Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Received]

Will you be responding to those posts?

You bet. Outside at a coffee shop with beautiful weather and no computer.

I cannot parse this sentence. Science is about exploring and describing observations of reality.

What does "truth" mean, in this context? "Stuff that I need to believe as true or I will be sad"?

I'll make another thread or at least put this back with the other one. Later.

 

[Davian]

You bet. Outside at a coffee shop with beautiful weather and no computer.

<wakes briefly>

What about this one? link

I'll make another thread or at least put this back with the other one. Later.

Whenever.

 

[BL2KTN]

Davian: "in this context."

You're trying too hard, BL.

Just going with what you've given =)

The "in this context" qualifier is a lowering of the bar, in an attempt to keep the conversation going, rather than having the religionist repeatedly hitting the evidentiary wall that relegates gods to the imaginary. It is putting training wheels on the bicycle, so at least you can pedal it for a bit, rather than have us just look at it lying on the ground.

I wouldn't take a victory lap just yet.

As the context widens, I'm sure we'll learn more about Mecca Yahweh. I suspect when we do we'll find there are some screws loose.

No victory laps about your post. Just clarifying for BL.

Well, it took a dozen pages of posts, a new thread, and a different poster to get a clarification the last time. Maybe you're learning it's not so hard.

 

[Received]

Just going

Where?

 

[BL2KTN]

I thought you had some questions you wanted to ask me.

 

[Received]

I thought you had some questions you wanted to ask me.

I just asked one.

Where are you going?

I'm serious.

 

[Received]

<wakes briefly>

What about this one? link

That one also was subject to the weather being beautiful and me being outside.

Whenever.

You should really get checked for narcolepsy.

Also for arbitrary selective memorization of previous posts that weren't answered by other posters disorder (or its much easier acronym, ASMOPPTWABOPD).

 

[BL2KTN]

I just asked one.

Where are you going?

I'm serious.

Nashville this week and Jacksonville next.

 

[Davian]

That one also was subject to the weather being beautiful and me being outside.



You should really get checked for narcolepsy.

Also for arbitrary selective memorization of previous posts that weren't answered by other posters disorder (or its much easier acronym, ASMOPPTWABOPD).

Which loops you back to this post - are you here only for the slow pitches and echo of your own voice?

 

[Received]

Nashville this week and Jacksonville next.

Cool.

 

[Received]

Which loops you back to this post - are you here only for the slow pitches and echo of your own voice?

I haven't stopped beating my wife either.

Consider it from my perspective, Davster.

I have a life, which includes a big fat job, on top of it another job (teaching), on top of it another job (an illness with which I'm still changing doses, leading to symptoms). I also know this place *isn't* a job, and whereas with a job I have responsibilities and commitments, here I have fewer responsibilities and no commitments. I don't have to respond to any posts at all, and the reason I don't is a combination of the big three mentioned above, plus I probably think there's no point in continuing a discussion because it will result in an impasse.

That said, what 2-3 responses do you really, really want me to get back to -- either just recently or years ago? I'll try my best. If that doesn't satisfy, give me a reason to this question: why am I, or anyone, required to answer every post in every discussion with every member (including yourself)?

 

[Davian]

I haven't stopped beating my wife either.

Consider it from my perspective, Davster.

I have a life, which includes a big fat job, on top of it another job (teaching), on top of it another job (an illness with which I'm still changing doses, leading to symptoms). I also know this place *isn't* a job, and whereas with a job I have responsibilities and commitments, here I have fewer responsibilities and no commitments. I don't have to respond to any posts at all, and the reason I don't is a combination of the big three mentioned above, plus I probably think there's no point in continuing a discussion because it will result in an impasse.

That said, what 2-3 responses do you really, really want me to get back to -- either just recently or years ago? I'll try my best. If that doesn't satisfy, give me a reason to this question: why am I, or anyone, required to answer every post in every discussion with every member (including yourself)?

Do whatever you want. The point of that post was, why participate in a forum with a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs " statement of purpose and exclude your own?

 

[Received]

Do whatever you want. The point of that post was, why participate in a forum with a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs " statement of purpose and exclude your own?

What evidence do you have that I've excluded myself?

 

[Davian]

What evidence do you have that I've excluded myself?

You bet. Outside at a coffee shop with beautiful weather and no computer.

I'll make another thread or at least put this back with the other one. Later.

That one also was subject to the weather being beautiful and me being outside.

.

 

[Received]

.

So to you, when I don't respond relatively immediately to your posts, whether or not I'm actually, I don't know, enjoying life, I'm therefore...not critiquing myself...?

 

[BL2KTN]

You respond plenty when it's easy... when you're flummoxed you delay (and yes, it's obvious delaying when you go on to post ad nauseum on other topics in other threads). It's the same old same old with you: your schtick.

 

[Davian]

So to you, when I don't respond relatively immediately to your posts,

That one post was from November. You need more time with that one?

whether or not I'm actually, I don't know, enjoying life,

I don't see the dichotomy. You do seem the find time to be here. And, do you not enjoy being here?

I'm therefore...not critiquing myself...?

No, I said, excluding your beliefs from the general statement of purpose for this forum.

As I said before, pretend you are in a philosophy forum...

 

[Received]

You respond plenty when it's easy... when you're flummoxed you delay (and yes, it's obvious delaying when you go on to post ad nauseum on other topics in other threads). It's the same old same old with you: your schtick.

You know you can prove that statistically. Since this is your content, the burden of proof is on you to do so.

And that's a tough thing to pull. Because there's no evidence that because I don't respond it means anything other than I think it'll take more time to respond and is therefore not worth it, or that I don't respond because I believe an impasse will have been met, or any other reason.

Do you have a methodology for that justification? I'd be happy to pull stats on SPSS.

 

[Received]

That one post was from November. You need more time with that one?

What does it mean to you that I didn't respond?

I don't see the dichotomy. You do seem the find time to be here. And, do you not enjoy being here?

I've said this very clearly to quatona before, because when his posts get really long (I also said the same to TillICollapse recently, I believe), it starts to feel less and less like fun responding and more like work. Do you have any justification that me voluntarily coming to a debate board should feel like work, or that I should be required to respond to every post regardless of how little relief or leisure I get from it?

Or try this: given that nobody can respond to every single post they're implicitly solicited to respond to (do you do this?), then what is the criteria (a percentage will work fine) that a person should respond to posts by a specific poster and in general, or else he's avoiding things? How do you come to that number (by what reasoning)?

No, I said, excluding your beliefs from the general statement of purpose for this forum.

As I said before, pretend you are in a philosophy forum...

And you seem to believe either that your posts would constitute a fair justification of my own beliefs in responding to them, or that (again) I'm required to justify my own beliefs to the point of it being no fun.

I know you don't come to this forum to just selflessly and trudgingly explain yourself in a dispassionate, hyper-reasonable way, Davian. You have dopamine receptors too.

And I'm going on 12,000 posts in this forum, Davian. Give me a break.

 

[BL2KTN]

You know you can prove that statistically. Since this is your content, the burden of proof is on you to do so.

And that's a tough thing to pull. Because there's no evidence that because I don't respond it means anything other than I think it'll take more time to respond and is therefore not worth it, or that I don't respond because I believe an impasse will have been met, or any other reason.

Do you have a methodology for that justification? I'd be happy to pull stats on SPSS.

There's no need to prove that which is visibly in action.