Irony of the evolutionary belief

[We Never Know]

Uh, I think you rather blew it, Dan is I believe a christian and certainly not claiming what you think,
there are however Christians who can't do science because they let their beliefs get in the way.

Yeah your are probably right. No one on this forum(site) has said to anyone that believes in god should just as well believe in fairies and leprechauns and other nonsense. That they are uneducated etc.

 

[McBell]

Yeah your are probably right. No one on this forum(site) has said to anyone that believes in god should just as well believe in fairies and leprechauns and other nonsense. That they are uneducated etc.

Have you reported them?
If not, it is my opinion you have no reason to complain it.

 

[We Never Know]

Have you reported them?
If not, it is my opinion you have no reason to complain it.

Not reporting it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Pointing something out isn't a complaint.

 

[McBell]

Not reporting it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I never said nor even implied other wise.
Not reporting it strongly implies you have no problem with it.
So complaining about it later seems to me that you are merely trying to be a victim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not reporting it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Pointing something out isn't a complaint.

But it can be in error. I at times will use that sort of argument, but only under rather strong obnoxious claims by another. For example in another thread a member kept claiming that he had evidence. So I explained how just claims are not evidence. The claims had to be tested and I even showed him how. That was not well accepted. It was ignored and the same claim and others were made without any evidence such as that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So since he was being more than a bit rude and obtuse and was technically only preaching I used this line on him. Please note the conditional in the post:

"Again, that is just an empty claim. I would be just as "correct" if I claimed that it was from dictation by drunken leprechauns and was not willing to support it."

My point was the he was by his actions lowering his god to that level. Quite a few believers here are guilty of that sin.

 

[We Never Know]

I never said nor even implied other wise.
Not reporting it strongly implies you have no problem with it.
So complaining about it later seems to me that you are merely trying to be a victim.

Hard to be a victim when I don't believe in a god.

Not agreeing with something doesn't mean I should report it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not reporting it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Pointing something out isn't a complaint.

It in reality was an unfortunate exaggeration. See post #119. I do not give any slack to intentional ignorance of science.

 

[McBell]

Hard to be a victim when I don't believe in a god.

Not agreeing with something doesn't mean I should report it.

Oh.
I did not realize we were discussing you personally.

My point is if you do not report violations, you have no foundation to complain about them.

 

[We Never Know]

It in reality was an unfortunate exaggeration. See post #119. I do not give any slack to intentional ignorance of science.

I don't know what post #119 has to do with it but.....

Wow. Now all she has to do is manufacture a bell.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh.
I did not realize we were discussing you personally.

My point is if you do not report violations, you have no foundation to complain about them.

Lmfao! Did you not say "you are merely trying to be a victim"

That is about talking me.

I never said nor even implied other wise.
Not reporting it strongly implies you have no problem with it.
So complaining about it later seems to me that you are merely trying to be a victim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know what post #119 has to do with it but.....

I think he meant #4119.

 

[McBell]

Lmfao! Did you not say "you are merely trying to be a victim"

That is about talking me.

You prototypically refers to the addressee along with zero or more other persons, excluding the speaker. You is also used to refer to personified things (e.g., why won't you start? addressed to a car).[25] You is always definite even when it is not specific.​

​

Semantically, you is both singular and plural, though syntactically it is almost always plural: i.e. always takes a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. you are, in common with we are and they are).​

You - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

One might think you have a guilty conscience...
However, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hard to be a victim when I don't believe in a god.

Not agreeing with something doesn't mean I should report it.

I'm curious where you want to take this if it isn't about rule violations and reporting of them.

Sometimes debates get robust. If that doesn't cross a line, then we can point it out as something that ruins the debate for some people, ignore it or endure it and do the best to make the points we want to.

If you don't think this thread is a good example, I'm not sure what other comments to make in response to your post except what I have.

 

[shunyadragon]

But that's science right?, nobody can support any claim. All we can offer is our opinion right

I have not met 'nobody' yet, but science can support its claims with objective verifiable evidence,

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know what post #119 has to do with it but.....

It is an over statement exaggeration of the relationship of believers and non-believers,

 

[We Never Know]

You prototypically refers to the addressee along with zero or more other persons, excluding the speaker. You is also used to refer to personified things (e.g., why won't you start? addressed to a car).[25] You is always definite even when it is not specific.​

​

Semantically, you is both singular and plural, though syntactically it is almost always plural: i.e. always takes a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. you are, in common with we are and they are).​

You - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

One might think you have a guilty conscience...
However, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt...

Now when you say "you" there, do your mean me or someone else lol

 

[McBell]

Now when you say "you" there, do your mean me or someone else lol

hmmm...
I concede you have a valid point
AND
that I am responsible for the confusion at hand.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm curious where you want to take this if it isn't about rule violations and reporting of them.

Sometimes debates get robust. If that doesn't cross a line, then we can point it out as something that ruins the debate for some people, ignore it or endure it and do the best to make the points we want to.

If you don't think this thread is a good example, I'm not sure what other comments to make in response to your post except what I have.

Mainly I just think its nonsense.
-It produces nothing good
-It hypes up others
-It adds fuel to the already lit fire
etc etc

 

[We Never Know]

hmmm...
I concede you have a valid point
AND
that I am responsible for the confusion at hand.

When you say "you" there, do your mean me or someone else. Just want to make sure its clear

 

[We Never Know]

In order to claim other believers are denying the Bible, one is basically declaring that one's personal interpretation is the One True Interpretation.

What is really going on among Christians that have the rational ability to observe the world around them is that they are rejecting the interpretation a faith group told it's followers they had to follow.

That is the irony of the literalist view in my opinion.

To argue what the bible says is true, does one have to take it literally?