I’m sorry, I did not mean that in such a literal way. I simply thought of an example of a group that by definition opposes something, and asking them to accept the thing they oppose. Fill in the blank with something else…
I am 100% for the wall of separation between church and state, and therefore 100% about opposing ID in schools, which I hope was already clear to you based on the context of this entire thread.
Having churches pay taxes, though, is a separate conversation that should have its own thread. The topic is not so simple, as once religious organizations pay taxes, that further erodes that wall, and may actually lead to Fundy Christians being able to argue for even MORE rights to the village square.
This faux pas was made by the reporter searching for a sensational headline.
Tee Bryan Peneguy said,
To be clear, that was no reporter, nor was it a faux pas. The guy’s whole website is about how the Catholic Church quite literally worships the devil.
I rest my case. Clearly this guy is on a mission to and seeks ‘provocative headlines’. He is obviously not schooled in Darwinian evolution and if he is and purposely posted that misleading statement, he is not worth reading.
I rest my case. Clearly this guy is on a mission to and seeks ‘provocative headlines’. He is obviously not schooled in Darwinian evolution and if he is and purposely posted that misleading statement, he is not worth reading.
Oh – I’m sorry, I guess I misunderstood why you quoted that site to begin with.
I thought you were pointing out that the Catholic Church was being reasonable by “admitting” that Genesis is “a mere fable,” when what Catholics would say is that Genesis is metaphorical.
A faux pas is usually an error that is embarrassing. No, the writer would not be embarrassed. The writer (again, not a “journalist”) believes Catholicism is Satanic, and the fact that they accepted evolution years ago simply proves it is Satanic.
No, the website you got that from is saying that to show how “evil” Catholics are.
So you really should not use it, if you are trying to show Catholics did a good thing by accepting evolution.
I was not concentrating on the author. I considered him merely a messenger, as I am relating the basic message without judgement.
Moreover, I also provided a link to the wiki article, which is neutral in stating facts. Just to confirm the facts of the basic message.
This is why it helps to have a good understanding of theology before arguing against it!!
That was not an argument by me. The argument is made by a religious person and clearly shows the scientific inconsistencies in the proselytizing or arguments made by religious folk. Trust me, as a hard Atheist, I have a better understanding of Scripture than the average religious person.
It is the religious people who do not have a good understanding of science or theology, before arguing FOR it!
The message is that two Popes, on advise of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences have declared evolution to be fact. Any and all other subsequent statements for or against are exactly the same as they were before .
Sigh. I don’t think it matters, but I’ll attempt to explain where I was coming from. My apologies; I’m an editor, so I tend to notice things that may be misinterpreted when others read them. I’m also pretty stressed and pretty tired right now. All that said:
I’m a former Christian, and I studied theology for years. I know how Christians think: liberal as well as conservative ones, and different denominations. So I know they can read the same things and interpret them differently.
I’m a hard atheist now. So you don’t need to convince ME that Genesis isn’t real.
Yes, the popes have agreed with the Pontifical Acadamy of Sciences that evolution is fact. That is not suprising, since the Pontifical Acadamy of Sciences belongs to the Vatican, and therefore is under the pope.
* If you want to make the point that “The Creationists are crazy, even the Catholics agree with evolution,” that’s great. And my point is, the Vatican has been okay with evolution since 1950. Which makes your point even stronger.
* If that was the point you were trying to make, then quoting an anti-Catholic source who is saying that accepting evolution shows that “the Catholics now reject the Bible” actually weakens your point. (For example, if I want to make the point that vaccines work, I probably don’t want to include a quote that “vaccines kill people” from an antivaxx site.)
My only issue is with credibility. If a religious person tells me evolution is a lie because “a dog will never turn into a butterfly,” then I know that person doesn’t understand evolution and isn’t worth listening to. Therefore, when atheists don’t seem to understand certain nuances about religion, and are undercutting their own arguments, I say something.
If you were in a debate with Christians, and used the same wording you said here, you would be undercutting your own argument.
Yes that may be true, but again how does that prove that a certain scientific claim made by such a person is therefore necessarily wrong
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE CHRISTIANS WHO "PROVE" EVOLUTION IS FALSE.
How is that hard to understand?
