Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And your opinion would be wrong. Being a scientist is a profession, just as all kind of other things are
That's not what I said. Please represent my view accurately.
Not all scientists need access to a lab. But for some lines of research, scientists do need access to equipment not accessible to anyone else. What's the hard part in understanding this, Razzel?
Misrepresenting my view, that's for sure.
And what I say is that in a number of cases (not all, I never stated in all cases) they do have to come from there.
razzelflabben said:
Same thing. Aron would have got to that just as he has before. You cant jump to the conclusion of a science text while ignoring all the evidence and reasoning in the middle.
Or, 3: Your presentation of yourself on these forums
Depends on the context, a person can have the right education to be a scientist but lack the "heart" to be one, as many evolutionists claim for creationists, and the opposite is true as well, a person can be scientific minded without formal education to be a scientist. Therefore the context in which one is speaking is viatal to understanding if one is talking about the scientific minded individual or the person who is scientifically trained or te one who is both.
Now wait one minute here, I asked you a question. See the question mark indicates that I am asking for clarity, and not representing anything you have said, accurately or not. If I had represetned your view it would have been in a format other than asking you to clarify what you believe. Therefore by aron's definition we have two options 1. you are lieing about my representing your view or 2. you don't yet know what a question is. Hummm, I am so glad I use a much stricter criteria for determining what a lie is and who is therefore a lier, aren't you?
I don't know, because I agree with this, therefore, I don't have a clue what you are going on about. What I said is that access to the equipment is not only achieved through formal education. But then again, I don't find that concept hard to understand either and you seem to. What makes it so hard for you to understand?
Now twice in this post itself, I am accused of mirsrepresenting your views when I ask you a question for the purpose of clarifying your view. To represent one's views in any form, including falsely, one would have to state those views not ask for you to clarify them. Interesting isn't it, but I am the one with the communication problem, because I assume the scientists here on this board should be able to understand the difference between a statement and a question.
All I have said is that formal education isn't the only way to achieve the level of knowledge required to be a scientist in the strict understanding of the word scientist.
Not all scientifically minded persons are scientists. I have a scientific education and it this point am applying for a new position as a scientist. If I get that position, I become a scientist. If I choose to go into politics, I become a politician and stop being a scientist. "Scientist" is a job description, nothing more, nothing less, in all contexts. One can become a scientist without a formal scientific education (although that is going to be very hard) but if you have reached that goal you have become a scientist, because that is the job you do.
Where does the whole liar discussion enter into this, Razzel? I have not participated in that line in this thread in any way, nor do I feel inclined to.
Where in my posts have I ever said that it is not possible to become a scientist through unconventional routes, Razzel. Especially when I stated a post earlier that "We agree that you can become a scientist through different ways."
Other then as a rhetorical device, your question didn't make any sense to me at all, so I presumed it to be that. So if that was in error, my apologies. But that does leave the question what the heck your point was with the questions?
You never defined that you wanted to use your own "loose" definition of the world. Neither have I ever seen people use it in that way before, to be honest. What is more, that wasn't the point you started out with. What you started out with was your contention that a non-scientist can get the 'exclusive information' needed to contribute to some highly speicialized fields of knowledge. You made this point in reaction to Rmwilliams who wrote:
Then why did you do that? I defined what a lie is before you accused me of it.
The word, "evolution" (with no other qualifiers) can mean only "change over time". That's why I make sure to add the critcal qualifier to my definition:
I have no idea what you're talking about, and would try to read your mind even if I could.
Mine is the strict definition. Yours is so broad that it includes any misunderstanding that might result from the context of faith you happen to be thinking of at the moment.
Prove it, because I say that's never happened, I haven't ignored anything you've said, and that you've never provided anything substantive anyway.
I said the opposite, and you misunderstood me again. Good thing we're using the standard definition of a lie and not yours, right?
You're contradicting yourself again.
One need only scroll back to post # 596 of this thread, wherein you said;
But you did accuse me of being a liar many times. With Edx and Consideringlily, you've only insinuated it very strongly, but with me, you made that accusation definitely and very clearly, and you keep repeating it.
