Hey, I'm not trying to insult the Forum or anyone here, but things are just crazy these days. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld fears to tread on college campuses for fear of getting blackballed on political correctness--nobody can tolerate humor any more. I'd like to suggest it's worse than that. No one can tolerate serious discussion any more. How about we reserve say, this one thread for no side-tracking on the one side to gay weddings nor knee-jerk rejection of supernaturalism and on the other side no assumption that appeal to the Bible (or Koran or religious Law) settles anything either.
How about someone suggests something for discussion and I decide if it's a subject challenging adult conversation. When that plays out (maybe really quickly, as people's sensibilities seem to get trampled upon really quickly) we can settle on some other subject for adult discussion.
Only adult in the room?
Moderator: Moderators
- cnorman19
- Apprentice
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:56 pm
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
- Contact:
Post #31
Just a quote that I thought apropos:
When asked what his IQ was, Stephen Hawking replied:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
When asked what his IQ was, Stephen Hawking replied:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
"The Torah is true, and some of it may even have happened." -- Rabbi William Gershon
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry; but why on Earth should that mean that it is not real?" -- Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; J. K. Rowling
"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God -- but to create him." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry; but why on Earth should that mean that it is not real?" -- Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; J. K. Rowling
"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God -- but to create him." -- Arthur C. Clarke
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #32
.
[Replying to post 31 by cnorman19]
Another quote: "Those who claim to be highly intelligent irritate those who really are intelligent" (adding "and everyone else").
[Replying to post 31 by cnorman19]
Another quote: "Those who claim to be highly intelligent irritate those who really are intelligent" (adding "and everyone else").
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #33
If I had noticed this post before I sent you those overly personal PMs, I would have realized that you may have a sense of humor after all. Provide more evidence and I may change my mind and stop saying that I am willing to debate anybody--just not you.
Post #34
Ironically, you are correct, and THIS FACT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE IQ ADDICTS THEMSELVES.cnorman19 wrote: Just a quote that I thought apropos:
When asked what his IQ was, Stephen Hawking replied:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
Yes, the late Grady Towers' article "The Outsiders" has been endlessly reprinted in all the high-IQ journals. Successful people of high IQ do not join these societies, they are busy succeeding, leaving most of the high-IQ groups as pity-party social clubs. They recognize that "too many aptitudes" capabilities wind up preventing them from focusing on marketable skills other than computer nerd gigs. They recognize their neotyny (near-sighted, boyish) hinders their social acceptance.
ISPE does have a mission, but not one PC acceptable currently. Mensa tends to be a meat market as it (alone) has equal numbers of males and females.
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #35
.
BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
I trust that readers suspect that your real reasons for refusing to debate H2H have nothing to do with my supposed lack of humor.Korah wrote:If I had noticed this post before I sent you those overly personal PMs, I would have realized that you may have a sense of humor after all. Provide more evidence and I may change my mind and stop saying that I am willing to debate anybody--just not you.
BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #36
Thanks for the advice--I had assumed that since Random Ramblings allows no freedom that PMs must be the place. So much for logic.Zzyzx wrote: BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
But I am encouraged that your warning would seem to indicate that you are not dead-set on my banishment from DC&R. Thanks for the temporary lee-way. (Am I allowed to issue thanks here in DC&R, or is that too personal?)
EDIT THIS PART OUT, PLEASE, IF AGAINST THE RULES!
May I inquire, sir, what are your qualifications (if any) for debating in the field of Higher Criticism of the four gospels? Please excuse my ADHD (and persistent Alzheimer's of 60 years duration since I turned 13), but I don't recall seeing any evidence of such from you.
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #37
.
I did not, BTW, report the uncivil PM comments and personal attack – but could have
Banishment decisions are made by vote of eight people (Admin and Moderators) after repeated Comments, Warnings and Final Warning for rule infractions. Even if one person favors banishment, that is only one vote in eight.
In fact, I would prefer that you continue as a member AND learn to debate issues rather than focusing on personalities and personal comments, AND learn to substantiate claims with something other than your own opinions and conclusions.
I make no claims to such knowledge or expertise, but seem to do okay debating self-proclaimed "experts."
