JsT and Omen try to get along

[Omen]

is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.

Why am I responsible if someone claims offense at request for the most basic of inquiries into their own posts?

The only option is to utterly demand that I do not respond to someone on this forum, because each time I do I'm going to require them to support arguments that they are making and they take offense to that.

I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

I am not physically making JST do anything, his equivocating is only serving his own purposes here and demonizing me.  In a previous thread he was told, both by myself and a mod, how to report people and in such instances where he should report people.   He pointed out an example where someone posted in a thread, without contributing anything else other than a slander or insulting label ( http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21994.msg500677.html#msg500677 ), which was at the time being used to demonize the entire forum as well as myself.  He of course didn't report anything, just used it as a talking point to equivocate about how he is treated and to make further accusations against myself that went unanswered/unexplained.

[kin hell]

First of all, my head throbbing is unrelated to you. I mentioned it as a simple reason for wanting this discussion to end.

How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.

Now, I tried to provide constructive criticism by suggesting that you do the research before making suggestions.

Bullshit. Post engineering bullshit. Hoping that I will tire of chasing accuracy, and thus, by you carefully avoiding the need to address actual points you might just win by attrition.

>snip<
Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into consideration, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?

1.	The discussion.

Yeah, and aren't you and I both just overwhelmed by your glaringly obvious desire to respectfully help guide me, in the most constructive manner possible?
I could care less what inspired you to such heights, but constructive critique it aint.

Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it. Compared to reading, it's a very slow process and you learn very little with only one question. That's why I mentioned those things before.

...and this is just asinine. Maybe you just cannot perceive anything beyond whatever is required for you to be right?
 (including how this revisionist bullshit is totally transparent, and shows most clearly to what flawed and desperate lengths you will go to not to have to admit error).

Do you really need me to deconstruct it for you?

Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it.

Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?
Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.

So what gormless, turd-dumb, green-brained dribble-lapped, puling berkerk would choose to read those hundreds of posts instead of asking one simple question requiring only a yes or no answer?

...well  ...........apparently you would. 

Who'd a thunk you'd be willing to dismiss whatever credibility you might have for such a indefensible argument?

What's this, the third or forth time I have had  chase you down and drag you kicking and bitching into the light of accuracy and honesty, before you'd even begin to remotely look like not continuing to use every dodge known to monkeys and to finally acknowledge a simple honest truth (but always with just one last wafer thin I-mint-something-different lying on the pillow as though you really hadn't fucked up and forgot to respect it in the morning)?

Borrrrrrrrinnnnggggg!

Here's a tip.

Set your internal dialogue to   >Self> Any>introspection >Activate Mode>brutal honesty.
Cause if you don't see what you do, then you are just lying to yourself, and over such trivial trivial shit bloke.

In future, be brave, man up, admit error immediately, and we wont be forced to repeat these circuitous steps of this irritating dance of clowns ever again.

And now I have to go to school.

>removed inaccuracy< but in deference to your school age.[2]

If you want to keep discussing this, I suggest making a thread in the Chatter section or something. This thread has been derailed (and yes, I admit that this is my fault) long enough.

I don't think you can derail a Bottomless Pit thread.

2.

I wouldn't waste my time on someone useless. You are smart and young and you can get to choose just how you are gonna interact with the world for the rest of your life. Being used to being more capable than most people you'll meet doesn't mean you have to defend errors to win. Winning is for games and war bloke, this is about who you are and how you'll live this one chance. And you're smart enough to be more than just ambulatory protoplasm subject to all emotional imperatives (like hubris).

[kin hell]

is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.

Why am I responsible if someone claims offense at request for the most basic of inquiries into their own posts?

please note  First, I asked a question, then went on to paraphrase something you said

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

you will also note that I didn't say it was a just cause.

and in fact I further limited Jst's cause's legitimacy in what you quote of me next.

I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

My suggestion was only made with the implication that any apology from you would serve no purpose in granting any false legitimacy to the "cause" but might break the obvious logjam.

My unspoken consideration was once the log had been removed, then Jst would have no further wriggle room. Wriggle room that you have passingly acknowledged above as having made possible by your sicko post.

