|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:34 pm
zz1000zz Priestley I didn't realise you would respond so emotively to his post. Personally, I don't think his post was all that emotive. It wasn't even an attack on a belief system. What makes you think so? First, there was nothing emotional about my post, not that it is particularly important. Second, by him, belief in logical reasoning and examination of facts leads to (amongst other things) "low self esteem, animalistic behavior, and depression." Of course, you could go by some exotic interpretation where he means the actual process of evolution, not the belief that evolution happens. This directly contradicts the first numbered point of his post, so that seems rather silly. zz1000zz Priestley Perhaps, then, Marek is confusing 'evolution' for 'nature'. Perhaps, and perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she." Somehow it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry. Seeing as nothing he says has any basis in reality, I am going with the latter.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:22 pm
Priestley Now that's enough. You're against personal attacks so don't do it yourself. You claim he did not make any personal attacks, yet you wrongly state I made such. Forgive me, but I cannot take your post seriously. Edit: Incidentally, Marek James claims evolution and Christianity "oppose" each other, which is meant as if you believe in Christianity you cannot "believe" in evolution. He also says evolution is the "root" of a number of problems. Clearly, the process of evolution could not be the root of these things from his viewpoint, as evolution does not happen in it. From this, the only conclusion is the belief in evolution, not the process of it, is the problem. Simple, rational examination of posts leads to this, not "feelings."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:31 pm
zz1000zz Priestley Now that's enough. You're against personal attacks so don't do it yourself. You claim he did not make any personal attacks, yet you wrongly state I made such. Forgive me, but I cannot take your post seriously. zz1000zz '...perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she."' '...nothing he says has any basis in reality,...' "...it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry." '...he "makes Christianity look horrible"...'
To reassure you: please, don't think I'm singling you out. I would defend anyone in this guild from personal attacks including you if Marek or anyone else was attacking you personally.zz1000zz Edit: Incidentally, Marek James claims evolution and Christianity "oppose" each other, which is meant as if you believe in Christianity you cannot "believe" in evolution. He also says evolution is the "root" of a number of problems. Clearly, the process of evolution could not be the root of these things from his viewpoint, as evolution does not happen in it. From this, the only conclusion is the belief in evolution, not the process of it, is the problem. Simple, rational examination of posts leads to this, not "feelings."
As for the fifth point, I believe it can be argued that atheism, communism, relativism, anarchism and various other beliefs, societies and philosophies could be the result of a step forwards/backwards/sideways (depending on one's point of view) in thought and idea, which can be seen as a small evolutionary step. However, this argument would require more effort to put forward than Marek has done. I do agree on his point, however, that [the theory of] "evolution has played a ... part in reducing how humans think of themselves." However, I would probably go further to explain that the misunderstanding of such a theory is the cause of the problems he stated, not necessarily the theory itself. He never said that all people who believe in evolution are like or have the problems he stated.
Personally, I think Marek has an ill-informed opinion on the subject, as it is difficult to marry the Scripture he has used with the ideas he has presented. I invite him to explain himself further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:46 pm
Priestley zz1000zz Priestley Now that's enough. You're against personal attacks so don't do it yourself. You claim he did not make any personal attacks, yet you wrongly state I made such. Forgive me, but I cannot take your post seriously. zz1000zz '...perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she."' '...nothing he says has any basis in reality,...' "...it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry." '...he "makes Christianity look horrible"...' No it does not. First, I did not suggest he was an idiot, but rather implied the excuse you offered would require a massively absurd misunderstanding. I agreed it was possible, but I then immediately stated I doubted it was the case. You were the one suggesting he might have made a stupid mistake. I just pointed out how bad of one it would have been. For the rest, they are simple statements of fact. Nothing he says has any basis in reality, what he says amounts to spouting off bigotry, and posts like his make Christianity look horrible. The facts are certainly damning, but they are still just facts, not personal attacks. I feel it is worth pointing out you did not disagree with any of those statements (aside from an irrelevant disagreement on the last quote). Unless you think they are wrong, I cannot see an issue with simply stating facts. Priestly He never said that all people who believe in evolution are like or have the problems he stated. I do not see what your disagreement is. I never said he claimed this, so at best this is irrelevant. The issue is he says, " ocial problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of materialistic evolution: , promiscuity, abortion, and abuse." We agree (or at least you did not disagree when I explained why this must be true) he is discussing the theory of evolution (and/or the belief in said theory), not the process of evolution.