And I would say I have a better understanding of it than you, and that mine is demonstrably more accurate. But of course you'll never be convinced of anything about that, so its pointless to discuss it with you any further.
Again, as always, your data is dead wrong and in this case, that is demonstrably so.
except that you and he both insisted on boring me with evidence I already have seen and reviewed and refused to even talk about the evidence that questions the conclusions. Which shall I remind you yet again is what we had agreed to discuss.
Actual what I told him or at least tried to in between all the insults to my intelligence was that I understood that and how one might come to the conclusion of common ancestry. However, there is evidence that questions this being the only viable conclusion and that is what I was told would be talked about on that particular thread, and what I made time to discuss. Neither you or aron have yet to grasp that concept because to you, if I can't rubber stamp all the conclusions for evolution, I simply am unlearned, stupid, or a creationist. At least that is the opinion your posts portray, of which none of these fits who I actually am and what I actually believe. All I wanted to do was find someone intelligent enough and brave enough to discuss the evidence in question not go on and on and on about things not relavent to the topic agreed upon to discuss.
Okay, if you think them the same, then tell me this, what is the evidence that questions the conclusion?
Say what?!? I started out by ignoring his comment and when pushed simply said that claims of lies have been made on both sides. That is how this whole things got stated. He kept pushing for me to evidence evolutionists doing the lieing and I told him I didn't get into calling others liers because it was a matter of the heart and we can't know anothers heart. But that wasn't a good enough answer for him either and so we come to now. Enough said, I have posted my view enough different ways for someone with english as a second lang. could understand that I am not calling either side liers because I don't find it appropriate to judge anothers heart. If aron wants to judge others that is up to him, but I will refrain from it and reserve the right to do so independant of what aron wants me to do.
Que? I have no problem with common ancestry, I have a problem with claiming common ancestry is the only viable conclusion, so again, you misrepresent my views and insist that it isn't a lie. I'm down with that, but by aron's criteria, you are a lier because you still haven't figured out that when I say that I find other viable conclusions possible that I mean I find other viable conclusions possible. Usually when someone says they find other viable conclusions possible they mean that they find other viable conclusions possible.
See here is goes again, I say to you all that my criteria is higher than aron's but by his criteria, you and he are both liers, and you use that to say that I am calling you liers. I am not, I am saying that aron's criteria leaves you both listed among the liers he has said he would take to task. My personal feeling is that there is more going on here than meets the eye and therefore I refrain from labeling you. It is aron's criteria that labels you not mine.
whatever, I go to bed with a clear and peaceful conscience that I am above reproach on the issue of honesty on this forum.
after asking them to explain it and them insisting they spoke all that was needed to communicate effectively. And so I take it for what it says and that is a misrepresentation according to you. Again, if that is your criteria, you dear one are more guilty than anyone else I have had the priveledge on meeting on the forum.
already delt with and quite frankly I am tired of hearing you boast of believing the evidence but refusing to accept it when it is presented to you. Get over it and move on. Life is way to short to waste it on arguements like this. The evidence is there, either accept it or continue on with your rantings, but do it without me because I believe what the evidence supports.
apology accepted, I think, it would be much easier to accept if it had sounded sincere.
Again, no, what I have a problem with is the idea that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.
Right so yet again here we have another comment that shows you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of commen ancestry.
Now, there are two different ideas being presented, 1. that I have a problem with common ancestry and 2. that I have a problem with the idea that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. One is your claim based on my comments and direct statements the other is once again stated by me directly. One misrepresents my opinion, the other represents it nicely. Which would then be truth? Hint: the one in which I tell you directly what my problem is.
fair enough, my children want to know how to do math proofs, and so I say let's start with counting to 10. How do they know that I am not just clarifying the terms so that we can talk about proofs?
Agian, you are right, if my children want to learn geometry, we alway start the course with counting don't we? No, we assume that somewhere along the line, they already know how to count If I say to you that I already accept that common ancestry is possible, then you could reasonable assume that somewhere along the line I have aleready understood the basics. It is a reasonable assumption now isn't it!
and......I have looked and understood the evidence or I couldn't accept the possiblilities of common ancestry now could I?
could have been my kids and I didn't notice, when I have to get up from the computer they like to play around on it and see if I catch thier mucking, I usually do but occasional it gets by me.