[One Above All]

How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

Actually yes, it is coincidental. Exerting my already overtaxed brain[1] resulted in a massive headache.
Also, "*headdesk*" is just a figure of speech, similar to "*facepalm*" and such. I didn't actually hit my head on my desk.

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.

I have over 7000 posts.

<snip>
Yeah, and aren't you and I both just overwhelmed by your glaringly obvious desire to respectfully help guide me, in the most constructive manner possible?
I could care less what inspired you to such heights, but constructive critique it aint.

Who the fuck said anything about "respectfully"?[2] I pointed out that you should learn as much as you can before engaging in a discussion.

<snip>
Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?

This is about your opinion. Going with what everyone else already thinks isn't really helpful. It doesn't provide new insight. It doesn't provide a "fresh viewpoint". It's just stating the obvious (at best).
In the context of this thread, you don't even have the luxury of saying that you stated the obvious. You just stated what everyone already knew was not an option.

Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.

One question for hundreds of old posts isn't even close to being relevant to the entirety of Jstwebbrowsing's posts. You'd need to ask dozens of questions to get the full picture. Why do so when you can easily access the info? You don't even have to read all of the posts; just 1 out of every 5 should give you a general idea of why people are pissed at Jstwebbrowsing.

<snip>
In future, be brave, man up, admit error immediately, and we wont be forced to repeat these circuitous steps of this irritating dance of clowns ever again.

Pot, kettle, black.

And you'll never know the number of times I have bitten my tongue watching your sometimes somewhat a little less than always accurate posts in deference to your school age.

Why? Do you think that I care if you point out when you think I'm wrong? If anything, I appreciate it. I like when people speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they're saying.

I don't think you can derail a Bottomless Pit thread.

True. I just felt that it still had some purpose, even though it's here (in The Bottomless Pit).

1.	Long story short there's a lot of crap happening in my life right now.
2.	Assuming that by "respectfully" you mean "trying not to hurt my feelings"[1] or something similar.  1.  I'm not saying I did. It was just the only thing that I could think of right now.

[Omen]

My unspoken consideration was once the log had been removed, then Jst would have no further wriggle room. Wriggle room that you have passingly acknowledged above as having made possible by your sicko post.

What part of making any excuse to avoid conversation do you not understand?

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

How many times does JST get to avoid any all rational discussion about the merits of his own claims, before any of you consider his behavior is intentional?

[kin hell]

How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

Actually yes, it is coincidental. Exerting my already overtaxed brain[1] resulted in a massive headache.

1.	Long story short there's a lot of crap happening in my life right now.

OK I fully accept that.

Also, "*headdesk*" is just a figure of speech, similar to "*facepalm*" and such. I didn't actually hit my head on my desk.

Where did I express anything that implied I believed you'd smashed your head on your desk?
No mate, I addressed it as an expression of exasperation, not as an accurate physical description 
(this is an excellent example manipulative re-interpretation)

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.

I have over 7000 posts.

Not one to one with me you haven't.   Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but my further sentences  made it quite obvious I was talking about a post history we share.
(obfuscation/creative interpretation)

I pointed out that you should learn as much as you can before engaging in a discussion.

And still you carefully manage to accidentally fail to address the glaring fact that I have shown you several times already the effect of the question was to provide me with all the information I needed.
(stubborn blindness)

<snip>
Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?

This is about your opinion. Going with what everyone else already thinks isn't really helpful. It doesn't provide new insight. It doesn't provide a "fresh viewpoint". It's just stating the obvious (at best).
In the context of this thread, you don't even have the luxury of saying that you stated the obvious. You just stated what everyone already knew was not an option.

 I will address this in the simplest terms possible.
For those who momentarily need to be unable to understand inferences for the sake winning, here is an alternate post.

Dear thread  ....here is my opinion
It is obvious there is a deadlock, if there was any chance of a reset, my opinion is, one simple way to break the deadlock is by the person who admitted giving "cause" retracting the  statement that gave the supposed cause (real or imagined).
Then the person hiding behind the cause(real or imagined) would be left exposed.
Of course if there is no chance of a reset then my suggestion is invalid.

Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.

One question for hundreds of old posts isn't even close to being relevant to the entirety of Jstwebbrowsing's posts. You'd need to ask dozens of questions to get the full picture. Why do so when you can easily access the info? You don't even have to read all of the posts; just 1 out of every 5 should give you a general idea of why people are pissed at Jstwebbrowsing.

It you look at the question carefully, it might become apparent that I was asking for other's learned opinions.
They are people I have associated with long enough for me to grant then some authority.
I was not asking for a re-run of Jst's post history, I was asking do the people involved consider there was any chance of a reset.
If the people involved can't answer that simple question (having been through the whole fucking process), how the hell am I supposed to make an accurate appraisal reading just one out of five of Jst prolific outpourings?

Now you are just being deliberately and obdurately stupid.
For fuckssake OAA why would I need to ask more than one question to get the exact answer I successfully asked one question for?

And you'll never know the number of times I have bitten my tongue watching your sometimes somewhat a little less than always accurate posts in deference to your school age.

Why? Do you think that I care if you point out when you think I'm wrong? If anything, I appreciate it. I like when people speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they're saying.

I Edited my words above as not accurate  but I see you answered it before the Edit   please note there is a postscript that was not there previously

[One Above All]

After reading your post, I realized you made a good point that makes all other topics moot, since you were right. As such, I snipped large portions of your post and addressed only what I considered relevant, both to the thread and to myself.

Where did I express anything that implied I believed you'd smashed your head on your desk?
No mate, I addressed it as an expression of exasperation, not as an accurate physical description 
(this is an excellent example manipulative re-interpretation)

Now I wish I really could smash my head on my desk.
I made the connection because, usually, smashing your head against a hard surface results in a throbbing headache. Sorry about that.
Still, what exactly would that accomplish? Even if you did think that my "*headdesk*" was literal, it doesn't make my arguments better or your arguments worse.[1] Why do you assume I was being manipulative?

Not one to one with me you haven't.   Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but my further sentences  made it quite obvious I was talking about a post history we share.
(obfuscation/creative interpretation)

I knew I'd forgotten something... That part was incomplete, as evidenced by the fact that my post count by itself is irrelevant. Allow me to complete it.
I have over 7000 posts. You are not the first one to accuse me of dodging and such, but you are the first one to say that it's a habit. I'm pretty sure that either you forgot to mention you were exaggerating or you're just unaware of my posting history[2].

If the people involved can't answer that simple question (having been through the whole fucking process), how the hell am I supposed to make an accurate appraisal reading just one out of five of Jst prolific outpourings?

You're right.

I wouldn't waste my time on someone useless. You are smart and young and you can get to choose just how you are gonna interact with the world for the rest of your life. Being used to being more capable than most people you'll meet doesn't mean you have to defend errors to win. Winning is for games and war bloke, this is about who you are and how you'll live this one chance. And you're smart enough to be more than just ambulatory protoplasm subject to all emotional imperatives (like hubris).

While I try to remember that I know nothing about the people I'm meeting for the first time (how smart they are), I'm concluding that I'm either overwhelmingly more intelligent than the person/people I'm speaking to or overwhelmingly less intelligent (in specific topics of discussion, obviously). As such, I approach people with humility proportional to my knowledge (or, to be more specific, the confidence I have in it). I see no reason to do otherwise. This comes off as hubris because my knowledge spans various topics of discussion, from physics, to biology, to psychology, to games, to math, to... You get the point. While I realize that this is but a fraction of a fraction of all that we (as a species) have learned, I assure you that it is a lot more than the average person knows.
In short, I am not overly confident or arrogant. I am exactly as confident as (I think) I should be. The arrogance you perceive is an unfortunate side-effect I'm trying to fix.[3]

1.	Ad hominem fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.
2.	And note that you do have the right (in a manner of speaking) to be unaware of my posts, given that there are so many of them.
3.	And by this I mean the fact that you perceive it, rather than its existence.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

kin hell

I would just like to say that this is the sort of BS I go through almost any time I make a comment.  I hope you can appreciate my frustration.

