Like watching porcupines trying to mate...
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I see you edited your original post after I responded to it.
Based on your above new invention of rules of procedure for ET, then your silence as to my prior questions directed to you, must mean that (1) I never misrepresented you, and (2) I never made any threats.
That's good. Thanks.
However, I don't subscribe to your rules, and I submit that no reasonable person would voluntarily provide any personally identifying information in this forum, because of the very high risk of being harassed, stalked, defamed, etc.
So, you can forget about my answering your questions regarding my license(s) to practice law.
Jem,
You sort of "felt" your way through your argument. So it would be hard to say someone was deliberately misrepresenting you. It was an informal debate. There were times when you were asked to clarify or support cerain claims but you danced around a bit. Sometimes it was evident immediately - sometimes it came to light some posts later. The only consistent thread you had was that you believe, rather, you declare that there is evidence of design via a proxy (appeak to auth.).
What is more, when you went the route of Susskind saying this or that, when put in its context would pretty much mean the opposite of what you think he meant. (Reminds me of how many interpret the bible to suit a worldview inspite of some clear wording in context.)
In any event, why can't you simply agree to disagree? You believe Susskind either directly or inadvertently supports the notion of design evidence by saying that should the mathematics fail a particular branch in physics, we'd be defaulted to ID or that Susskind is praising those scientists who came to the conclusion of design yet can't embrace their view because of his own worldview preventing him.
A personal attack or two out of frustration is understandable. But you're going on and on as if it should be "common knowledge" and KJkent is just a belligerent agnostic bastard out to sock it to theists at all costs.
Reminds me of a debate I had with Stu. Stu thinks babies can be classified as atheists. He's not alone in this view but it is certainly a minority view being bandied about on the net. I knew that no matter what I would say, given his obvious disdain for theists, he wouldn't see that it's not a proper use of the word, but a new and expanded use that has sketchy validity given the commonly accepted etymology of the word, "atheist." Nevertheless I figured I'd do a sideways appeal to authrority. I called up atheist websites that actually ridiculed the use of atheist for a baby. Two they were very well thought out. Stu cherry picked what he needed for his argument and didn't address the rest. What is more is that he attributed my non-acceptance of his use of the word for babies to my being a theist. Right. So what was the Atheist's "block" for not accepting the use of the word for babies? Once I saw that I knew there was no way to go further. So I playfully branded him a "freak-a-zoid" and moved on.
But with Kjkent, you actually have an opponent who has been decent, straightforward, and openminded with you but only disagrees with you and did so in a commendable manner. Why abuse him? Did he purposefully misrepresent you? I seriously doubt it because there was no need to. And if he did, which I don't see where nor do I see you point out where, as zz^xyz said, it could have been by accident. I've done that before by reading something the wrong way. But usually it's pointed out to me immediately and I have to correct it or ask for clarification.
Bottomline, let it go man. There is no win or loses in on this subject. It comes down to worldview. Only time will tell for certain. Or at least nearer to certain.
You sort of "felt" your way through your argument. So it would be hard to say someone was deliberately misrepresenting you. It was an informal debate. There were times when you were asked to clarify or support cerain claims but you danced around a bit. Sometimes it was evident immediately - sometimes it came to light some posts later. The only consistent thread you had was that you believe, rather, you declare that there is evidence of design via a proxy (appeak to auth.).
What is more, when you went the route of Susskind saying this or that, when put in its context would pretty much mean the opposite of what you think he meant. (Reminds me of how many interpret the bible to suit a worldview inspite of some clear wording in context.)
In any event, why can't you simply agree to disagree? You believe Susskind either directly or inadvertently supports the notion of design evidence by saying that should the mathematics fail a particular branch in physics, we'd be defaulted to ID or that Susskind is praising those scientists who came to the conclusion of design yet can't embrace their view because of his own worldview preventing him.
A personal attack or two out of frustration is understandable. But you're going on and on as if it should be "common knowledge" and KJkent is just a belligerent agnostic bastard out to sock it to theists at all costs.
