Originally posted by Digi
Citing others' transgressions is not a defense. I'd be against any spoilers.Not popular opinion; common sense. Did you think show watchers had universally seen the video you referenced? Or consider the fact that it revealed things not yet shown in the main series? Or did you not even think about it before posting? Spoiler tags are about the easiest thing in the world to do, and you've been in a cave if you don't recognize the sensitivity of fans concerning them.
I'm not angry. More like mildly annoyed. Clearly others were as well. So you could be indignant and try to accuse others, or recognize that you upset some people and be more careful in the future. Most will be grateful if you are.
srug
You just said that you believed my post to be spoilerish due to the multitudes of people(like Nephythus, Bardock and Nemebro) responding to it as such. Yes, I believe that the trailer is something any reasonable GoT fan has followed at one point or another before the show started. Especially considering the manner in which trailers usually attract so many comments on youtube alone. I would use spoiler tags for something that came out in a very recent episode, or has yet to happen in the show but has happened in the books. An interview with the actress in a trailer produced months prior to the premiere of the show? F*ck that.
Then you should take no offense in knowing that I don't actually give 2 sh1ts what you feel about that post. The only reason I am not even replying in that thread anymore is because I am fairly certain that one more post from me, irrespective of what it is, will result in Ushgarak rewarding me a temp ban. And I am not a particular fan of getting banned twice in the space of 2 weeks. Which begs the question; why are you even bothering with stuff which is entirely removed from this thread and forum alike?
Originally posted by Epicurus
Citing only mine just because a larger number of people (unfairly) reacted to it, is?You just said that you believed my post to be spoilerish due to the multitudes of people(like Nephythus, Bardock and Nemebro) responding to it as such. Yes, I believe that the trailer is something any reasonable GoT fan has followed at one point or another before the show started. Especially considering the manner in which trailers usually attract so many comments on youtube alone. I would use spoiler tags for something that came out in a very recent episode, or has yet to happen in the show but has happened in the books. An interview with the actress in a trailer produced months prior to the premiere of the show? F*ck that.
Then you should take no offense in knowing that I don't actually give 2 sh1ts what you feel about that post. The only reason I am not even replying in that thread anymore is because I am fairly certain that one more post from me, irrespective of what it is, will result in Ushgarak rewarding me a temp ban. And I am not a particular fan of getting banned twice in the space of 2 weeks. Which begs the question; why are you even bothering with stuff which is entirely removed from this thread and forum alike?
I didn't see any others. I'm not condoning other spoilers.
And as I said, context is key, as is common sense. I can't imagine the logic behind thinking everyone has seen a trailer or interview, especially ones containing key future plot points. Some specifically avoid such media for fear of this.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm not angry. More like mildly annoyed. Clearly others were as well. So you could be indignant and try to accuse others, or recognize that you upset some people and be more careful in the future. Most will be grateful if you are.
srug
You're right though. Wrong place. My apologies. Hope you rejoin the discussion eventually.
Originally posted by The Renegade
What you're selling, I'm not buying.
The only thing NemeBro sells is merchandise.
Oh, how clever.
Thank you.
I was unintelligent because I disagreed with you.
Correct. 👆
You're not different than Dramatic Gecko. You've come in and have added nothing, nor can you back up your claims.
What have you added?
You railed on Robtard because of perceived vagueness (And sure, it was vaguer than it could have been) and have been mindlessly biting our bait for several pages. Yes, you may not have known this, but you've been being trolled. Because you're a coward.
I win again.
No, it's not. It's really unfortunate that you think I'm not calm. I suppose you'll next try to tell me that's not an assumption either.
You're obviously upset. It is an assumption, but a well-founded one.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm having a hard time deciding what to do here. On the one hand, I entered into debate with him knowing what I was getting into.
Best if you not think of this as a debate.
Think of it instead as me posing a question for you to answer, that question more or less being: "This sounds fairly reasonable given everything I know. Do you have good reason to believe it false, and can you show me where?"
