Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,05:29)|
|Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die. So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?|
[Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]
[/Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]
Oh fuck it...
Dear Skeptic (Inappropriate moniker noted AGAIN),
Whilst I certainly cannot speak for everyone, and naturally welcome a diversity of views on the subject, here's my view.
1) If your suggestion for "semi-rational theist" is yourself, erm, how do I put this delicately? Self awareness isn't your strong point is it? The clue should lie in the fact that you were restricted to the Bathroom Wall after many trips round the same Mulberry Bush.* Despite everything anyone said, nice, nasty, evidence based, biased, unbiased etc you left with precisely the same erroneous views, making the same error strewn claims you entered with. The fact that you have had to morph identities (badly and blatantly, perhaps a point in your favour I suggest) to repost here suggests a certain unwillingness to learn. "RE"born? Hardly. Merely "STUB"born.
Why the powers that be at AtBC permit you to thumb your nose at their restrictions (lightly and justly applied in my view, after great tolerance of moderate to major ignorance on your part) is their own affair. I'll admit to being in two minds about it. I like freely allowing anyone to speak, but there comes a point where treating every person that walks through the doors as if they were a sane/rational/productive (delete as unapplicable) person is.....impractical. And that's me being diplomatic. There's a difference between being in favour of free speech as a principle and allowing every nutter free reign on limited platforms. The two are not necessarily in conflict.
2) If it is someone of your acquaintance who you think would be a fun/useful poster (as opposed to a chew toy**) then send 'em along. If they are a clone of you (or you in a slightly better disguise) then don't bother pretending they will emerge from any other box than the one marked "briefly interesting, blinkered chew toy".
3) Everyone, theist or atheist, agnostic or gnostic, any permutation of any viewpoint, worldview, politics, faith, lack thereof or anything else is semi-rational. It's the underlying fact of the human condition. This might have been pointed out to you before. Rationality is not something someone has or has not, it is something we can all only tend towards. Snide false dichotomies and divisions like this demonstrate quite clearly you have learned five eights of fuck all since you were restricted. Old Mulberry Bush circles will be made again.
YECs are not, per se, irrational. Partially so, like anyone else, but not necessarily globally so. They have (typically) been raised in a cultural environment where YEC is common, are unlikely to have been given any accurate information about the relevant science, and have generally been "told"/conditioned to fear questioning the very things their YECism is predicated upon. In those circumstances it is not irrational to be, or pretend to be, a YEC regardless of the rationality of the actual claims of specific YECisms. What these chaps and chappesses care about is manifestly not the science. That's no crime, billions of people across the world couldn't give a shit about the scientific data. However, when they advance their claims as science, or as being factual and in conflict with the current scientific consensus regarding consilient data, then it becomes problematic. That's when the line between holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for perfectly (personally) rational reasons blurs into holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for potentially (personally) irrational reasons. Mulberry Bush circumnavigation number 3000.
4) Theism is not opposed to evolutionary biology (allegedly the topic of this board, although knob jokes and LOLcats are the main traffic, I take full responsibility for this and am justly ashamed). Some specific, narrow subsets of specific theistic religions define themselves out of sane consideration by opposing blatant, observable reality and attempting to hand wave away the inherent problems but this is far from a universal case. Amazingly, neither you, nor any "semi-rational theist", nor even pizza boys of Lenny's acquaintance speak for theists or theism. Deal with that. And that is a re-circle of yet another Mulberry Bush.
5) This is not a promising thread. Why the Fishers of TARD do what they do is their own affair, it's not for me to pass judgement, it's a question of personal taste. As far as it applies I think de gustibus non est disputandum is fine here. Sure a new participant is a good thing, a new chew toy is a fun thing for a while, but like a firework comprised of pure stupid, they burn out after a brief flare of glorious dumb. Call me an old pissy, cynical, curmudgeonly git (or worse if you like) but I predict these threads will miss vastly more than they hit. I also predict the sun will rise in the morning. Either way, the Fishers of TARD have the right idea and I don't. They are right that one has to heave a lot of bricks before one hits a duck though.
6) We don't require anything other than basic intellectual honesty. It'd be nice to have the occasional discussion with someone bordering on intellectually honest and capable. It's happened on this issue, but by fuck it's rare. Let me just assure you, you weren't a deliverer of such rare treasures, and unless something has radically changed you are unlikely to be so. Harsh? Yes. Fair? Probably not. Do I give a flying fuck? Difficult to say really. Yes and no.
Bloody interesting that you post with an obvious troll about our requirements/intentions and not, you know, any relevant bit of science/reasoning that would undermine this wicked rationalism and scientism we naughty atheists allegedly love isn't it though? Rather strongly suggests that, as I have said, you've learned nothing and are just being a stubborn prick, trying to be let back in where you are demonstrably unwanted.
Predicting your response (if you manage to vomit one forth), I'll use the words of Bill Hicks "Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you".
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
* I am bored of Mulberry Bushes. I am bored of games. I am, in a word, bored. This makes me nasty. I dislike boredom. There are a few new people around who might enjoy/benefit from you/a clone of you/a suggested friend of yours, but I seriously doubt it. Weren't you setting up your own blog? How'd that turn out?
** Chew toys are fun and serve their purpose. What that purpose is is up to whoever wants to chew them. Personally, like most things I flatly refuse to take seriously, I find them best ignored or thoroughly taken the piss out of. I think this place needs yet another a chew toy like a hole in the head***. But then others think it needs another pun cascade or LOLcat like a hole in the head. We're both entitled to those views, let a thousand flowers bloom on this issue sayeth I. How judgementally or pissily those views might be expressed is perhaps a different matter.
*** Wouldn't it be nice for once, just once, to have someone actually capable and serious to play with? I've often thought of trying to take the creationist case for the simple reason that there is no way I could fuck it up as badly as most creationists do. I'd feel dirty doing the Gish Gallop and other rheotical gambits that creationists use to hide how shallow their claims really are though. Once you've seen the man behind the curtain it's really hard to pretend the show is real.