Simple, the only name I entered the discussion about lies was aron and for the specific reason of avoiding this discussion in which you repeatedly misrepresented me and repeatedly refuse to accept the evidence. The discussion was between aron and myself and so I omitted you on purpose and I was happy to leave it at that but you brought yourself into it with more misrepresentations and false accusations, which according to aron constituetes you as being a lier. If you don't think you are because you misrespresent my opinions and bare false witness to what I have said after repeatedly clarifying, then you would need to take it up with aron since it is his criteria that would label you as such.
Thus my comment and I quote
I tried to stay out of it myself. Went something like this, aron said that he had evidence of creationist lying I ignored the comment, only be be "proded" into a comment, so my coment was that both sides of the arguement make the same claims that the other side is a bunch of liers, I personnally don't think we can know anothers heart to know if they are liers or not. That was all twisted and misrepresented so many times that we come to now and still no one understands or at least accepts that I don't call people liers, which is why I don't care if aron has "evidence" or not because all such evidence would indeed be subjective. Do you wish to translate my opinion for those on this thread who don't yet understand it?
Not sure what you mean here, all I have ever said is that access to equipment doesn't only happen through formal education. Long, short, simple, complexed, that is it.
Well, if you do not accept my above idea that formal education is not the only way to achieve "scienist" status, then the opposite would indeed be true. It is a poor arguement which in short is why I take the stand I do, that equipment is available in other places than formal schools of education.
The point of questioning is to be sure one understands the opinion, materials, ideas being presented.
True, and most of the discussion I did not use such, the point was however that your claim of what I said would not fit my personal beliefs therefore would indeed be a misunderstanding of what I actually was presenting as an idea and opinion.
I have many many many times.
Again all I said is that formal education isn't necessay or a requirement to be a scientist. If it wasn't necessary to repeat my position I appologize, look how many times I have repeated myself on other topics and I still am not understood and misrepresented, I honestly don't know when it is necessary and when it isn't.
I totally agree as I remember specifically stating, directly that I agreed.
Which still doesn't change that being a 'scientist' is a profession, regardless of context. When talking about scientists we talk about those in the scientific profession, not about scientifically minded individuals outside that profession.
On the risk of being dragged into this discussion. Aron clarified when someone should be called a liar and I think that definition was quite clear. It meant someone promoting a position that can be demonstrated this person knows is false. There are many times when such a position can be shown. The court decisions on perjury rely on this.
Fair enough.
In which other places can I get access to a particle accelerator, other then places like CERN?
Well, you said the following (bolding mine):razzelflabben said:
I wasn't asking for the point of asking question in itself. I was asking after what the point was of the specific questions you asked. Asking questions makes sense. This does not autamatically mean that all questions make sense.
què?
First of all, I still haven't accused you of lieing, you need to get that straight and the reason I haven't is because I think your definiiotn is simply too general. It is your definiotn that labels you a lier, I always give you the benefit of the doubt, if I didn't, well, let's say I would be a lot harsher with you , and leave it at that.
Right and if a discussion commonly uses the "shorthand" version, then is is not "fair" communication to say I can use the shorthand and you can't. Which happens repeatedly on this board. That too by your definition could be construde as a lie.
No not really, my definition allows for miscommunication and misinterpretaions. Yours doesn't.
I asked you to be sure you wanted this discussion before we started and you assured me you did. Now the one consistant I have said is that my definiiton for a lie is not as limiting as yours, therefore I don't call people liers on either side of the issue even though both sides resort to such, I also have consistantly said that I reserve the right to judge for myself who is and who is not a lier not just saying they must be liers because aron says so. You can go on and on and on all you want, but that is my position and it is consistant with everthing I have said to you.
Start someplace, start with the first time I recall ever dealing with you on the forum. Ed set up a discussion between us in which I repeatedly said that I understood how the conclusion of common ancestry was drawn what I don't see is how it is the only viable conclusion and you ignored that to "educate" me on the evidence that is used to draw the conclsuion of common ancestry. We can move on from there to all the direct things I have said to you like my position on lieing and how you still haven't heard it at all. There is a consistant pattern of behavior and to be frank and honest with you, you are one of the most honest evolutionist I have run into on the forum, of which there are 3 or 4 who at least put forth and effort to remove preconcieved ideas and listen to the "arguement", that is to your credit.