Everyone

Now concerning how I "lied".  I posted a site that showed the probability of life on our planet existing, starting with the Big Bang.  The site grouped everything together and called it "evolution" and I did this too.

I was told this wasn't evolution and a big argument erupted.  And some began to inform me of their defintion of evolution was related only to living organisms.  I later said that I understood the Big Bang was seperate from what they were talking about.  To them, this means I lied.  However, I did no such thing.  In fact, I was the one that was lied to.  In my argument I never said this is the probability of "biological evolution".  My argument was, and still is, that all of it is properly called evolution.  THEY are the ones that kept insisting on the word "biological" be insterted and because at first I did not realize what they were tying to say because they actually never did insert the word "biological".  They just talked like the only sort of evolution that exists is biological.

And this is a lie.  There is such a thing as cosmic evolution just as there is such a thing as biological evolution.  However, without specifying any sort of particular evolution, it is accurate to view the entire process from beginning to end as "evolution", "generic evolution" if you will.  Instead of addressing the numbers on the site there was an argument that showed instead of saying "evolution" as a generic term that I should break all the individual theories of evolution down into their specific parts.

Once I understood they were viewing evolution differently than I, thanks to Lucifer, I still argued a little.  And then I admitted the Big Bang was seperate from "biological evolution" and hence I was said to have lied.  However when I did admit this I did say that my obstinance was because of a certain someone, Omen, was already up my ass. "pouncing".

So all I admitted was that by their defintion of "evolution" I was wrong.  However, my argument that it can all be properly referred to as evolution still stands.

Here is the original argument

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.0.html


Also take not of this thread.  This demonstrates what theists are up against and demonstrates my problems here.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.0.html

What I get out of this argument is that it is basically impossible to be "nice" to a theist.

[Azdgari]

Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?

Well, to be fair ...  I'm just a convenient target now.

Cool.  That's totally unrelated to the point of my question.  But you knew that.  Carrying on...

Goals are circumstantial at best, with no primary goal that needs to be achieved until you either know what you're dealing with or know how they are going to respond ...

So you're saying that you don't know what you're trying to do?  Or that you do know what you're trying to do?  I'm trying to get you to think clearly about your actions.  I can see you're not eager to do so.

The problem with this kind of person, which tends towards the norm, is how do you respond? ...  It is a dead end conversation, one where the theist is never taken to task and many of the atheist on this forum end up doing nothing but enabling the theist to confirm his own beliefs in a circular manner.

Problems are relative to goals.  You cannot identify a problem, logically, without also identifying the goal for which it is a problem.  And you don't even have a defined goal, apparently.

The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

The only other option for acheiving what goal?  You havn't stated that yet.  Without identifying that goal, the rest of what you've said is meaningless.

I am being demonized because I type and post fast, but have done little else than what I described above.

You are also apparently psychic.

[velkyn]

jst,  evolution isn't the same for stars as it is for biological entities.  evolution for biologicals is based on natural selection.  Stars etc do not depend on environment effecting them to pass on beneficial changes to descendents;  thus it cannot be seen as the same thing for everything from the BB up.   Evolution can mean simply change, as you quoted "in its broadest sense", but in the context of your thread it does not seem that's how you meant it.   

from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense.

My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.

  we aka humans do exist, and then you "eliminated" evolution which seems to refer directly to evolution as a biological effect since you mention humans. 

[Omen]

So you're saying that you don't know what you're trying to do?  Or that you do know what you're trying to do?  I'm trying to get you to think clearly about your actions.  I can see you're not eager to do so.

Azdgari, this is superficial questioning at best.. I'm pointing out that goals can't be hammered down immediately because you don't know the circumstances you're dealing with.  The theist in question could be a sociopath, a liar, or actually sincere.  It is as if the goals are as relative as problems.

and then..

Problems are relative to goals.  You cannot identify a problem, logically, without also identifying the goal for which it is a problem.  And you don't even have a defined goal, apparently.

If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

The only other option for acheiving what goal?  You havn't stated that yet.  Without identifying that goal, the rest of what you've said is meaningless.