As for Casey Luskin: You are right that I have “assumed” something about his beliefs, since I can’t find any mention of his specific church membership. However, I’m sure he knows that publically aligning himself with
— for example — the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church or the Seventh Day Adventists would reveal his anti-evolution bias.
However, I don’t need to know what church he’s with to know he is a Biblical creationist, because he has written a zillion books and articles revealing that is what he believes… and there is no SCIENTIFIC reason to believe in Biblical creationism.
Two more things about Luskin:
He doesn’t believe atheists REALLY exist, only that people THINK they are atheists but deep down, believe in God. When I was a Christian I believed this too. Now that I am atheist, I see that is incorrect.
There are literally dozens of scientific refutations of Casey Luskin’s books, articles and speeches. Again and again and again, they point out that Luskin does not know what he is talking about in terms of science. He is not credible, except in religious circles.
》I beg your pardon? how can we not judge one another in a discussion? how can we not assess one another? You “judged” Casey and his scientific concerns about evolution did you not? Anyway what did I write that you regard as “judging” you?《
I "judged" Casey ... who isn't here and isn't part of this discussion.
It’s possible to disagree with someone’s position without insulting others personally. I’m not the only one who has called you out on this.
An example would be the very thing I commented on. Your insinuation was that I would automatically discount anything from a scientist who was a Christian… you “understood” that. Yet, your assumption was totally incorrect.
That is likely true and he’d find them as distasteful as you and (I hasten to stress) I do. But this is moving away from the issue
Dude, I was talking about William Jennings Bryan, a SUBplot, if you will. I am sorry I didn't start a totally different thread.
My only issue is with credibility. If a religious person tells me evolution is a lie because “a dog will never turn into a butterfly,” then I know that person doesn’t understand evolution and isn’t worth listening to. Therefore, when atheists don’t seem to understand certain nuances about religion, and are undercutting their own arguments, I say something.
And what if a non-religious person tells you this? You’d treat the same claim in a different way depending on who utters it?
｢(ﾟﾍﾟ) Um…huh?
I’m sorry I said anything.
As an editor, I try to interpret things as different readers would interpret it, to see whether the writer is getting his point across or not. In other words, I try to control for bias, on the part of the writer and the reader.
So.
If an atheist said, “I don’t believe in evolution because a dog will never turn into a butterfly,” I would think, “He doesn’t understand science. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.”
How would I “treat” the person? It depends not on “who” he is, but on what he is intending to say.
What IS this atheist intending to say? I don’t know. It is an odd scenario.
As for my professional abilities, I’m not using them. I’m not being paid, I’m on my phone, at my mother’s bedside, popping in and out. So just forget I said anything.
2) There are literally dozens of scientific refutations of Casey Luskin’s books, articles and speeches. Again and again and again, they point out that Luskin does not know what he is talking about in terms of science. He is not credible, except in religious circles. -- Tee
And how does that prove that his scientific objections to evolution are thereby, inevitably false? – Holmes
That’s it in a nutshell folks. Luskin has been refuted, and Holmes asks, “how does that prove he’s wrong?”.
Holmes wants us to take the links and arguments we’ve provided and synthesize them in to some short but understandable refutation of this one particular guy. It must pass his standards, which he has not provided. Holmes regularly avoids points made and switches from one thread to another quickly. He shows little interest in lines of thought that are introduced, preferring to discuss tone or his right to speculate. Is there any doubt that even if a treatise on Luskin was given, point by point, Holmes would find another essay, longer perhaps, and ask, “but what about this guy?”
This is like claiming that black people are less intelligent than white, you probably believe that too
What has @citizenschallengev3 said that leads you to think he is racist?
That seems like an unnecessary judgement.
It’s an unnecessary judgement, but it is a necessary and awesomely powerful rhetorical weapon that the right wing has learned to wield ruthless efficiency and they’ve come to depend on it. Why you ask, must they rely on such emotional tactics? Well, because the facts and honesty is certainly not on their side.
You know if I cap NO, he loves to say I’m over emotional, but he’s got the god token, so he believes something as emotionally charged and manipulative as shoving an implication of racism down an ‘opponents’ throat to throw him/her off balance, is fine and dandy.
Tee, have I mention the fundamental two types of debate yet?
The lawyerly/political debate = Where winning is everything. Where truth and learning matter not one wit.
The constructive/sciencie debate = Where a better communal understanding is everything. Where honestly representing your ‘opponents’ and your own observations and evidence and arguments, IS the LAW.