Reminds me of a debate I had with Stu. Stu thinks babies can be classified as atheists. He's not alone in this view but it is certainly a minority view being bandied about on the net. I knew that no matter what I would say, given his obvious disdain for theists, he wouldn't see that it's not a proper use of the word, but a new and expanded use that has sketchy validity given the commonly accepted etymology of the word, "atheist." Nevertheless I figured I'd do a sideways appeal to authrority. I called up atheist websites that actually ridiculed the use of atheist for a baby. Two they were very well thought out. Stu cherry picked what he needed for his argument and didn't address the rest. What is more is that he attributed my non-acceptance of his use of the word for babies to my being a theist. Right. So what was the Atheist's "block" for not accepting the use of the word for babies? Once I saw that I knew there was no way to go further. So I playfully branded him a "freak-a-zoid" and moved on.
But with Kjkent, you actually have an opponent who has been decent, straightforward, and openminded with you but only disagrees with you and did so in a commendable manner. Why abuse him? Did he purposefully misrepresent you? I seriously doubt it because there was no need to. And if he did, which I don't see where nor do I see you point out where, as zz^xyz said, it could have been by accident. I've done that before by reading something the wrong way. But usually it's pointed out to me immediately and I have to correct it or ask for clarification.
Bottomline, let it go man. There is no win or loses in on this subject. It comes down to worldview. Only time will tell for certain. Or at least nearer to certain.
kj, I know you know this, but I'm going to say it anyway. You are currently involved in the process of getting trolled by the master troll himself. This time his lapdog is also yapping at your heels. The clue is the bizarre image post. When he gets warmed up he always goes to it.
Fascinating how the argument here has completely shifted. They failed to make their point so now they are attacking your bona fides.
ID is dead. Long live the trolls.
Although we fundamentally disagree on such matters, I do find many of your posts on these themes to be usually well balanced and reasonable. This time, in my opinion, you have offered fair appraisal with some good advice to jem covering the unreasonable behavior he often resorts to in the light of straightforward, open-minded and I would add - very knowledgeable submissions made by KJkent.
My feeling and indeed experience is, no matter what evidence or additional information was offered to jem, it would make no difference whatsoever to his stance, being determined to argue by any means including the personal abuse which I think you acknowledge as inappropriate and wrong.
What I do find at odds is what on the one hand I see as your fair-mindedness, then the rather singularly larger paragraph than all others in your post which you have devoted to a bias and partiality of your own. This turned out not to be the example I think you might have intended it to be, but a sidetrack into quite separate previous arguments you held with myself.
You find good reason in your thoughts on one subject matter to admonish jem, considering the general crude level of argument he adopts, which suggests KJkent as something he manifestly is not. But in absolving his behavior a little generously I would say with a "let it go" , at the same time you clearly would not do the same yourself.
In that summarizing of the 'atheist babies debate', you havenât moved on at all. The summary exemplifies your continued representation of a one-sided personal viewpoint which in itself you will realize surely, contains questionable and incorrect assumptions and statements. In this regard, much the same way jem has done, so you are doing - only perhaps more politely.
Although your dismissal of calling me a "freak-a-zoid" was "being playful" on your part, it could hardly be considered any more playful than one of jem's "you are so full of shit" remarks when put in context with the argument. Your fair and balanced recognition to the logical fallacy you made does however get its unstable form compounded by an appeal to an authority with varying ways of regarding the same subject. Not a definitive consensus.
My argument on these matters is to do with what I see as double standards, which in my opinion come across pretty much all the time in matters of Creator ID God & theism in general. So it does in other matters too. I see that of course, but for something being put on pedestals as moral authority in the way theism is, to control lives, it is not to be in my view because of its inconsistencies and contradiction, anything to be made worthy of an appeal to.
Not theism or the holding of any belief in itself, but the supporting of often false and confounding tenets within, being argued or generally inferred as the professed truth against any other evidence or information and for no real reasons. All in the name of nothing more than a superstition. That to me taints truth before a search for it begins.
You showed me that side of things in the atheist babies debate.
My proposition that a simple word has come to hold so many pre-formed prejudices and meanings by being subjected only to a certain worldview, rather than keeping at least some consideration for the one it was originally based upon within root etymology, has totally excluded and denied a complete understanding of what is essentially the word's actual meaning and how that can be applied.
So in that way, contradiction, distortion, denial and abuse, fights to prevail in arguments over possible exploration, investigation, discovery and knowledge. Doesn't a proposition need only be suddenly declared a "belief" in attempt to stifle the contrary perspective?
