Statler Waldorf:

I must apologize, for I no longer wish to continue this discussion with you. I thank you for your time and your energies; it has indeed produced a lively and spirited debate (imho). If at times I was a bit too spirited and you felt I was insulting you unjustly, I apologize; I felt my jabs were warranted, but as noted earlier, it is far easier to see the mote in another's eye than the log in one's own. Mea culpa. I want to compliment you on being a skilled debater and an able advocate of your beliefs. I still don't know what a "Reformed Christian" is or what one believes, but perhaps you can help me fill that void some other time, under less adversarial conditions. Until then, take care and good day. I'll leave you with a quote I just snared from Wikiquote that you might enjoy. It is from Dame Julian of Norwich.

"If any such lover be in earth which is continually kept from falling, I know it not: for it was not shewed me.
But this was shewed: that in falling and in rising we are ever preciously kept in one Love."

ta.

(May 12, 2011 at 1:52 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 12, 2011 at 1:42 am)SleepingDemon Wrote: Hmm nice. Don't take that to mean anything more than it is though. Life having no purpose may answer the question, however it is simply the neutral position. Life has no purpose until someone discovers one. (If it exists.) And thank you. I'm not the type that resorts to namecalling during a discussion. And while I am a goldfish in philosophy, I am a shark in theological debates. ;-)

Oh that's cool, I taught debate for a little bit, had a lot of fun doing it. Well I don't believe you can logically have such a thing as a "neutral" position when it comes to theological matters I am afraid. It really is one of the most brilliant aspects of the Bible; it effectively cut out any middle ground logically. If it really was written by just dumb sheep herders and fisherman they seemed to have a pretty advanced understanding of logical argumentation. :-)

A little off topic but do you believe science has limitations?

Erm, how is "God did it" a logical argument?

Science is only as limited as the creative imagination of the person using it.

(May 13, 2011 at 5:16 am)apophenia Wrote:

---

Statler Waldorf:

I must apologize, for I no longer wish to continue this discussion with you. I thank you for your time and your energies; it has indeed produced a lively and spirited debate (imho). If at times I was a bit too spirited and you felt I was insulting you unjustly, I apologize; I felt my jabs were warranted, but as noted earlier, it is far easier to see the mote in another's eye than the log in one's own. Mea culpa. I want to compliment you on being a skilled debater and an able advocate of your beliefs. I still don't know what a "Reformed Christian" is or what one believes, but perhaps you can help me fill that void some other time, under less adversarial conditions. Until then, take care and good day. I'll leave you with a quote I just snared from Wikiquote that you might enjoy. It is from Dame Julian of Norwich.

"If any such lover be in earth which is continually kept from falling, I know it not: for it was not shewed me.
But this was shewed: that in falling and in rising we are ever preciously kept in one Love."

ta.

---

I do liked your replies to statler, but you'd never get a straigh response from him, even after an infinite amount of tries. Yet, kudos for the insight

(May 13, 2011 at 7:57 am)orogenicman Wrote:

(May 12, 2011 at 1:52 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh that's cool, I taught debate for a little bit, had a lot of fun doing it. Well I don't believe you can logically have such a thing as a "neutral" position when it comes to theological matters I am afraid. It really is one of the most brilliant aspects of the Bible; it effectively cut out any middle ground logically. If it really was written by just dumb sheep herders and fisherman they seemed to have a pretty advanced understanding of logical argumentation. :-)

A little off topic but do you believe science has limitations?

Erm, how is "God did it" a logical argument?

Science is only as limited as the creative imagination of the person using it.

First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but there is a better one to be made.

Kantian Idealism, the framework developed by Kant and still largely accepted today, posits that we come "pre-equipped" from the factory with certain abilities, ideas, and ways of understanding; we don't so much reason how the world is, in some ways, as it is our reason dictates that we conceieve and think in certain ways -- many of which we uncritically accept as "features of the world" [note 2]. These ideas include rudimentary logic, spatial reasoning, basic math, and so forth. Refuting the empiricists who contended that we learn everything from experience -- including logic, math and so on -- Kant reasoned that our experience is constituted in ways which presuppose certain ideas (the existence of 3 dimensions for example; it is not possible to "think in 2, 4, or 16 dimensions" -- the number 3 is built in).

So the larger question he asks is answered that it is not unusual for a man -- even an ignorant man -- to reason certain ways; it's simply a part of his mental landscape which he vomits forth as revelation or magic. The more interesting question may be, how does a mind get these things wrong, if indeed they do? The only cases I can think of off-hand belong properly to the field of mental pathology and known defects of the mind (e.g. optical illusions). But the idea that ignorant sheepherders and fishmongers in the Levant are capable of human insight is impressive, but not requiring of special explanation (especially when it is filtered by the censors of the priesthood and the body politic; those things our sheepherders got gloriously wrong were buried and forgotten [note 1]; these people weren't rocket scientists, but they weren't idiots either).