Originally posted by Digi
he thinks that Noah's Ark is history.
I'm not sure if it is or not.
I've not found conclusively invalidating evidence against it, though.
Originally posted by Digi
It's frustrating when you pick out only part of a quote.
You've proven that you will ignore entire posts sent your way by me.
Comparing the amount of writing I've sent you that you've not responded to, despite saying you would, and this weeks gone now, strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Digi
Will you acknowledge that your attack on "science disproves God" is a strawman? What you quoted wasn't a concession, it was an admission that if your strawman existed, I'd be against it. Do you understand my point?
That's just it; I don't believe it fairly can be called a strawman.
For your man on the street, for the friends you talk to, for the posters on forums like this, newscasters, etcetera, evolution is science, with all the respectability of science's empirical methodology to back it up. In reality, it has a history of hoaxes being committed in its name, alleged suppression of evidence, and proceeds from a priori assumptions that are not directly observable or testable or even, under most circumstances, admitted.
Yet it passes for hard sciences like chemistry, biology, etcetera and is one of, if not the biggest reasons for people citing lack of belief in God.
That article I gave is one step toward correcting at least one misperception regarding science and God.
Also, so that you cannot accuse me of being non-specific ...
My response was to the following quote from you:
Originally posted by Digi
I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote ... I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things (predictive power, the ability to independently confirm it, etc.), so an understanding would be necessary to refute it..
Evolution proceeds from a priori assumptions.
It asserts without scientific evidence that it is true, though it cannot be inductively determined the way true science is, under the guise of what most people consider science. Hitchens' quote applies to it.
That was not, from my perspective, and from what had been said to that point, a strawman at all.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not sure if it is or not.I've not found conclusively invalidating evidence against it, though.
Look harder.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You've proven that you will ignore entire posts sent your way by me.Comparing the amount of writing I've sent you that you've not responded to, despite saying you would, and this weeks gone now, strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
Smh. I try to respond to everything I can. But there's a difference between, say, a debate subsiding or remaining unresolved and deliberately removing a sentence from a quote that isn't convenient to your rebuttal. One is the product of shifting forum debate. The other is a direct choice to take only that which seems incriminating to me and helpful to you.
If you're this upset, though, and not just trying to shift blame for trying to change my point, point me to a debate I left hanging. I'm sure some exist, though none were intentionally malicious. I'll be happy to respond.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That's just it; I don't believe it fairly can be called a strawman.For your man on the street, for the friends you talk to, for the posters on forums like this, newscasters, etcetera, evolution is science, with all the respectability of science's empirical methodology to back it up. In reality, it has a history of hoaxes being committed in its name, alleged suppression of evidence, and proceeds from a priori assumptions that are not directly observable or testable or even, under most circumstances, admitted.
Yet it passes for hard sciences like chemistry, biology, etcetera and is one of, if not the biggest reasons for people citing lack of belief in God.
That article I gave is one step toward correcting at least one misperception regarding science and God.
Stop for a second. The strawman I'm speaking of is that atheists think "Science Proves God Doesn't Exist." For it to not be a strawman, you'd need to provide a respected atheist figure or figures making that argument. And further show that they're basing their atheistic claims on this idea and not others. That's pretty much the one thing you haven't even tried to do. In fact, I did a better job of it for you by analyzing Stenger's book, which treads dangerously close to that line of irrationality (but, as mentioned, doesn't cross it).
So you're changing the debate entirely and arbitrarily. That's literally the only context in which I've used the term strawman in this debate, and you don't even seem to realize that.
Anyway, on this randomness, citing corruption (and embellishing it without sources) can go both ways, as religious history is far from innocent on suppression of knowledge. But that's a fruitless endeavor. The point is that religion's claims can't be verified or tested. And the ones that can have been categorically been found to be false. Even corrupt, misleading science can be tested and challenged, then modified and adjusted. Collectively, it explains the universe and works toward understanding it. Yours beliefs just explain your beliefs.
Look at it this way: a scientist fudging results to make a point is going to be peer-reviewed, and dozens of hopefuls in that field of study are going to call him out on his BS to advance their careers and/or help us understand the truth of the matter. Bias is inherently guarded against in this way. Or if he's wrong, those same hopefuls will try to recreate results, and when they fail, we'll hear the other side of the argument. Whereas a religious scholar whose "findings" support, say, the Ark, will be met with smiles and nods from those wishing to believe the Ark story.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Evolution proceeds from a priori assumptions.
It asserts without scientific evidence that it is true, though it cannot be inductively determined the way true science is, under the guise of what most people consider science. Hitchens' quote applies to it.
That was not, from my perspective, and from what had been said to that point, a strawman at all.
Science has predictive and observational power. The Bible doesn't. No strawmen there; just one side with repeatable evidence and the other with some scribblings.
Anyway, you can't even follow our own debate. Go read Prothero's book.
Lol.
If nothing else, these sorts of ultimately-fruitless debates give me a chance to better state my thoughts. I've become much better at explaining my beliefs, and fielding challenges to them, as a result. Now if only I were as succinct and direct when I debate irl.
Originally posted by Robtard
'God is true unless you can prove God is not true.''Noah's ark(and all the bits that go along) is true unless you can prove it never existed'
Someone needs to learn the Burden of Proof. If you make a positive statement, you're the one that needs to support it.
Omg, don't get BWR started on burden of proof.
Originally posted by Digi
missing the point entirely. Let's try again. Please try not to miss the forest for the trees:Do you believe in Santa Claus? Not some historical figure, but the red-suited elf living in the north pole.
No, I do not believe there is a red-suited elf living in the North Pole.
Originally posted by Digi
The point isn't a pseudo-historical search for "What Ifs", it's this: Would you believe in something no empirical evidence for its existence? Santa Claus? The teapot? God? Doesn't matter which.
Presumably you were asking "Do unicorns exist?" because they are mentioned in the Bible. There is a passage which I was largely unfamiliar with till now that describes it:
Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
I'm not sure why, based on that description, you would dismiss the unicorn as something fanciful and mythical, instead of merely unique in the way of many now-extinct animals. What would you think of if someone described a Narwhal to you 20 years after they went extinct and you had never seen or heard of one?
Wouldn't you be thinking to yourself: "A whale with a horn on it's head?
That can't be true; what in the world would a whale need a horn for?"
Actually, from many accounts, narwhal horns were actually passed off for unicorn horns back in the day:
Narwhals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSjjHiysBbE
Originally posted by Digi
missing the point entirely. Let's try again. Please try not to miss the forest for the trees:The point isn't a pseudo-historical search for "What Ifs", it's this: Would you believe in something no empirical evidence for its existence?
We have no empirical evidence for a lot of things in the past.
I'd be hard pressed to prove that a lot of thing in my life happened.
Doesn't mean they didn't happen, though.
Originally posted by Digi
Santa Claus? The teapot? God? Doesn't matter which.
It matters a great deal which.
There is no reason to suspect, beyond Saint Nicholas of Turkey, that Santa Claus ever existed in anything remotely resembling the form he takes in modern American mythology.
I'd be very surprised, what with all the space junk now orbiting Earth from previous missions, if there actually was NOT a teapot floating around somewhere. We could probably detect it now, though.
I don't think that would have been true in Russell's day, of course.
Originally posted by DigiGiven your seeming lack of evolutionary knowledge, and how it informs our knowledge of the past, the first place I'd point you toward is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624
The reviews I saw on that linked page of yours suggest it is a good book.
Thank you for the recommendation.
Originally posted by Robtard
'God is true unless you can prove God is not true.''Noah's ark(and all the bits that go along) is true unless you can prove it never existed'
BWR needs to learn the Burden of Proof. If you make a positive statement, you're the one that needs to support it.
This is another thing: Where exactly have I made these "positive statements" you're trying to ascribe to me?
Please show me if you can; I'd genuinely like to know.