You’ve not mentioned the 2 styles of debate, but somehow I knew it intuitively.
its a necessary and awesomely powerful rhetorical weapon that the right wing has learned to wield ruthless efficiency and they come to depend on it.
It is indeed. And the "racist" card in particular works well, because they know we think they're racists, so they can say, "No, YOU'RE the racists! Nyyah nyyah!"
There’s way too much going on in the forums to even think of jumping in. I get to work and have to spend well over a half hour just trying to catch up on all that’s been written since last night when I left work (I come to work early just to do that.)
CC, Lausten, Tee, Write4U, LoisL, TimB, and a few others are doing better than I can at staying (relatively) calm and explaining things, so I won’t add to the confusion at the moment. Keep it up, folks!
Wow, wonder word play there, love how you tossed that twist - now I’m a racist since you know how to play with words and twist them around into anything you want to imply. You should look at Tee’s comment: September 4, 2019 at 10:06 am - that is how a good faith dialogue proceeds - she tries to explain what she was trying to explain, she points out how she hears your message. Nicely laid out, no cute word games, no buried insinuations or nasty gotcha - simply constructive dialogue. I wonder if you are capable of such a thing H.
Holmes: Yes that (being that ) may be true, but again how does that prove that a certain scientific claim made by such a person is therefore necessarily wrong? You rejected (seemingly) the issues raised by Casey because you concluded something he believes proves that his analysis of those issues is wrong, yet you still haven’t shown this, is it simply speculation on your part?
Again, you need to believe something makes you blind to so much Holmes. The biggest problem I found during my quick scan of his Ten Points, is that he repeated misrepresents the science and what I hear scientists explaining in their talks. If Casey can not honesty represent the facts, why waste time listening to his conclusion, which incidentally consistently sides with the deep self-certain faith that his EGO actually knows God's Mind.
Oh and if you tried a little good faith self criticism you find that Google links to various articles that detail the errors and misleading claims - but that’s not what your trying to do here, is it.
Again can you prove that everything he has ever written about evolution is false?
So is that your standard? It doesn't matter that it's plainly recognizable that Casey misrepresents the science, makes misleading conclusion - but that's okay - unless we take the time to debunk every single trot in his Gish Gallop, we're supposed to pretend he's legitimate?
That’s politics Holmes, not the learning process!
=============================================
Cc: "Stop judging me."
Holmes: "I beg your pardon? how can we not judge one another in a discussion? how can we not assess one another? You “judged” Casey and his scientific concerns about evolution did you not? Anyway what did I write that you regard as “judging” you?"
Shit you are so correct, what the hell was I using that word for?
Holmes, STOP LABELING Me with intent to prejudice.
There, that's much better. Thank you for the feed back.
There’s way too much going on in the forums to even think of jumping in. I get to work and have to spend well over a half hour just trying to catch up on all that’s been written since last night when I left work (I come to work early just to do that.)
CC, Lausten, Tee, Write4U, LoisL, TimB, and a few others are doing better than I can at staying (relatively) calm and explaining things, so I won’t add to the confusion at the moment. Keep it up, folks!
Ain’t it sweet, the forum is getting lively.
π, thanks for checking it. The weekend is only a few days away.
You’ve not mentioned the 2 styles of debate, but somehow I knew it intuitively.
That’s one of the failures of the Democrats and rationalists, they don’t highlight the dishonest tactics and they seem to keep trying to pretend this is some fair fight or something.
DECEMBER 30, 2018
d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue in 14 verses.
Thank you for your kindness. I do get snitty, and it’s a hard time for me.
I got used to debate on Quora, where you can get banned forever for being an asshole. I came here expecting less debate and more discussion, but oh well.
In debate, I TRY (I’m not always successful, but I try)…
To be respectful, and thank and praise people when appropriate
To call out errors and over-generalizations, even when they come from my side. (For example, when atheists say "All Christians are stupid." They are not, and I say so. Etc. Etc.)
To attack ideas and arguments and not people (until I've been attacked too many times, that is)
To present links and objective facts with my arguments
To realize if I'm incorrect, and to fix or clarify if I need to, and correct myself
To actually try to imagine why others think and feel what they do, and agree with whatever elements I can
To be specific and avoid generalities when possible
To change my mind if I see enough evidence (and I have)