You omitted most of the prior paragraph describing a situational encounter , the only option available is to address how the argument being made is incorrect.  Which I explained in detail.

Normally, I associate more clarity to your posts adzgari.

[Azdgari]

Azdgari, this is superficial questioning at best.. I'm pointing out that goals can't be hammered down immediately because you don't know the circumstances you're dealing with.  The theist in question could be a sociopath, a liar, or actually sincere.  It is as if the goals are as relative as problems.

True, the goal you hold will be different with different people, and you need information about those people before adopting a reasonable goal.  But we were discussing your goals for Jst.  I'm sorry if that wasn't evident.

If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

"Having discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically" - I'll assume you mean "where" rather than "whether" here, as the latter makes no grammatical sense.  Alright.  You want to have that kind of discussion.  How's that going for you?  Is your current discussion with Jst one that fits the above description?  Is it likely to become such a discussion, through your efforts?

If so, then I'll be shocked.  If not, then what does that failure say about the rationality of your methods?

You omitted most of the prior paragraph describing a situational encounter , the only option available is to address how the argument being made is incorrect.  Which I explained in detail.

That I snipped it does not mean that I did not read it.  "Only option"?  To achieve what?  If no available option will achieve X, then appealing to the lack of options in order to support one's decision to take a particular action is disingenuous.  If a goal[1] is not achievable, then no action taken in order to achieve that goal is a rational one on that basis.[2]

Normally, I associate more clarity to your posts adzgari.

I hope this last post is clearer.

1.	Such as having a rational discussion.
2.	It might be a rational action relative to a different goal, but then that goal should be identified.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense

How do you get that I was only referring to biological evolution?  When I posted the link you can read, "THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM" (caps not mine)

Does this not clear up what I was referring to?

 

[Omen]

If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

"Having discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically" - I'll assume you mean "where" rather than "whether" here, as the latter makes no grammatical sense.  Alright.  You want to have that kind of discussion.  How's that going for you?  Is your current discussion with Jst one that fits the above description?  Is it likely to become such a discussion, through your efforts?

It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

If so, then I'll be shocked.  If not, then what does that failure say about the rationality of your methods?

What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

I guess this is a matter of opinion.  I would say comparing me to the mentally ill is insulting.  I'm not sure but weren't you involved in the thread in which someone was trying to convince me I really was mentally ill and should seek a doctor?

[Omen]

I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

I guess this is a matter of opinion.  I would say comparing me to the mentally ill is insulting.

If you continue to deliver claims that make it impossible to determine the truth of your claim from someone who is mentally ill, a person of a different religious persuasian, or random make believe I will continue to ask.  That is not calling you mentally ill or comparing you to being mentally ill, you are being asked a sincere question.

Let's say I have 3 choices:
A. Scientologist.
B. Mental Patient. ( severe psychosis )
C. Another christian for which you disagree with.

You, and them, make claims in a similar manner.  How do I determine the truth of a claim between them, if they all make the same kind of specious arguments?

Not liking the question, doesn't make the problem go away.  The problem are your claims and the veracity by which you make them, ie you don't deliver sound arguments and run away the instant you're required to participate long enough to begin arguing for them.

[Omen]

Everyone
  I later said that I understood the Big Bang was seperate from what they were talking about.  To them, this means I lied.  However, I did no such thing.

:cough:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.msg500176.html#msg500176

You are right about my knowledge of evolution.  I do actually realize that the Big Bang is separate.  It's just that a certain dogmatic someone gets under my skin.

Notice, how the statements don't match.

[One Above All]

Come on, Omen. Now you're just being mean.
Jstwebbrowsing, why do you insist on lying? Your words are on the forum for as long as the forum remains here. Lying serves no purpose other than to show how little we can trust you.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I'm not sure but weren't you involved in the thread in which someone was trying to convince me I really was mentally ill and should seek a doctor?

[Azdgari]

It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

You can do all sorts of things.  You can, for example, make dinner.  Or jerk off in the bathroom.  These have, as far as I can see, approximately the same record of success as your present methods.  In all seriousness, that puts them on about the same level in terms of being reasonable means to your end.