He says the theory of evolution is responsible for things like promiscuity and abuse. In addition to being offensive, I pointed out this is absurd, because these existed before the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:05 am
zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz Priestley Now that's enough. You're against personal attacks so don't do it yourself. You claim he did not make any personal attacks, yet you wrongly state I made such. Forgive me, but I cannot take your post seriously. zz1000zz '...perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she."' '...nothing he says has any basis in reality,...' "...it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry." '...he "makes Christianity look horrible"...' No it does not. First, I did not suggest he was an idiot, but rather implied the excuse you offered would require a massively absurd misunderstanding. I agreed it was possible, but I then immediately stated I doubted it was the case. You were the one suggesting he might have made a stupid mistake. I just pointed out how bad of one it would have been. zz1000zz For the rest, they are simple statements of fact. Nothing he says has any basis in reality, what he says amounts to spouting off bigotry, and posts like his make Christianity look horrible. The facts are certainly damning, but they are still just facts, not personal attacks. zz1000zz I feel it is worth pointing out you did not disagree with any of those statements (aside from an irrelevant disagreement on the last quote). Unless you think they are wrong, I cannot see an issue with simply stating facts. zz1000zz Priestley He never said that all people who believe in evolution are like or have the problems he stated. I do not see what your disagreement is. I never said he claimed this, so at best this is irrelevant. The issue is he says, " ocial problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of materialistic evolution: , promiscuity, abortion, and abuse." We agree (or at least you did not disagree when I explained why this must be true) he is discussing the theory of evolution (and/or the belief in said theory), not the process of evolution.
He says the theory of evolution is responsible for things like promiscuity and abuse. In addition to being offensive, I pointed out this is absurd, because these existed before the theory of evolution.
It's silly to be angry with him when you can simply educate him. If you don't, he's going to wander off and infuriate some other soul with his ignorance, isn't he? Saying he's wrong and not bothering to correct him is equal to seeing a blind man and not restoring his sight when you have the ability to do so. It's no use getting angry with the blind man for tripping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:24 pm
Priestley No, I did not make any remark regarding the nature of his mistake, I suggested that he might have made that mistake as a result of confusion/misunderstanding between the theory of evolution and the processes of nature, as I myself have shown you in through my understanding (or lack thereof). While it's sensible to suggest that he may not understand evolution properly, the idea that he would confuse genders is absurd, extreme and amounts to calling him stupid. Confusing "the theory of evolution" and "nature" is a stupid mistake as the two are radically different. I could accept confusing "evolution" and "nature" as a simple misunderstanding, but that is not what he did. The confusion you had is not the same as the confusion he had. Priestly zz1000zz For the rest, they are simple statements of fact. Nothing he says has any basis in reality, what he says amounts to spouting off bigotry, and posts like his make Christianity look horrible. The facts are certainly damning, but they are still just facts, not personal attacks. First, saying he is "spouting off bigotry" accuses him of saying bigoted things. It does not accuse him of being a bigot. Second, I do not let people like him influence my view on Christianity, but many people do. Third, I stand by everything I said as factually correct, and nothing has been offered to show otherwise. Fourth, I have no hostility towards Marek James, nor have I shown any. I accept my comments could be viewed as hostility towards Marek James' message, but there has been none directed at him. Priestly Most of my disagreements here stem from your overall hostility towards Marek when it's really his message with which you disagree. With the energy you've spent defending against a supposed attack on your faith, you could have explained why you disagree and perhaps educated him in the process. The hostility you discuss is non-existent. Moreover, had you not posted in this topic I would have spent a total of two minutes on this topic. I have spent practically no time defending against his comments. The only significant time I have spent is with you, explaining why his comments were wrong. Interestingly enough, I never claimed he attacked *my* belief system or faith. Priestly You claimed that what he has said amounts to an attack on a belief system. He never claims that the belief in evolution is the cause of all the negative effects he mentions, so how can you say he's attacking a belief system and equate what he said with an insult about someone's mother? I can see three possible interpretations when someone discusses evolution: 1) The process. 