The idea that babies are born "without a god" appears to be so unacceptable to you as a principle, it seems to have become impossible for you to understand what "without a god" can represent, other than those meanings formed through your own pre-conceptions.
Your point of view generally seems more carefully and thoughtfully arrived at to me, (except on that that point maybe), whereas those like jem would argue in the face of all contrary information no matter what. Or ZZzz to the lengths of chronic aggressive trolling to divert focus in wordplay. But all are to defend a particular personal belief above all else.
That's fine, but to eagerly enter argument to state and defend at any cost, never intending or purposely misunderstanding an opponent in the guise of joining discussion. That is acting dishonestly. I don't accuse you of that.
I, like you, admire KJkents decency and honest open approach to the teleological argument and appreciate the knowledge and information he has taken time to impart.
Maybe this thread is an indicative microcosm of society at large which would often respond to reasonable argument of the kind KJkent and others have provided, by arguing the controversy preferably to the substance and slamming down through all methods, denial and absurdity included - even institutionally where possible - all dissent which might suggest to some that the Almighty is either AWOL, was never there in the first place or quite irrelevant in all practical ways. The latter being the case as far as science can be concerned and which one would perhaps generally accept to be not only a commonsensical approach, but the more responsible.
"Freak-deaky-freak-a-zoid" I believe it was. Not quite the same as "you're so full of shizzle, my nizzle." It was actually in reference to your continued assertion that I couldn't embrace your POV because I'm a theist after I showed that even some Atheists don't agree with you. I found that freaky, man. It's as if... I don't know, but I figured I'd better steer clear. You seem so hell bent against theists that you only see red where they are concerned. And Jem seems to hold the same view of you as stated in not so many words in a few of his replies to you.
So yeah, I'm over it. And I did let it go. Obviously. I simply brought it up as an example. Jem might be able to empathize if he knew that I had a convo with an atheist yet couldn't reach common ground and let it go. So the summary was a "necessary evil." Besides, people use words in all sorts of ways. Hey, just take a look at slang. As I said, I can't stop you or others from terming babies atheist.
Snipped but continued....
I had to appeal to authority for this reason; You asserted that my inability to get around the commonly accepted use of the term atheism to represent a worldview was a function of my embracing theism. So I proved that it had nothing to do with that by submitting viewpoints of atheists who hold the same view as I. So it was a proper appeal and not a fallacy given its intent.
Atheism, for all intents and purposes, is primarily a worldview. It's a reasoned position one takes. Are babies born w/o God? Yep. But they are born without a lot of things that later as adults they will acquire through reason. Yet no one goes to any lengths to give babies a label based on a worldview adults may have. We don't see persons going around saying babies are "apolitical." It's sort of senseless to do so. Even though babies are born without any notion of our actual politics. (though they are born with rudiments of politics since we are born social creatures.) Why? Because being apolitical is a worldview. Not simply "no politics or non-political." It's a rejection of politics and its associted worldviews or being neutral on politics and political worldviews. But it's something arrived at. But I suppose an apolitical person seeking accceptance might go through obtuse lengths to support his view and claim babies among his rank. As if to say, "being apolitical is natural, baby!"
(BTW, one of those atheist sites I submitted made a strong case about the etymology of Atheist as not being "a=without." And [appeal to authority alert!] that no authoritative dictionary which details the etymology of the word has it as such [that is to say, a=without to form without god]. So your "proofs" of why it was acceptable etymology-wise were based on misinformation, disinformation or some such.)
It's sort of like this; During Katrina coverage, the displaced Blacks were being called "refugees." The word means an exile who flees for safety. And an exile among other things is someone who is expelled from their home or country by authority. So yeah, on the surface, the term seemed to fit. But because of the commonly accepted use of the term, a great many took offense to its use for describing the Katrina victims and the media promptly stopped using it an apologized. And rightfully so. When we say refugees, we often use the term for say, Cuban or Haitian boat people (non-citizens) who seek America's shores for freedom. Etc. Etc.
So there we have it! Enjoy ol' boy.
the record is 100% clear KJ... you haven't misrepresented jem in any way and he knows it... zizzz has no probs misrepresenting anything even himself as long as it generates more views... thats all this thread is about actually
)))))) views... at P&R index level, every other day since weeks ago any visitor gets hit by "ID isn't creashite"... there's no bad publicity rememba'?!!