What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

I am not suggesting a change of methods.  I am suggesting a change of goals.  If digging to China with a back-hoe isn't working, the more reasonable course of action probably isn't to try to find another method for doing so, but rather to reconsider the entire endeavor.  If goal X appears to be unachievable, then it may be irrational to continue to pursue goal X.  Do you disagree?

All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

And how are your methods working?  You keep avoiding that issue.  Why do you not wish to address it?

If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.

I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.

[Omen]

It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

You can do all sorts of things.  You can, for example, make dinner.  Or jerk off in the bathroom.  These have, as far as I can see, approximately the same record of success as your present methods.  In all seriousness, that puts them on about the same level in terms of being reasonable means to your end.

So all you're really complaining about is that I post a lot and fast?

What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

I am not suggesting a change of methods.  I am suggesting a change of goals.  If digging to China with a back-hoe isn't working, the more reasonable course of action probably isn't to try to find another method for doing so, but rather to reconsider the entire endeavor.  If goal X appears to be unachievable, then it may be irrational to continue to pursue goal X.  Do you disagree?

I do not disagree with the analogy, but the analogy has nothing to do with circumstances.  It takes little effort to respond to a post, seconds even.  I work at home and have access to a PC most of the day.

Plus, what exactly is anyone else doing?

All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

And how are your methods working?  You keep avoiding that issue.  Why do you not wish to address it?

I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.

I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.

Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.

[velkyn]

from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense

How do you get that I was only referring to biological evolution?  When I posted the link you can read, "THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM" (caps not mine)

Does this not clear up what I was referring to?

I showed you exactly how I got that, jst.  You saw what I posted from that first post and why it seems to only mean biological evolution.  You mentioned humans, creation and evolution all in the same post.  And to review the rest of how that thread went:

You were then told that the beginning of the universe had nothing to do with evolution, not even of the cosmological kind, after you said this "Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began to how humankind began and beyond.".  You were told that evolution does not relate to abiogenesis, that evolution works on what resulted from that.   You asked if the universe evolves, and it does again, in the broadest sense of the term but ageing physically and changing because of that is not evolution in the biological sense.  You have mistakenly conflated the terms.  That's not a crime but it makes things very confusing.

and because you conflated the terms, you came to a mistaken conclusion, that your god had to be the source of life since you misunderstood how evolution is applied to life.  You claimed that evolution wasn't very scientific but you were finding a mistaken idea of your own to be unscientific. Your process of elimination was based on a faulty idea of what evolution is when applied to life and then your claim that your god created all life. 

You made claims like this “One species evolving into another cannot be observed either way.” and were shown that this is wrong.  They can be shown.  You claim that the ridiculous movie Expelled had any evidence presented in it that disproved evolution. It didn’t.  You have declared that evolutionary theory would automatically make your god and religion wrong, and it was pointed out to you that this not necessarily the case.  To that you replied that you didn’t see your bible mention evolution; and by this you did indicate that you thought your version of your religion was the only right one since there are indeed some theists who have no problem with evolution, albeit being started and/or controlled by this god. 

You also claimed this

But I have not been able to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses.  Or at least I can't dispove their interpretation of the Bible.  If the Bible is correct then the Witnesses are correct.

  And every theist who finds something that they like says this.  This is something that seems to be hard for you to understand, jst.  All of your claims are nothing new for any theist and your lack of evidence for your claims is also nothing new.  You don’t seem that dumb, jst.  No one has to go to college to know how to think or to use their brain. 

Now, if you want you can just focus on this last bit to see where I'm coming from. If your arguments are just like everyone else’s and you have no better evidence than they do, can you tell me what that should indicate?    Do you see that I have no more reason to accept your claims as you have little reason to accept another Christian sect's or another religion's altogether?       

[Azdgari]

So all you're really complaining about is that I post a lot and fast?

I was primarily asking a question.  But of course there's a motivation behind it:  I find it annoying that the volume and tone of your posts drowns out others'.  I was also curious as to whether your goal was one I agreed with, disagreed with, or even cared about.

I do not disagree with the analogy, but the analogy has nothing to do with circumstances.  It takes little effort to respond to a post, seconds even.  I work at home and have access to a PC most of the day.