My background is in Earth science (specifically fluvial geomorphology) which seems to come in handy at times. Also, that background in science taught me to look critically / analytically at claims of knowledge to learn if they were credible and independently verifiable – and to effectively challenge those which are not.
It is prudent to actually read Forum Rules rather than attempting to "logic" them.Korah wrote:Thanks for the advice--I had assumed that since Random Ramblings allows no freedom that PMs must be the place. So much for logic.Zzyzx wrote: BTW, it might be prudent to review Personal Messaging Rules: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed in Personal Messages (PM).
2. Civility and respect are to be expected in PM exchanges.
I did not, BTW, report the uncivil PM comments and personal attack – but could have
My "dead-set on your banishment" has existed ONLY in your mind.Korah wrote: But I am encouraged that your warning would seem to indicate that you are not dead-set on my banishment from DC&R. Thanks for the temporary lee-way.
Banishment decisions are made by vote of eight people (Admin and Moderators) after repeated Comments, Warnings and Final Warning for rule infractions. Even if one person favors banishment, that is only one vote in eight.
In fact, I would prefer that you continue as a member AND learn to debate issues rather than focusing on personalities and personal comments, AND learn to substantiate claims with something other than your own opinions and conclusions.
It would be more appropriate to make such comments in PM rather than in threads – but no big deal.Korah wrote: (Am I allowed to issue thanks here in DC&R, or is that too personal?)
This Forum does not require "qualifications" to debate ANY issue. Those who think they have superior qualifications are welcome to demonstrate their great knowledge (if they can – rather than just proclaiming "qualifications" and pontificating).Korah wrote: EDIT THIS PART OUT, PLEASE, IF AGAINST THE RULES!
May I inquire, sir, what are your qualifications (if any) for debating in the field of Higher Criticism of the four gospels?
I make no claims to such knowledge or expertise, but seem to do okay debating self-proclaimed "experts."
My background is in Earth science (specifically fluvial geomorphology) which seems to come in handy at times. Also, that background in science taught me to look critically / analytically at claims of knowledge to learn if they were credible and independently verifiable – and to effectively challenge those which are not.
"Credentials" don't count for much in debate.Korah wrote: Please excuse my ADHD (and persistent Alzheimer's of 60 years duration since I turned 13), but I don't recall seeing any evidence of such from you.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #39
.
I sure did curse it more than a few times in grad school Joey.JoeyKnothead wrote: I'd need to tell on Zzyzx for cussin'.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #40
[Replying to post 30 by Zzyzx]
They say that in Thermonuclear War the one to strike first wins (or at least "wins" until the second strike obliterates it too).
Hopefully that analogy won't hold as you have unilaterally trotted out in Christianity and Apologetics your preferred "Q" as the first topic to discuss. Good fake by me, I guess, saying all along I wanted to start with the Passion Narrative that I would present as really best based on the S Source per Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Logically good place to start, but I'm out on a limb seeing John (for ch. 18 to 20 or 21, anyway) as preceding the Synoptics. With that one I would have gotten crucified before I started, as Fundies whether Christians or atheists both insist the Synoptics came first. Even Teeple doesn't see it my way and I otherwise use him like he's God.
But no harm to you (by inadvertently helping me) because trotting out Q embarrasses the Fundies no end with a slam dunk for atheism. Too bad that it turns out that critical scholars are currently in disarray, but cramming Q down Fundie throats is all that matters.
They say that in Thermonuclear War the one to strike first wins (or at least "wins" until the second strike obliterates it too).
Hopefully that analogy won't hold as you have unilaterally trotted out in Christianity and Apologetics your preferred "Q" as the first topic to discuss. Good fake by me, I guess, saying all along I wanted to start with the Passion Narrative that I would present as really best based on the S Source per Howard M. Teeple in his 1974 Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Logically good place to start, but I'm out on a limb seeing John (for ch. 18 to 20 or 21, anyway) as preceding the Synoptics. With that one I would have gotten crucified before I started, as Fundies whether Christians or atheists both insist the Synoptics came first. Even Teeple doesn't see it my way and I otherwise use him like he's God.
But no harm to you (by inadvertently helping me) because trotting out Q embarrasses the Fundies no end with a slam dunk for atheism. Too bad that it turns out that critical scholars are currently in disarray, but cramming Q down Fundie throats is all that matters.