@Curiosity killed
I'm not contesting the Hell call itself as much as I'm highlighting the bias which, partly, engendered the irritation which caused it.
And I am not calling for the religious intolerant one-noters to be dragged into Hell, I've no shyness in doing so if I feel irritated enough.
The bias is nothing radical or controversial, it is normal human behaviour. Those arguing that they don't see it, confirm it.
It is not true that those posters don't get called to Hell. I've called Russ recently, not for religious one note posting. And I posted on the Hell thread for @RdrEmCofE who was posting from a theistic point of view. The other posters you mention have been called to Hell on the Old Ship™. It happens.
But they are not the subject of this Hell call, so that is currently irrelevant.
It is not true that those posters don't get called to Hell. I've called Russ recently, not for religious one note posting. And I posted on the Hell thread for @RdrEmCofE who was posting from a theistic point of view. The other posters you mention have been called to Hell on the Old Ship™. It happens.
It happens, yes. I am saying that the irritation SD generates is more constant and partly driven by her view as contrary to the dominant view here. The more dominant left-leaning view here is part * of why Russ, and other, posters generate more ire than their more socialist counterparts. Not seeing why bias informing reaction is so controversial.
*part. Stressing that I am saying part. Russ deserves every Hell call he gets for is trollish behaviour as well as his anti-Jesus POV.
well, I've just thought - I wonder if I should change my user name to 'The Millstone'!!
Don't Ship name changes make the Baby Jesus cry?
See, now, she doesn't believe in making Baby Jesus cry, since that's a position based entirely on faith, so she can't possibly mind that she makes Baby Jesus cry. But thank you for the interesting post.
Yes, this thread has continued in part because SD’s posting style legitimately can irritate. But it has also done so because several disparate posters see the irritation as going beyond style.
Speaking of crusading, the "How dare you have a hell thread about being offended by person A when person B is also offensive and I don't see you starting a hell thread about them" card is getting tiresome. Give it a rest.
I wasn't saying that you had an inbuilt or innate bias. I'm quite aware that you have been 'reading, learning, looking and acquiring the understanding' you know have for a very long time.
How do I know that?
Because you lose no opportunity to say so over and over and over again.
I also acknowledged that all of us have biases and are posting from this, that or the other ideological position.
All I was saying was that, like the Weeble, you settle back on the same single point of gravity and reiterate the same points ad infinitum even on threads where it doesn't fit the subject matter.
CK's point was well made.
You don't appear to have understood it.
Meanwhile, @lilBuddha, yes, Raptor Eye has an annoying posting style at times. I'm sure that might result in a Hell Call at some point, if it hasn't done so already. I'm not about to issue one but would readily understand if someone ever did. Likewise if people called me to Hell for being a pain.
I don't think I've ever called SusanDoris to Hell, nor do I have any intention of doing so. Now she's here though, I am expressing an opinion.
I like having SusanDoris around. It makes for variety. However, it soon pales when her default response to every conceivable issue is a combination of:
- Are you sure that isn't something that's going on in your mind?
- I've read around a lot and listen to interesting programmes on the radio so I'm very well informed.
- That's how people used to think in those days but today we know better ...
There's only so long you can read that over and over and over and over again like a record needle stuck.
Perhaps in future it would be more straightforward for me to respond to any post I'd like to respond to by saying: Please refer to Gamma Gamaliel's [post in Hell, but I think you would find that as boring as I would!
To say that it's a 'crusade' is to imply that there's some kind of strategy behind it. I don't detect any evidence of that.
Hence my suggestion that it's more like an inbuilt bias. We all have them. Most of us have sufficient self-awareness to realise that.
Others don't.
The strategy seems to me to be repetition of a 'bee in the bonnet'.
No, no strategy! That would imply a scheming, a plan of campaign or something.
Perhaps some kind of forethought would actually be helpful, SusanDoris. Not a scheme or a crusading, but a quick think about 'Okay, why am I posting this? How is this relevant to the thread, and to what others have said. Is it something that can further the discussion? And is it something I haven't already posted?'