Be careful, what I have repeatedly done is show you that by your definition you are a lier. My definition includes a lot more grace in understanding how communication works and can fail. It is your definition and criteria for lieing that accusses you, not me
If you wish to use your criteria, go for it, that is up to you, but I warned you would wouldnt like the results and the results are that by your criteria you are a lier. (furrowed brow) Why do you think I warned you not to get into this discussion? Hint: because it would be too easy to convict you of lieing if you are so readily willing to call others liers. The teaching in the bible on judgeing others is simple, don't do it because if you do you will be judge as well. This teaching is true from my experience. You judged others to be liers, now, the judgement comes back to you and shows you to be the same. I prefer not to judge thus, I am able to dismiss false accusation with out guilt on my character and if you remember, I touched on this idea long ago when we first started talking about lies.
Note nor dismisses said proof or evidence.
everyone chooses an authority, there is nothing in this definition that chooses that authority for us.
This is the only one so far that even questions my definition and it would eliminate religion in that there is "proof" in religion and while we're talking about it, remember that evidence is not proof. That is a standard scientific arguement that cannot be discarded because it doesn't fit your ideas.
see above, evidence is still allowed. and religion is thus dismissed.
Wow, what I said, "belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence." wheres faith is not equal to belief. Thanks for all the time you took to support my position, that was over and above what was called for.
See, my definition of faith rolls all this into one big ball and says the same.
The point is, that scientist isn't just a profession any more than teaching is, there is more to it than that. Have you ever seen a teacher who could actually communicate with his/her students and get them to see things they never dreamed they could understand? It is a thing of wonder trust me and hollywood recognizes it as well in all their movies of teachers who opened the eyes of students and all the possibles that lay before them. Science is much the same, education doesn't make you a scientist anymore than education makes you a teacher, there is more to it, it goes to the heart and soul of a person, who they are at the core. That is the point
What about when an idea and opinion is directly stated and repeatedly so but is still misrepresented, how would you go about proving that the person was innosent of not knowing they were misrepresenting? It's a heart issue that we can't know, at least that is my take on it. Aron seems to want to call it a lie and if that is the definition then unfortunately, he is a lier because by that definition (his not mine) there is ample evidence to suggest that he did know that what he was presenting was indeed a misrepresentation of the idea expressed. Just as there is evidence that suggests you do know what a question actually is yet you accused me of falsely representing your ideas anyway. That by definition given would make you to be a lier as well. Now I don't think for one moment that you intended it that way, because I respect the person you a have shown to us much more than that, but by reason of definition, and definition alone, your stuck. Which is why I take the position I do. The problem with the definition is that it deals with heart matters and if you can't know anothers heart, how then can you call them a lier?
Oh please, I have told aron that by his definition he was a lier and that my definition was more restrictive that is much different that me calling him a lier and hum, is not the first time I have corrected the accusation so you must have known that going into this comment, isn't that right? and still you misrepresent my claims why? You know them to be wrong, and yet you misrepresent them none the less. What would that make you by the definition provided?
Well first off I didn't ask him to evidence his claim because I find his claim less than honorable. Seocndly, I have repeatedly demonstrated how you and he and ed, etc. have repeatedly and directly been told something only to misrepresent it in the next post sometimes in the quoted post. Now by definition given, the person must present a falsehood (misrepresentation is equivilant) while knowing they were doing so (a direct and repeated comment would qualify and we won't even talk about the issue of what a question is, we should be able to assume that an educated person like yourself knows what a question is) so by definition, what then have we repeatedly seen? That's right, a lie. I would assume that someone who repeatedly lies would then be a lier? Or is that not part of the definition?
I don't know, I'm not a scientist but I'll lay money that colleges and universities are not the only places to find them, want to lay down some cash?
How can I interpret this sentence other then that I would disagree with your view that you can use different roads other then formal education to become a scientist?[/quote] That is what it seems like you are doing when you argue about what we agree on.