2) The theory. 3) The belief in the theory. It is trivial to dismiss the second, as a theory without any belief could not do what he says. I have already shown how the first point is impossible. This leaves only the third point, namely the belief. You claim this is not what he is discussing. What then is he discussing? Priestly It's silly to be angry with him when you can simply educate him. If you don't, he's going to wander off and infuriate some other soul with his ignorance, isn't he? Saying he's wrong and not bothering to correct him is equal to seeing a blind man and not restoring his sight when you have the ability to do so. It's no use getting angry with the blind man for tripping. This is a strawman, as I have never been angry with him. The only thing I have felt towards him is dismay, despite your repeated statements to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:04 pm
zz1000zz Priestley No, I did not make any remark regarding the nature of his mistake, I suggested that he might have made that mistake as a result of confusion/misunderstanding between the theory of evolution and the processes of nature, as I myself have shown you in through my understanding (or lack thereof). While it's sensible to suggest that he may not understand evolution properly, the idea that he would confuse genders is absurd, extreme and amounts to calling him stupid. Confusing "the theory of evolution" and "nature" is a stupid mistake as the two are radically different. I could accept confusing "evolution" and "nature" as a simple misunderstanding, but that is not what he did. The confusion you had is not the same as the confusion he had. zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz For the rest, they are simple statements of fact. Nothing he says has any basis in reality, what he says amounts to spouting off bigotry, and posts like his make Christianity look horrible. The facts are certainly damning, but they are still just facts, not personal attacks. First, saying he is "spouting off bigotry" accuses him of saying bigoted things. It does not accuse him of being a bigot. Second, I do not let people like him influence my view on Christianity, but many people do. Third, I stand by everything I said as factually correct, and nothing has been offered to show otherwise. Fourth, I have no hostility towards Marek James, nor have I shown any. I accept my comments could be viewed as hostility towards Marek James' message, but there has been none directed at him. zz1000zz Priestley Most of my disagreements here stem from your overall hostility towards Marek when it's really his message with which you disagree. With the energy you've spent defending against a supposed attack on your faith, you could have explained why you disagree and perhaps educated him in the process. The hostility you discuss is non-existent. Moreover, had you not posted in this topic I would have spent a total of two minutes on this topic. I have spent practically no time defending against his comments. The only significant time I have spent is with you, explaining why his comments were wrong. Interestingly enough, I never claimed he attacked *my* belief system or faith. zz1000zz Why should anyone even explain how wrong you are[?] zz1000zz No thanks. I tend to avoid putting much effort into explaining what is wrong with comments like, "Your mother is a whore!" zz1000zz Both are personal attacks. One is a personal attack against an individual, the other is a personal attack against a belief system. zz1000zz Priestley You claimed that what he has said amounts to an attack on a belief system. He never claims that the belief in evolution is the cause of all the negative effects he mentions, so how can you say he's attacking a belief system and equate what he said with an insult about someone's mother? I can see three possible interpretations when someone discusses evolution: 1) The process. 2) The theory. 3) The belief in the theory. It is trivial to dismiss the second, as a theory without any belief could not do what he says. I have already shown how the first point is impossible. This leaves only the third point, namely the belief. You claim this is not what he is discussing. What then is he discussing? zz1000zz Priestley It's silly to be angry with him when you can simply educate him. If you don't, he's going to wander off and infuriate some other soul with his ignorance, isn't he? Saying he's wrong and not bothering to correct him is equal to seeing a blind man and not restoring his sight when you have the ability to do so. It's no use getting angry with the blind man for tripping. This is a strawman, as I have never been angry with him. The only thing I have felt towards him is dismay, despite your repeated statements to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:16 pm
zz1000zz Priestley I didn't realise you would respond so emotively to his post. Personally, I don't think his post was all that emotive. It wasn't even an attack on a belief system. What makes you think so? First, there was nothing emotional about my post, not that it is particularly important. Second, by him, belief in logical reasoning and examination of facts leads to (amongst other things) "low self esteem, animalistic behavior, and depression." Of course, you could go by some exotic interpretation where he means the actual process of evolution, not the belief that evolution happens. This directly contradicts the first numbered point of his post, so that seems rather silly. Priestly Perhaps, then, Marek is confusing 'evolution' for 'nature'. Perhaps, and perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she." Somehow it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry. Seeing as nothing he says has any basis in reality, I am going with the latter. I was simply saying that in my opinion evolution opposes Christianity. Instead of being personally offended and insulting say why you think I am wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:18 pm
This is getting silly. I will try to condense this. Priestley Whomever's belief system you claim he has attacked is irrelevant because he has not attacked a belief system. This is the main issue of contention. Priestly I would say the idea of evolution as a whole rather than an individual part, as Marek seems unable to marry the idea with his beliefs. The theory suggests that the process happens and, if it indeed does happen, the process occurrs and has occurred independently of the theory or the belief, even before the theory was conceived. The belief is simply whether one finds the theory's argument convincing or not, rather than a belief system or religion. I honestly do not understand what your response is supposed to mean. I have already explained why the physical processes of evolution could not be what Marek James referred to. The only other explanation is Marek James said the belief in the theory of evolution is "root" of the several negative things. You seem to disagree with this. Is this accurate? If so, what is the basis for your disagreement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:25 pm
Marek James zz1000zz Priestley I didn't realise you would respond so emotively to his post. Personally, I don't think his post was all that emotive. It wasn't even an attack on a belief system. What makes you think so? First, there was nothing emotional about my post, not that it is particularly important. Second, by him, belief in logical reasoning and examination of facts leads to (amongst other things) "low self esteem, animalistic behavior, and depression." Of course, you could go by some exotic interpretation where he means the actual process of evolution, not the belief that evolution happens. This directly contradicts the first numbered point of his post, so that seems rather silly. Priestly Perhaps, then, Marek is confusing 'evolution' for 'nature'. Perhaps, and perhaps he is the type of person to confuse the simple differences between "he" and "she." Somehow it seems more likely he is just spouting off bigotry. Seeing as nothing he says has any basis in reality, I am going with the latter. I was simply saying that in my opinion evolution opposes Christianity. Instead of being personally offended and insulting say why you think I am wrong! I will explain what is wrong with your post when you justify these comments: Marek James Evolution is at the very root of atheism, communism, relativism, , anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian practices. Dangerous and ly social problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of materialistic evolution: , promiscuity, abortion, and abuse. Evolution has played an important part in reducing how humans think of themselves. Obvious problems are: low self esteem, animalistic behavior, and depression due to a feeling of meaninglessness if life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:02 pm
So what?
Nothing you bring up matters. What MATTERS is; Is evolution correct? Doesn't matter what it means, what matters is whether it is true or false. Go bone up on your C.S. Lewis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:19 pm
Mein Kulturkampf So what? Nothing you bring up matters. What MATTERS is; Is evolution correct? Doesn't matter what it means, what matters is whether it is true or false. Go bone up on your C.S. Lewis. How can you know whether something is true or false if you don't know what it means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:06 pm
zz1000zz No. Just no. Why should anyone even explain how wrong you are when you start spouting off nonsense like: Marek James Evolution is at the very root of atheism, communism, relativism, , anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian practices. Dangerous and ly social problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of materialistic evolution: , promiscuity, abortion, and abuse. Evolution has played an important part in reducing how humans think of themselves. Obvious problems are: low self esteem, animalistic behavior, and depression due to a feeling of meaninglessness if life. This is complete and utter nonsense. It is offensive and pathetic. How could anyone claim promiscuity, atheism or abuse are rooted in evolution, when they existed for centuries before evolution was first hypothesized? This is the sort of nonsense that makes Christianity look horrible. I kinda agreed with him up until that point. Edited by Fushigi na Butterfly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
