagreeing with you, asking you to substantiate your claims, and pointing out problems with your statements is "lashing out" against you.
No but name calling and broad classifications of my opinions as NONSENSE certainly are. This is something Jhud and drmark and quite a few others are quite fond of here. It's the best guys. Makes me want to go to church first thing next Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:12:16 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
No but name calling and broad classifications of my opinions as NONSENSE certainly are. This is something Jhud and drmark and quite a few others are quite fond of here. It's the best guys. Makes me want to go to church first thing next Sunday.
Actually, I had a pretty sound logical exchange with you over in the God forum - your arguments were soundly put to rest by reason, not insults.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:13:55 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
No but name calling and broad classifications of my opinions as NONSENSE certainly are. This is something Jhud and drmark and quite a few others are quite fond of here. It's the best guys. Makes me want to go to church first thing next Sunday.
Actually, I had a pretty sound logical exchange with you over in the God forum - your arguments were soundly put to rest by reason, not insults.
Glad you enjoyed it. It bored me like most of your words so I left. If it helps you to feel like I had my arguments put to rest then enjoy that too. I'm not out to take the little things from people. They're so important after all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:19:11 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Glad you enjoyed it. It bored me like most of your words so I left. If it helps you to feel like I had my arguments put to rest then enjoy that too. I'm not out to take the little things from people. They're so important after all.
I can't do much about others attention spans, but I am concerned about basing my words and beliefs on reason and truth, not on whether they entertain someone.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:32:42 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 221
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So the newcomers aren't coming?
To the forum, but not to this thread. It metamorphosed from an intro thread into something off-topic within a few hours after I posted it.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:34:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
To the forum, but not to this thread. It metamorphosed from an intro thread into something off-topic within a few hours after I posted it.
Darn - then I baked some cookies for no good reason.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:35:40 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Glad you enjoyed it. It bored me like most of your words so I left. If it helps you to feel like I had my arguments put to rest then enjoy that too. I'm not out to take the little things from people. They're so important after all.
... but I am concerned about basing my words and beliefs on reason and truth, not on whether they entertain someone.
On that point I'll happily agree with one minor exception. Beliefs can be based only on reason and evidence. No pure truths exist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:40:39 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
On that point I'll happily agree with one minor exception. Beliefs can be based only on reason and evidence. No pure truths exist.
So, is the truth 'no pure truths exist' a pure truth?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:41:34 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1419
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
On that point I'll happily agree with one minor exception. Beliefs can be based only on reason and evidence. No pure truths exist.
Are you saying that absolute truth does not exist?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:49:13 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
On that point I'll happily agree with one minor exception. Beliefs can be based only on reason and evidence. No pure truths exist.
So, is the truth 'no pure truths exist' a pure truth?
nope. it can't be proven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:52:35 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
nope. it can't be proven.
Well, if the idea that 'no pure truths exist' can't be proven, then it can't be said with any certainty that no pure truths exist, can we?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 2:56:52 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
nope. it can't be proven.
Well, if the idea that 'no pure truths exist' can't be proven, then it can't be said with any certainty that no pure truths exist, can we?
Classic creationist faulty logic.
It can be said with an extremely high degree of certainty. Extremely high degrees of certainty though do not establish pure truth. They establish operational truth. Without the ability to observe all things, we can never say something is true for ALL instances of the thing. Each time a thing happens though, it will be another piece of evidence for its truth. As this evidence piles up we can become more and more certain of its truth, but never reach pure unquestionable certainty, or pure truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 3:00:01 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7379
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Classic creationist faulty logic.
It can be said with an extremely high degree of certainty. Extremely high degrees of certainty though do not establish pure truth. They establish operational truth. Without the ability to observe all things, we can never say something is true for ALL instances of the thing. Each time a thing happens though, it will be another piece of evidence for its truth. As this evidence piles up we can become more and more certain of its truth, but never reach pure unquestionable certainty, or pure truth.
But this doesn't prove a pure truth (which you have yet to define, incidentally) doesn't exist does it?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Newcomers from DoD - 8/5/2008 3:11:18 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Classic creationist faulty logic.
It can be said with an extremely high degree of certainty. Extremely high degrees of certainty though do not establish pure truth. They establish operational truth. Without the ability to observe all things, we can never say something is true for ALL instances of the thing. Each time a thing happens though, it will be another piece of evidence for its truth. As this evidence piles up we can become more and more certain of its truth, but never reach pure unquestionable certainty, or pure truth.
But this doesn't prove a pure truth (which you have yet to define, incidentally) doesn't exist does it?
Of course it doesn't prove that. Surely you won't now procede to claim that the inability to prove that a pure truth doesn't exist constitutes evidence for the existence of a pure truth.
I explained how operational truths are arrived at in our day to day lives in post 247 of this thread http://forums.christianity.com/m_3364803/mpage_10/tm.htm
You had something to say about the very last paragraph in that post but perhaps you'll read the whole thing again if you'd like clarification of my stance on the matter of truth and proof and the whole thing. I'm honestly quite tired and will be getting to bed soon.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
