- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- Country
-
I won't be continuing this argument. Given some unrelated disparities this will be my last post here. I didn't debate with you all for fun or to "troll" you. And seriously, there are people who believe in Jediism. It's hyperbolic to deny the cognitive processes leading one to doubt that life formed by an undirected process. I only spoke to you all as a learning experience for myself: to see if design vs decent was truly psychological.
My mind may have been changed, but few of you did little more than insult me, label me, and tell me my ideas were wrong. I'm not whining that you did that right now, but i'm telling you those do not form a rhetorical strategy. You'd only get the creationist too judgmental of your character to take what you say seriously. Kkck actually changed my mind on a few things because he actually brought logic and reason to the table.
I think the real misconception is that my argument was designed to combat evolution. It was actually designed to combat atheism in the theory evolution. I understand evolution is simply an observation and does not alone testify strongly against major world religions. Atheism however, supports that life formed by an undirected process. The basis of my argument was to combat this. I did present why I don't take the theory of evolution to heart, but I was most strongly referring to atheism in my arguments.
Also it's impolite to talk about someone in the third person as if he's not there. Also I'm insulted you'd try to blame the semantic arguments on me. My first post had nothing to do with webster or the oxford dictionary. Understand you all tried to redefine to me what is science, the scientific method, and a complex machine, as if I didn't know. It's pathetic that you'd attack me for interpreting a language correctly, and not even succeed at it. I know what i'm saying when I speak the language. I apologize if other English speaking countries have different definitions for those terms. Please excuse me for the term evolutionist, it was not meant as an insult.
The majority of you poked as many holes in my arguments as Kkck believes creationists poked in evolution. What I witnessed here were numerous logical fallacies, mis-definitions, mis-interpretations, a lack of understanding of rhetoric, cultural discrimination, personal attacks, stereotypes, weak evidence, and hardly a single reason new to believe life formed by an undirected process. I know all about the respected theories and origin models, reiterating them really didn't do much for me.
True to my religion I did refrain from returning the insults and personal attacks, partly because it doesn't form a reasonable rhetorical strategy, so I'm not sure where this hypocrisy question is coming from. I mourn for the minds you'd convince talking to people that way.
Generally I hoped the fact that I didn't quote a single scripture to prove the validity of my religion (except to prove that christians believe Jesus believes the old testament is true) would set me above your stereotypical representation of a creationist, but I was wrong.
I noticed through most of it the lot of you didn't do much more than say the opposite of what I stated. "i could have told myself the opposite of what I said" I've been trying to show you all the whole time what it'd take to convince me. You all ignored it. All I asked for was respect, logic and rhetoric. Even while setting an example so rarely was I given it. Changing someone's way of thinking is more than presenting evidence. You have to manipulate the person's reasoning from the inside out.
If for any reason any of you felt personally attacked, disrespected or unduly ignored, I give my sincerest apologies, for that was never my intention. I'm not a scientist, I'm an illustrator, and I understand my ideas amount to little more than philosophy, but I came here to review that philosophy, and sadly it didn't change; however I did learn a lot from our conversation and I'm grateful for that. I used to debate that same way when I was younger, and my arguments suffered for it, so I'm not judging you. But please learn from my mistakes.
My mind may have been changed, but few of you did little more than insult me, label me, and tell me my ideas were wrong. I'm not whining that you did that right now, but i'm telling you those do not form a rhetorical strategy. You'd only get the creationist too judgmental of your character to take what you say seriously. Kkck actually changed my mind on a few things because he actually brought logic and reason to the table.
I think the real misconception is that my argument was designed to combat evolution. It was actually designed to combat atheism in the theory evolution. I understand evolution is simply an observation and does not alone testify strongly against major world religions. Atheism however, supports that life formed by an undirected process. The basis of my argument was to combat this. I did present why I don't take the theory of evolution to heart, but I was most strongly referring to atheism in my arguments.
Also it's impolite to talk about someone in the third person as if he's not there. Also I'm insulted you'd try to blame the semantic arguments on me. My first post had nothing to do with webster or the oxford dictionary. Understand you all tried to redefine to me what is science, the scientific method, and a complex machine, as if I didn't know. It's pathetic that you'd attack me for interpreting a language correctly, and not even succeed at it. I know what i'm saying when I speak the language. I apologize if other English speaking countries have different definitions for those terms. Please excuse me for the term evolutionist, it was not meant as an insult.
The majority of you poked as many holes in my arguments as Kkck believes creationists poked in evolution. What I witnessed here were numerous logical fallacies, mis-definitions, mis-interpretations, a lack of understanding of rhetoric, cultural discrimination, personal attacks, stereotypes, weak evidence, and hardly a single reason new to believe life formed by an undirected process. I know all about the respected theories and origin models, reiterating them really didn't do much for me.
True to my religion I did refrain from returning the insults and personal attacks, partly because it doesn't form a reasonable rhetorical strategy, so I'm not sure where this hypocrisy question is coming from. I mourn for the minds you'd convince talking to people that way.
Generally I hoped the fact that I didn't quote a single scripture to prove the validity of my religion (except to prove that christians believe Jesus believes the old testament is true) would set me above your stereotypical representation of a creationist, but I was wrong.
I noticed through most of it the lot of you didn't do much more than say the opposite of what I stated. "i could have told myself the opposite of what I said" I've been trying to show you all the whole time what it'd take to convince me. You all ignored it. All I asked for was respect, logic and rhetoric. Even while setting an example so rarely was I given it. Changing someone's way of thinking is more than presenting evidence. You have to manipulate the person's reasoning from the inside out.
If for any reason any of you felt personally attacked, disrespected or unduly ignored, I give my sincerest apologies, for that was never my intention. I'm not a scientist, I'm an illustrator, and I understand my ideas amount to little more than philosophy, but I came here to review that philosophy, and sadly it didn't change; however I did learn a lot from our conversation and I'm grateful for that. I used to debate that same way when I was younger, and my arguments suffered for it, so I'm not judging you. But please learn from my mistakes.
Last edited:
