[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Why is it a buncha atheists get all in a huff when someone tries to generalize atheism, and then turn around and heap a buncha generalizations on this here theist. Why dontcha all lay off the throttle for a minute to find out what the guy actually believes?

so then we can actually rip into him Angel

No wonder why we only get trolls around here. Dodgy

I appreciate the appeal for civility, but I don't think I'm generalizing atheism. I'm characterizing specific responses here that I feel are symptomatic of broader and more common fallacies and problems within atheism, but I would never try to reduce atheism as a whole to any singular conceptualization or approach. Atheism can be just as variegated and complex as religion, and, as I've said, there is significant overlap between the conceptualization of the two categories. After all, if one of the posters here is correct that religion is nothing more than practices, then atheism certainly is a religion for people like this and this.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
03-01-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses)

He did say it, at the beginning, you fucking fuck. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Why is it a buncha atheists get all in a huff when someone tries to generalize atheism, and then turn around and heap a buncha generalizations on this here theist. Why dontcha all lay off the throttle for a minute to find out what the guy actually believes?

so then we can actually rip into him Angel

No wonder why we only get trolls around here. Dodgy

I agree and that is is why I personally was pressing the conversation for more overall clarity over picking apart specific detailed bits of information. All of the pages in the original thread, and many more here and we are just starting get a feel for what this gentleman's views are.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 09:48 AM by Vosur.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:28 AM)maklelan Wrote:  "Strawman" is the object of "to start belligerently brutalizing," which itself is an infinitive verbal phrase that acts as the adverb of the clause it modifies, namely, "pulling out the strawman." An analogous syntactical construction would be, "he pulled out to guitar to start playing."
I think you meant to say "he pulled out the guitar to start playing".

I furthermore think that "Can we just stick to what I'm actually saying instead of belligerently brutalizing the straw man you pulled out because you assume that that's where I'm headed?" would have been a better, less convoluted formulation.

In any case, thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected.

(03-01-2014 09:28 AM)maklelan Wrote:  If you weren't pulling out a strawman, then you must not have been making reference to my arguments at all, but just using a response to one my posts as a springboard to a separate discussion. If this is the case, let me know and I'll be happy to apologize.
(03-01-2014 09:28 AM)maklelan Wrote:  It's not the topic of any discussion in which I'm participating. If you mean to say there's another discussion taking place, again, I'll be happy to apologize.
You're correct on both accounts. I will make sure to let you know when I intend to make a reference to any of your arguments.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:40 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Why is it a buncha atheists get all in a huff when someone tries to generalize atheism, and then turn around and heap a buncha generalizations on this here theist. Why dontcha all lay off the throttle for a minute to find out what the guy actually believes?

so then we can actually rip into him Angel

No wonder why we only get trolls around here. Dodgy

I appreciate the appeal for civility, but I don't think I'm generalizing atheism.

You're not. My post illustrated the double standard going on here. I gotta stick the fork to my fellow atheists once in a while lest they think they're done. Evil_monster

But there will be some circling of the wagons when atheistic practices are criticized.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have said nothing inconsistent with that paper.

You've insisted that I was wrong in pointing out that there is in fact Near Eastern DNA in ancient North Americans.

But you are wrong. The X2 haplogroup present in Native American DNA is from very early homo sapiens by way of Asia. It is not directly from the Middle East. You misunderstand what you read.
Quote:
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will again say that you seem to misunderstand the research. That paper discusses the details of how many waves of migration there were - all of them from Asia.

My main point was that the migration waves were more complex than is traditionally thought, which is what the article shows. I said they were not necessarily from East Asia, and I could go dig up articles showing other data about migrations rooted in other areas, but like I said, I'm not really interested in wasting my time on this. It's not critical to my point, which you continue to avoid.

The paper specifically says that all of the waves were from East Asia.

What is the point that 'I continue to avoid'?

Quote:
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no 'rhetorical zeal' going on, just simple refutation of obvious myth with science. I have not misrepresented the DNA data in any way.