And questions are not accusations or misrepresentations, they are indeed questions.
Sure, there are more and less able scientists, just as there are more and less able teachers. And some scientists have been born to become scientists as it were, just as teachers have it in their blood to become teachers. But that still doesn't negate that both are job descriptions. If someone who has teaching in his blood becomes a politician and stops teaching, he stops being a teacher and starts being a politican.
But by his definition, this is not the case. See, it is obvious from all my posts that I was at the least confused about what your point was. It is also known that questions are not always meant as questions but can be seen as rhetorical devices (ie, the rhetorical question). My responses are clear enough in an independent reader would see them as such. They do not make sense in any other way.
Fair enough, you have indeed pointed out in the last few posts that you meant according to his disclaimer. I hadn't read those yet. As I said, the discussion really is not one I want to enter into. The point I was making is that you could have called him on the evidence, which you didn't, and that as soon as you made the assertion that he was lying (by his definition) you should have he was right (and in fact is still right) to ask you to back this up.
Or perhaps you don't make your points as clearly as you think you do? You see, when I read this thread, for example, I see a lot of misunderstanding, bad wording, arguing over definitions etc, but nowhere do I see things that could be termed lies according to the definition provided by Aron-Ra. I have not yet seen you demonstrate such. Which is why you should either present your own case that Aron could be called a liar by his own definition or let Aron present his case or just quit the discussion. You aren't going to get anywhere any other way.
I happily lay down cash that particle accelorators such as the one from CERN are not found anywhere else as in scientific institutions. I will directly clarify that I am really talking about things like this, particle accelorators for high-energy physics. I know of some others in the world that are smaller, but all are in possession of scientific institutions or collaborations like CERN. I can think of some other equipment that will not be found anywhere else, but let's start here.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. A rhetorical question is not a question at all. I believe you if you say that you weren't stating rhetorical questions, but I read them as such first.
Maybe because you really didn't put forth that position so clearly?
Your definition, whatever it is, is so general that, by your own admission, what appears to be a lie to you may not be a lie at all. My definition is precise and testable. "My" definition is the definition.
But that's not something I'm guilty of, because if you say "evolution" in the context of biology exclusively, I'll still figure you're using the same, strictly biological concept that I am.
Thank you for repeating back what I just said to you.
You've been so inconsistent throughout this thread that you contradict yourself constantly. First my definition is too general, then in the very same post, you say its too limiting. Make up your mind. You call me a liar, say you didn't really say that, and call me a liar again. Your only consistency is your consistent self-contradiction.
Done.
You didn't understand what I was trying to explain to you, and -just like you're doing now- kept trying to change the subject or twist the words around in a weird game of semantics which seemed to me to be deliberately facetious. If you ever really wanted to know why it is the only option, that I could have explained easily. But I don't remember you ever even asking that.
Because you usually contradict yourself immediately before and/or immediately after those comments.
Then why did you say I would be first on the list of many times using subtle lies to misrepresent the facts?
No you haven't. Not once, not yet. Nor could you ever, not by the real definition of that word anyway.
You're again/still not making any sense.
The record so far shows otherwise unanemously and exclusively.
Once again, you accused me of lying when I had still not accused you.
Then why didn't you heed it?
"Strike that, reverse it."
Is that what you call this? You're dismissing the false accusations you made against me, and then falsely accused me of, projecting your faults onto me, and then sating your self image by pretending you never said any of that to begin with. Wow.
Yeah, and I know why too. You didn't think I would call your bluff. But why wouldn't I?
Note, you said the definition of faith was, "totally dependant on evidence", but the real definition says it is not.
Not true. I, for example, am iconoclast. I question authority and do not trust it.
It doesn't fit my ideas because it isn't true in any sense. If there is proof in religion, then how come most of the world believes in different gods from yours, yet they all claim proof of their own beliefs? If there were proof in religion, then why are there over 200 conflicting denominations just within Christianity? Why are there so many contradictions and disputes none of which that can be settled conclusively even by reading scripture since everyone interprets that differently and everyone claims the holy spirit guides them to these constrasted perspectives. Even if we excuse the fact that science doesn't deal in proof in the positive sense, even in the legal sense, proof is still made up entirely of evidence.
No ma'am. Wrong again, because all religion deals in faith in lieu of proof.
Unless you're deliberately distorting this by snipping a bit of it out-f-context, then you obviously didn't understand this. Let me explain it to you, "For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. You said we all have fiath, and that even I, a rationalist had faith also. But according to this definition, you were wrong.
Tom, I have yet to see a person made to teach that ever stopped just because they were no longer hired by a school to teach. Doesn't work that way. But, I also understand what you are saying and to a point agree. The problem is in not understanding and accepting that it is more than just a profession. I am not disagreeing with you, I am adding to the understanding.
Not so, any more than it is obvious that I was not clear in fact many people I know would say point blank I was as clear as they come. That means that either you were lieing or there was a communication problem. I personally suggest a communication problem, your definition labels it lie. Which is why I don't get into the calling others liers deal and why I personally asked aron not to pursue the discussion with me. Deal with it. From where I sit, and others would see it the same way as I am sure some would side with you, you were trying to misrespresent my views to make a point. But that goes back to perspective that I also talked about. See, in communication, there is very little that is obvious except to the individual
Yep, and sometimes they answer questions, doesn't change the fact that they are not a representation of anothers views, but rather my own personnal views that is if I am presenting the question.
as are mine, yet you have misrepresented me and by the given definition that makes you a lier. But see, I think that definition is to general, so I personnally add restrictions to avoid accusations of others that are not founded in complete knowledge (that is, I can't know your heart) Why is it so hard for you to understand that definitions that are so subjective as this one, are not acceptable to me on a personaly level?
as I have done with you and because the definition is subjective we end up with a he said she said senerio. That is worthless and why I didn't want to get into this debate at all.
That is by your perspective but as the reader of your posts, my perspective is different and thus by definition you are a lier. See that is why generalities like the given definition are worthless. Perspective also has to be considered into the definition.
No, he said that he had evidence, nothing about how clear it was and it was implied that the perspective by which the judgement was made was his own which further questions the conclusion.
I totally believe him, what I don't believe is that it is possible for him to have enough evidence to remove perspectives and possibilities to the point of no reasonable doubt. That would mean that all perspectives would have to be evaluated and all agree with the conclusion. If that was going to happen, there wouldn't be a disagreement in the first place.
Personaly and I said this from the very beginning, because I don't get into calling people liers, I have absolutely no interest in his claim because I find it a rediculous claim in the first place. and we could go into other claims made by both sides, but a he said /she said senerio isn't going anywhere at all. so I prefer not to even hear the accusation in the first place, thus I have a better chance at objectivity based on all kinds of things, like how much I trust the person making the claim, or who the claim is against, what context the claim was made, etc.
and you won't because your perspective is that I am wrong. That is the problem. I told aron I had no interest in the evidence he claims to have, he pushed for more so I gave it, because I find the definition to subjective to be of use. What don't you understand? If my perspective is that the creationists lie, I will find evidence that says the creationist lie. If my perspective is that evolutionist lie, then I will find evidence to say that evolutionists lie. If I desire to be objective, then I will ask people to refrain from name calling and deal only with the scientific evidence not the personal attacks. It really is a simple concept of which I must assume you have some grasp on by this point of our discussion.
which I have indeed done many times over, just as I have placed the disclaimer many times over. And I went even further to explain why I hold the personal beliefs I do. Go figure, I did exactly what I claimed I could do.
been considered and the evidence suggests otherwise.
if we include misrespersentation, then they are plentiful, and that has been included in the defintion
And you won't because your perspective is that I am wrong.
I wanted to quit the discussion before it started but I tend to answer posts that are directed at me. Funny thing curtousy is huh? Aron has failed to show me wrong however, only intent which I have already stated many times to be the major flaw of his definition.
But, the bet was in colleges and universities not institutions in general. Make sure you understand the bet before you jump in. There are labs all over the world.
I comment to clarify my ideas which have been misrepresented so many times I can't count them and you argue them as if I am stupid but it seems like I am argueing about what we agree on. I understand where you could think this, but what you are not accepting is reponsibiluty for your own communication shortcomings in this discussion between the two of us, or maybe a better way of saying it is the thread in general. I can state something with percise, wording and exact meaning only to be told that I said something else or believe something I don't believe. I ask people I know if I was clear, in order to consider the possible that I am not communicating well, but they all understand me to the letter. When do you and others take some responsibility for not labeling me before you know? Take for example this very thread. I spoke very clearly that I understand and accept that other religions might be right, only to be told later that I don't accept that other religions might be right. Now in what way was my comment not clear? How else might it be interpreted other than that I think other religions might be right? How is that a fault with my communication? What are the possibles here? I see only one, enlighted me.
I don't know what you are talking about, it is the same point I made and you seemed to agrue with me like you disagreed, so I clarified repeatedly in an attemp to be clear. I never heard you say different, but you argued with me as if you didn't agree. But again, we come to perspective and that is not an absolute now is it?
And that is why perspective is important in any accusation of lieing now isn't it? (intended as both rhetorical and none rhetorical(I never thought it would come to this in a discussion where posts would always need clarifiers))
Maybe and maybe it was not clear to you because of your perspective, or preconcieved notions. Hum? I wonder, I can only test one of the two options and the test result is always been clarity on my part, at least on issues after pages and multiple posts, not necessarily the first time out though many of those come back clearly written as well.
Rubbish, you do it all the time. You've done it the most Ive seen you ever do it in this thread.
No not by Arons criteria, by Razzels criteria.
In order to accept the apology you would have to accept that you are difficult on purpose.
Again, yes, since the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion.
If the way you are in real life is not the way you behave and present yourself on this forum, then this is not my fault or relevant since whatever personalities we have on these forums is all we have to deal with.
If counting to 10 is a necessary point one must understand to begin with, yes.
Not for you. You've shown over and over that you dont understand the basics properly.
Like we have seen in this post here, I cant misrepresent you if you contradict yourself whenever it pleases you. If you dont make yourself clear then its your communication thats bad, and you cant blame anyone for misunderstanding you.
razzelflabben said:
It isn't the definition of lie that we disagree on, it is how it is determined that someone is lieing or a lier that we disagree on.
And there are two variable in intent, 1. the heart condition which we cannot know, how would you go about setting up a test to see someones intent? 2. perspective, that being how another interprets what is said or how it is said or for what purpose of etc. Both these variable affect the determination of lie and as yet I have not seen a test that would identify either
note intent here, what is the test to determine intent?
which you have done many times now.
intent again.
again intent, still waiting for the test.
My definition is the same, our test for determining it is different.
Misrepresentation of what I have said, the definition of lie is not the problem, the criteria for determining what is and is not a lie is the problem. And yes, I have used that word many times now, criteria is not equal to defintion. So the question is not did you misrepresent my ideas, that is an absolute yes. The question is what was your intent in doing so. What test do we use?
Mine says what was stated was false, therefore a lie, but that doesn't automatically make you a lier because to be a lier, one must deal with intent and your definitions state such as well.
I was not accusing you of doing this, only saying it has happened abundantly of the evolution/creation boards.
The evidence says otherwise, I thought you were an evidence kind of guy?!
Please stop long enough to understand what I am saying to you. It is not the definition but rather the criteria for determining what is a lie and what is not. This very defintion comes into intent and that is not testable to my knowledge I'd love to hear the test if you care to lay it out for us.
as stated already many times, your perception is different than mine and you are still misrepresenting what I am saying which is starting to get under my skin a bit. If you want some consistancy, then understand what has been clearly stated many times now and stop trying to change my arguement to fit your agenda. That would be a start in the honorable person catagory. Now I can accept that you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying, but I cannot except that you are so out of touch with reality as to not know that on some level you are doing so. Deal with it. Which is on some level intent isn't it?
Hummm perception again.
Thanks for asking what I actually said and why it is refreshing. I said you were on the top of the list because I don't call people liers therfore the discussion would be based on what you yourself view or better wording what criteria you use to determine a lier and you are bound to be caught in that trap. Someone who so easily calls others liers is more times than not guilty of the same when using the same criteria, it's simple math really. And you have shown such once again. If we apply your criteria to your words and apply consistantly your criteria, you are indeed a lier. That is the point, you will always be caught in your own web if you never offer grace to those you judge. Deal with it.
Hum, just what I said, we cannot know the intent therefore cannot call others liers so easily.
by your perspcetive not mine.
I am not lying to you in fact, I have had people tell me that I am almost too honest, but I don't expect you to understand that, you seem too intent on proving me wrong to actually hear what I am saying and understand it with any clarity.
What I am saying is that I don't accuss people of lieing, your criteria does indeed label you as one.Then why didn't you heed it?
"Strike that, reverse it."
--Willie Wonka
Is that what you call this? You're dismissing the false accusations you made against me, and then falsely accused me of, projecting your faults onto me, and then sating your self image by pretending you never said any of that to begin with. Wow.
actually, I would have been disappointed in you if you didn't ask me why.
Had this discussion before and as a scientist and not a philosopher I fear it is over your head. If your authority is science, then your faith is in science even with it's skeptisism. Quite simple really.
Let me ask you this, did Jesus really exist? How about buddah? Was Mahomad real? All religions that I can think of, are rooted in truth, evidence to some degree. Therefore to remove from faith all possibles of evidence, we remove religion from faith. In other words, just because it isn't required doesn't mean it is eliminated. One's perspective affects how that evidence is viewed.
For two main reasons, 1. all have varying degrees of truth or evidence and 2. the evidence is viewed differently depending on the perspective of the person viewing it thus different conclusions are drawn.
again perspective which if you remember is exactly why I can't call someone I lier just because they did not say something that was truth. This in my personal life translates into all religions could be right or all could be wrong.
You said it not me, I don't want attacked by the evolutionist here for saying such a thing, I've already done that one.
First it is dealing with faith being critisized which is not defintion at all then it reverts to belief which for rationalists is indeed supportable by logic or evidence, I don't understand the problem or how it changes what I said, in fact it seems to support what I said."I'm not trying to say that now I have proven that the Bible is authoritive, is accurate historically, Of course not, you still have to have faith!"
"My needing God is not a proof that God exists, I'll be the first to say that."
Unless you're deliberately distorting this by snipping a bit of it out-f-context, then you obviously didn't understand this. Let me explain it to you, "For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. You said we all have fiath, and that even I, a rationalist had faith also. But according to this definition, you were wrong.
Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
Right, but what you claim is not the same thing as the definiton of a word. Nothing in the definiton of faith removes the possibility of evidence, the difference is that the rationilist requires it, the others don't. The definition however does not say, evidence cannot exist in faith, it says it is not required. Now I am not sure how to be more clear in my view, you fail to show a definition of faith that removes the possibility of evidence and in fact if you did, you would automatically be removing religion from the idea of faith.
No, another misrepresentatin of what I said, I said that evidence was not included or excluded, either are possible.
Actually every definition you provided backs my belief on the actual definiton of faith, deal with that. No definition says that faith cannot be based on evidence in fact it says that evidence is not required to have faith. If you think that I am wrong, show a definition that disagrees with me, one will do, but you need to show at least one. and when you do, I will show you that faith is not part of religion for the same reason, so in short, you are wrong unless you misrepresent what I am saying of which by your criteria would label you a lier. Either way I will watch with anticipation how you get out of the corner you painted yourself in.
ed, you are numbing. If I didn't understanding how could I possibley accept that common ancestry is possible?
If I am teaching my children geometry and I say to them you don't yet know what 1 means, I bet they will disagree with me, what do you think? There are understoods before one can go on and all I tried to do is get aron to understand what I already knew so we could move on into the meat. But you both insissted that since I understood what you were saying that I didn't understand the basics. If I do that with my kids, oh well, I respect my kids, wish I could say the same for you. Time to get over it.
wasn't given the chance, we had to learn how to count to 10 remember?
tried that didn't work I guess you missed that part of the discussion.
First off, it is not evidence against evolution it is evidence that questions the conclusion of commn ancestry, deal with it, secondly, I was to busy tying to explain that I know how to count to 10 to even talk about addition and subtraction much less anything higher. Deal with it.
Yep, perception coming in again. Are we having fun yet?