Indeed, there are plenty of examples of works that are comparable in the same general era: Zoroaster, Laozi, Zhuangzi, the Upanishids and Baghavad-Gita, the Dhammapada and the Tripitaka, the Analects, the philosophy of the Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle [which make the Bible look like a grade school primer], the Romans like Cicero [and Rome in general --Jews and Christians were still laboring under the defects of hereditary kingship while Greece and Rome had Democracy and the Republic (until Caesar, but they still had the Senate)]. The simple fact is that the human animal has been developing mentally for several million years, in response to environmental challenges which favor those who "think straight" about what is around them. It's postulated that homo sapiens faced a population bottleneck on the order of 100,000 years ago, and it's likely that modern humans as we know them existed at that point. There's only scant evidence for culture at that age, but if man had language and the rudiments of early technology at that point, then the semites of Judaism and Christianity are at the end of a very long string of thinkers (which likely got a massive boost in efficiency with the invention of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago which lead to a sedentary lifestyle and the formation of cities and civilization).

Yes the bible is remarkable, even wonderful. Is it requiring a special explanation? No. Man was built for this, and in the grand scheme, it isn't even the most polished apple in the bunch. (I will however note that I have a great respect for the Jewish legal tradition and its rabbinical scholars, whom Christians overlook, but without whom we likely would not have nearly as sophisticated a theological tradition as we do.)

I wonder though. Statler, do you believe man existed 100,000 years ago?



[note 1]: Not all the things they got gloriously wrong were buried; the Bible as a whole is riddled with errors and inconsistencies, which eluded the censors (usually because they required a critical hermeneutic which they did not have (both "lower criticism" and other standards which we now assume when reading a text), a comprehensive view of the entire document(s), and the modern methods of science as applied to both textual criticism and historical research. It's hard to fault later writers and scholars for being ignorant of the fact that Jericho didn't fall as described, or that Daniel was not written when it was claimed -- they had no media, no organized system of publication and reference, and no internet search engines.

For example, many find Ezekiel's inconsistency in foretelling the sack of Tyre, and then later noting it didn't happen mind boggling; however it's entirely plausible that if a modern reader pointed this out to him, he'd look at you and not have a clue what you were on about (but then, I'm no expert on the hermeneutic of that era).

[note 2]: I don't want to get in a realist vs. anti-realist, or Kantian vs. Idealist debate, but most people take for granted that the real world exists -- tangibly, palpably and demonstrably (e.g. GE Moore; though even Kant avoided this path, largely so he could fit "God" into his 'world'). The simple question here is are "facts of experience" -- our perceptions, the 'seeming' response of body to our will, etc. -- are these also "facts of the world"? When it appears that I move my arm, is there an actual thing called an arm which is moving, or do I simply perceive my will, and then a moment later perceive the "arm" moving; and, said arm is also nothing more than a perception, like that of my will, or anything else -- does a pain correspond to a real thing? No. According to Kant (excluding his backdoor demonstration via God, in a move ironically echoing Berkeley's Idealism), not. The answer is, we don't know.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:20 am)apophenia Wrote: First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

To be fair, that rule was added a day or two before he made that post and it was not announced. If you feel that a post breaks the rules, feel free to report it. You don't have to chastise the poor guy for doing something that was done regularly here until very recently.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:26 am)Shell B Wrote:

(May 15, 2011 at 1:20 am)apophenia Wrote: First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

To be fair, that rule was added a day or two before he made that post and it was not announced. If you feel that a post breaks the rules, feel free to report it. You don't have to chastise the poor guy for doing something that was done regularly here until very recently.

Perhaps, and if such was common here before, I thank you for pointing out his consistency with the established ethic. However, outside this board and beyond your rules, it is commonly accepted that it is unethical to quote someone in a way that is either inaccurate or unfair to the original. But your point is taken. I wasn't interested in having him disciplined so much as simply bringing what, I'm sure, was likely a simple oversight to his attention.

ETA: It's worth pointing out in hindsight that, given your recent announcement of rule changes which you made in this thread, I partook to familiarize myself with the rules and etiquette posted elsewhere on this forum. Upon reading the section on quoting, giving that it is a commonly accepted standard, I presumed the rule was long standing. I did not realize there was any controversy surrounding the matter. As a side note I will simply suggest that when you post about rule changes in the future, it would help your users to specify what changes you are referring to.