Yes, you have. You have insisted that it undermines the accuracy Book of Mormon, which I have repeatedly explained is not true, given the text can be interpreted numerous different ways, with only more traditional and old interpretations being problematized by the data. You continue to ignore this point and presuppose that there is only one way to read the text, the way that is conclusively undermined by the DNA evidence. You've also ignored my point about not really caring about defending the historicity of the book. You are so convinced that I'm an apologist you have to defeat that you are ignoring all the points I'm making that don't fit your conceptualization of me. All you care about is winning an argument against a stupid theist, and you're willing to completely ignore repeated requests to actually engage my real concerns in the interest of selectively highlighting whatever claims, real or imagined, you think you can dismantle.

The book says what it says and what it says is wrong. If you wish to put some other spin on what the text says, go right ahead - but that doesn't alter the text. I am not arguing about your interpretation.
I am arguing that you do not understand the DNA evidence, that you are mischaracterizing it.

Quote:
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you do not wish to be challenged, I suggest you stay away from making ignorant claims.

I don't mind being challenged at all. I welcome it. I mind being misrepresented and having my appeals for better understanding ignored.

How am I misrepresenting you? Better understanding of what?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A long time ago Girly and HoC and I agreed that there essentially is no difference, on a practical basis between Eastern Tao, the highest levels of European (mystical/contemplative) Christianity, (see the "Cloud of the Unknowing"), and Agnosticism. I'm suggesting here that it might open a few eyes to actually go read David's blog. He doesn't mindlessly accept Mormonism, but says he has found it useful. So what. We accept Kingsy. He finds Calvinism useful. I seriously hope that, as weird as it might seem, we might have another Kingsy here. I mean a Calvinist is the admin of this forum, and David has never once "preached" Mormonism, just as Kingsy never preaches Calvinism. He can defend what he wants, or say, whatever he wants, or NOT say whatever he wants to say. BTW David, Ralph was pretty new here when you came here first. We didn't really know what to make of his weirdness. He has been back a few times since, and proved unable to answer even the most basic questions. Hope you choose to stick around after your "gauntlet" hazing. It's YOUR business, and no one else's what you choose to find useful, as nutty as it might seem to others.

Yes Mom we promise not to break the new toy. Besides this is not a contentious argument (well not from my side anyway) I think Mac is a fantastic scholar and could be a great addition around here. I wheedle KC the same way from time to time and consider him a good friend. We are just discussing the historicity of TBoM with a Scholar who is a Mormon who better to talk about this with? He seems to not take a literalist stance with it (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses) but despite having read TBoM and looked into a few of it's claims I do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

It's certainly an interesting stance. The first Mormon I've encountered that isn't a literalist! I also appreciate you taking the time to share with us maklelan. ... Are you skeptical about everything concerning LDS? Do you draw a line anywhere? What I mean and why I'm asking, is because if you can take a non literal view of the book of Mormon, do you believe in the whole plates and Joseph Smith thing? I ask because my understanding of LDS was such that these things can't be rejected.

Also, I apologise if this is derailment from the conversation you were having. If you don't want these questions here, would you start an ask a Mormon type thread? Smile

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  He seems to not take a literalist stance with it (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses)

Yeah, probably, but I've found that if I begin with that qualification, it's often interpreted as an invitation to probe me for an explanation as to why I'm a Latter-day Saint, and I find that a tedious and fruitless discussion more often than not.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I think you meant to say "he pulled out the guitar to start playing".

Nu-uh! (Yeah, you're right.)

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I furthermore think that "Can we just stick to what I'm actually saying instead of belligerently brutalizing the straw man you pulled out because you assume that that's where I'm headed?" would have been a better, less convoluted formulation.

I could have stated it more precisely, you are right.

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In any case, thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected.

(03-01-2014 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're correct on both accounts. I will make sure to let you know when I intend to make a reference to any of your arguments.

Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize. I got testy and just assumed you were referring obliquely to me. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
03-01-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:55 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 09:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  He seems to not take a literalist stance with it (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses)

Yeah, probably, but I've found that if I begin with that qualification, it's often interpreted as an invitation to probe me for an explanation as to why I'm a Latter-day Saint, and I find that a tedious and fruitless discussion more often than not.

This post popped up for me after I hit send on my last one. So for clarity, it isn't my intention to probe as you put it but I am sincerely interested. You must admit, your stance is non too common and warrants interest from an ex Mormon like me. ... However if you don't think it's worth your time to explain it, I completely understand.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: