Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will take me a bit of time to read through everything and to comment.
But just wanted to say Bravo. I fully support this.
Let's all be adults for a change
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i find it amusing that someone quotes themself so frequently. instead of simply engaging in an actual conversation or discussion, there is this constant self-promotion. it reminds me of that greek story about the guy who admired himself in the pond, it has that element of self-adulation. sort of like a toddler going through potty training telling everyone "look at what i made! come see what i made." that's what comes to mind.
sort of like that saying "enough talking about myself. now you tell me what you think of me."
It didn't take long for that request to be denied by the Matron of carping and criticizing posters!
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
I'd rather listen to someone talk about what they believe rather than fault find other people.
But you are one of the few adults here, L8!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
reading from a script is not talking about beliefs.
it is reading from a script.
self-promotion and self-adulation are not discussion. it's the difference between a monologue and a dialogue.
This adds to or furthers the discussion of LearnMe's Ten Assumptions, How??? This thread is precisely what LearnMe asked for when he posted his Assumptions. Your contributions are useless distractions and carping that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
You keep talking about posters and not the content of the posts.
She must mistakenly think that is how you engage views and advance the discussion.
Science is not a religion; it is a tool. Logic and reason are tools. So is faith.
a. what the opening post put forth as a thread topic are the ways "scientism" functions as a religion for some people, including those who post on CD, using the "ten truths" as an example. It also shows how unscientific the premises put forth in the "ten truths" are.
b. so then is the post above all you got from the opening post and topic of this thread? i agree the discussion is most robust and fruitful when people talk about what they believe.
c. the "ten truths" are actually "ten opinions" or "ten beliefs." a person may hold those beliefs or not.
It will take me a bit of time to read through everything and to comment.
But just wanted to say Bravo. I fully support this.
Let's all be adults for a change.
Well, my fond hopes and yours didn't last long. That's why I must take extended breaks from this place and will be doing so again in short order. The toxicity just overwhelms everything else. There is so much baggage among those who haunt this place that, quite literally, every thread quickly turns into the same thread. The same tedious, boring thread. Substantive posts quickly get buried beneath the seemingly endless sniping and carping, and it's just not worth the effort to try and ferret them out. I have better things to do with my time and my life.
What kind of a discussion are you expecting? On the Original Ten Truths? Or on your response?
What keeps me up at night is this: Is LearMe trying to displace Moses? Why 10? Why not 5 or 12? Why not 613?
I'm not expecting anything. That's why I reproduced LearnMe's original Ten Truths in full. Anyone who cares to can challenge him, me or both of us. I've never started or seen a thread that stayed even remotely on topic for more than a couple of pages anyway.
Your tendency to use Intelligent Design to characterize the ontology we seek to understand regrettably invokes unnecessary baggage from the Creationism and Discovery Institute debacle that made it to the courts. I stay away from such language for that reason. But that the ontology of our Reality is best characterized as founded in consciousness is broadly hinted at in the quantum literature, is revealed in the effects of an observer, and is a phenomenon we all are intimately familiar with in our own experience of consciousness. Besides, a conscious Reality would have to be acknowledged as God.
Well, yes, ID has come to be so closely identified with the Discovery Institute and Creationism that any mention of it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. "Creationism," like "fundie," has come to take on an unwarranted pejorative connotation. All Christians are creationists in the sense of believing we live in a God-created reality, but the term Creationist has come to mean something like "whacked-out, anti-science Young Earth Christian and quite possibly a Flat Earther." And ID, of course, has come to mean something "dishonest and thinly disguised Creationism."
But the ID movement has done some fantastic work, and their argument that they are being shouted out of the discussion on strictly philosophical grounds seems entirely valid.
What kind of a discussion are you expecting? On the Original Ten Truths? Or on your response?
What keeps me up at night is this: Is LearMe trying to displace Moses? Why 10? Why not 5 or 12? Why not 613?
To be fair, you will recall that it was originally Nine Truths. He added one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