Now that I've made a tempest in a teapot, I leave you to return to your regularly scheduled cat strangling.

(May 15, 2011 at 2:58 am)apophenia Wrote: Perhaps, and if such was common here before, I thank you for pointing out his consistency with the established ethic. However, outside this board and beyond your rules, it is commonly accepted that it is unethical to quote someone in a way that is either inaccurate or unfair to the original. But your point is taken. I wasn't interested in having him disciplined so much as simply bringing what, I'm sure, was likely a simple oversight to his attention.

By common, I don't mean commonly accepted or "ethically" acceptable. It simply was not against the rules.Bolding and italics were not seen as a problem. It does not change accuracy or fairness in most cases.

Here, there is no standard code of ethics beyond the rules, which are adaptable to suit situations that arise, such as the quoting issue.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:20 am)apophenia Wrote: First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

Erm, if there was a rule that didn't allow one to highlight portions of someone elses post that one wants to address, I was unaware of it. I've been posting on the internet since 1995, and in my experience, it is very common for people to highlight portions of a post they want to specifically address. I've seen and done this on many ocassions on many forums, and I must say this is the first time anyone has complained to me about the practice. I didn't change the content of the post, but merely highlighted that portion I wanted to address specifically. If this is a problem (more specifically, if it is not allowed here), I would like to be informed that this is the case. Otherwise, I see no point in discontinuing the practice.

I will crop your response here since I am only interested in addressing one point you made (as far as I'm concerned all of what you posted was irrelevant to my response), as it is the only one that actually interests me.

(May 15, 2011 at 1:20 am)apophenia Wrote: There's only scant evidence for culture at that age, but if man had language and the rudiments of early technology at that point, then the semites of Judaism and Christianity are at the end of a very long string of thinkers (which likely got a massive boost in efficiency with the invention of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago which lead to a sedentary lifestyle and the formation of cities and civilization).

Actually, there is plenty of archaeological evidence for culture during that time period. We used fire, made tools, buried our dead, and (according to findings in Africa that go back 70,000 years), apparently had a religious belief that involved snake worship.

Secondly, the notion that Judaism and Christianity is at the end of a very long string of thinkers is a rather linear way of viewing the history of those specific traditions. The problem is that no one can make a direct connection with our remote past in such a linear fashion. Furthermore, it assumes that everything that came before culminated in those two traditions, and there is simply not much evidence for this. Both Judaism and Christianity post-date other traditions, few of which they are built upon. Finally, it assumes that Judaism and Christianity are the end result of all those earlier thinkers, and I for one believe that is incorrect. There are plenty of thinkers out there today who don't subscribe to either tradition, and neither tradition if an end result of those other thinkers/tradtions.

But then, what any of this has to do with my question "Erm, how is "God did it" a logical argument?" is the real question. God did it is not a logical argument. It is special pleading, a which is a logical fallacy.

(May 15, 2011 at 10:21 am)orogenicman Wrote:

(May 15, 2011 at 1:20 am)apophenia Wrote: First off, I don't believe the bolding emphasis was in Statler's original post; please, if you change bold, italics or elsewise in a poster's text when quoting, alert your reader that you have done so. Arguably, it doesn't change his meaning any, but that's his decision to make, not yours.

Erm, if there was a rule that didn't allow one to highlight portions of someone elses post that one wants to address, I was unaware of it. I've been posting on the internet since 1995, and in my experience, it is very common for people to highlight portions of a post they want to specifically address. I've seen and done this on many ocassions on many forums, and I must say this is the first time anyone has complained to me about the practice. I didn't change the content of the post, but merely highlighted that portion I wanted to address specifically. If this is a problem (more specifically, if it is not allowed here), I would like to be informed that this is the case. Otherwise, I see no point in discontinuing the practice.

Well, as Shell B noted, it is a new rule here, unannounced, so you bear no fault for being ignorant in the matter. That said, you are so informed. Any changes to the text made in quoting should be noted in your use of the quote. Please discontinue the practice of changing quotes without notice of said changes.

Atheistforums.org, rules, section 3 of 'Forum Guidelines'

Quote:Quoting Others Accurately.
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but do not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule will result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned or banned. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (ie. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the bolding and/or italics are yours and not the quoted member's and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text.

(May 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm)apophenia Wrote: Any changes to the text made in quoting should be noted in your use of the quote. Please discontinue the practice of changing quotes without notice of said changes.

I don't mean to be rude here, but I find your continuing chastising to be a bit overreaching. If he breaks the rules, the mods and admins will handle it. Telling him what to do is borderline preaching, which is also against the rules. Please converse with each other as respectfully as possible, stay on topic and leave the enforcement of the rules to those who are appointed to do so.