Plus, what exactly is anyone else doing?

Adjust the analogy to attempting to dig to China by kicking the driveway a bit on the way home every day, then.  The effort involved is irrelevant to the reasoning I gave.

As for what anyone else is doing, well, we could try to appear to be human beings.  Get to know people.  That sort of thing.  Others have done that with folks like magicmiles.

I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Was that the goal?  Or was a rational discussion the goal?  You're confusing me.  Be consistent.

Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

That's a stupid suggestion.  Who made it?  Are you dishonestly claiming that I made it?

I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.

Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Umm.  You're gonna have to connect the dots here, Omen.  What does this have to do with what I said in the quote right above there?

Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.

Why would you think something like that?  Others, such as Screwtape, have actually articulated their issues with how (not) to successfully communicate with people.  Hell, he even has a thread on it in the Corner.  We humans aren't all that rational.  Interpret that as "we're mentally ill" if you like.

[Omen]

As for what anyone else is doing, well, we could try to appear to be human beings.  Get to know people.  That sort of thing.  Others have done that with folks like magicmiles.

I don't agree that I don't get to know people.

I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Was that the goal?  Or was a rational discussion the goal?  You're confusing me.  Be consistent.

Sure its a rational goal, to help him understand where he is in error.

Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

That's a stupid suggestion.  Who made it?  Are you dishonestly claiming that I made it?

That's the implication.

Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Umm.  You're gonna have to connect the dots here, Omen.  What does this have to do with what I said in the quote right above there?

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.

Why would you think something like that?  Others, such as Screwtape, have actually articulated their issues with how (not) to successfully communicate with people.  Hell, he even has a thread on it in the Corner.  We humans aren't all that rational.  Interpret that as "we're mentally ill" if you like.

I didn't claim all humans are rational, but I would disagree that all theists are crazy or stupid.

I'm still not seeing anything from you other than asking me not to respond as fast and often.

Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?

[Omen]

Let's talk a real world example: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22596.0.html

Is the conversation uncivil?

Where and how did it become uncivil?

How many times should a person ask for someone to support their position before it is not ok?

Is it ok if someone is threatened by being asked to support their claims to project that hostility on the one asking them, repeatedly?

Why did a total of 5 people have to ask, unsuccessfully, for JST to support his position?

When does it become ok to question why JST refuses to answer for anything?

When does it become ok to call such behavior open and willful dishonesty?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I showed you exactly how I got that, jst.  You saw what I posted from that first post and why it seems to only mean biological evolution.  You mentioned humans, creation and evolution all in the same post.  And to review the rest of how that thread went:

Yes I was mistaken that the site did not include biological evolution at all.  This was an honest mistake.  But how did you reconcile what I said with what you read on the web site I posted? 

Concerning Omen

This is partly my complaint about him.  He is unmovable.  It's not that he can't understand what you are saying it's that he won't.  And even if he does then he will not agree. 

 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

And another complaint is that he still can't leave out that last part, "sanity".  And yes, I consider this an insult.  So is the intelligence part but not so much as the sanity part.  I mean if you really think I'm crazy then what does that say about someone that would argue with a crazy person?

[Omen]

Concerning Omen

This is partly my complaint about him.  He is unmovable.  It's not that he can't understand what you are saying it's that he won't.  And even if he does then he will not agree.

I am not moved by bad arguments and I point out why.

Hint: Stop making bad arguments.

[Omen]

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

And another complaint is that he still can't leave out that last part, "sanity".  And yes, I consider this an insult.  So is the intelligence part but not so much as the sanity part.  I mean if you really think I'm crazy then what does that say about someone that would argue with a crazy person?

Again, other people here are suggesting to me that I should not engage you because you are either too stupid or insane to know any better.  I give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you the same regardless.

I do ask you how you separate your claims from a person who is mentally ill, a different religious person, or random make believe because you never describe or argue for your claims in a manner that allows other people to differentiate.  You rely upon fallacies, misinformation, and incessantly conclude upon what you want to believe rather than what you can demonstrate.

Why would you expect to be treated any differently?