The bias is nothing radical or controversial, it is normal human behaviour. Those arguing that they don't see it, confirm it.
Oh give me a freaking break. You've just rendered your position un-falsifiable. If we disagree with you? That proves we're wrong.
And before you or anybody else starts: this is about "the" bias, that is, the one you claim exists against SD because of her atheism and NOT because of her posting style. This is not about bias in general.
Perhaps in future it would be more straightforward for me to respond to any post I'd like to respond to by saying: Please refer to Gamma Gamaliel's [post in Hell, but I think you would find that as boring as I would!
As we are?
Would you not accept my caricature of your posting style as accurate to a certain extent, exaggerated as it obviously is?
Perhaps in future it would be more straightforward for me to respond to any post I'd like to respond to by saying: Please refer to Gamma Gamaliel's [post in Hell, but I think you would find that as boring as I would!
With all due respect, I believe this is the message that the posters in this thread are trying to convey to you. It doesn't make you more interesting to find yet another way to express the same point.
I have been on shore leave for almost a decade so I can't say I am as tired as the rest of the shipmates. I've always found your questions to be provocative, and our personal exchanges have been cordial.
I appreciate your need to apply reasoning and critical thinking to questions weighty and slight. All valid arguments proceed from sound initial premises. The bias inherent in most people's POV is in flawed initial premises. It's the "blind spot".
We all have them.
Perhaps yours might be detected by completing the following assertion; "Holding an hypothesis that is not proven 100% by material, tangible measurable means is unacceptable because ..."
Yes, this thread has continued in part because SD’s posting style legitimately can irritate. But it has also done so because several disparate posters see the irritation as going beyond style.
Speaking of crusading, the "How dare you have a hell thread about being offended by person A when person B is also offensive and I don't see you starting a hell thread about them" card is getting tiresome. Give it a rest.
If you think that is what this thread is about, I must readjust my perspicacity meter as it has been giving far too much credit.
When Mudfrog annoyingly brings everything around to his theology, that only works on threads where it is amenable, and he only does it on threads where it works for him. Similarly for other obnoxious Christian posters.
But ALL threads on religious subjects are susceptible to SD's reductionism. So it shows up in a lot more places, thematically speaking.
For example: MPaul doesn't derail a thread on (say) the Christian origins of social justice into a discussion of dispensationalism. But SD will derail such threads with her "Can't an atheist be in favor of social justice?" non sequiturs. And so on and so on through any number of threads presupposing a Christian POV, or dissecting various Christian POVs, where any given Christian antagonist may not have a toehold for their hobbyhorse, but SD does, since ANY such thread can always be derailed by bloviating about how faith is unscientific, or how the question leaves out atheists, or whatever.
The bias is nothing radical or controversial, it is normal human behaviour. Those arguing that they don't see it, confirm it.
Oh give me a freaking break. You've just rendered your position un-falsifiable. If we disagree with you? That proves we're wrong.
And before you or anybody else starts: this is about "the" bias, that is, the one you claim exists against SD because of her atheism and NOT because of her posting style. This is not about bias in general.
It isn't that people don't agree, but that most are ignoring it as a factor. Bias exists, we all have it.
BTW, read for comprehension or at least completeness. I have said repeatedly that the bias is only part of the annoyance factor with SD.
Did I not just say this wasn't about general bias?
For you to segue from the putative bias Shipmates have about SD's atheism ("the" bias) to bias in general ("Bias exists, we all have it") is precisely what I was attempting to prevent you from doing.
You cannot prove the existence of "the bias," which refers to a specific bias under discussion here (in this case, the alleged anti-atheistic bias which is supposedly driving this thread),
by arguing that bias in general exists. The article makes a difference.
All this wrangling and posturing, when all you want to do is tell SusanDoris that her questions are too stupid for the scope of your preferred conversation.
All this wrangling and posturing, when all you want to do is tell SusanDoris that her questions are too stupid for the scope of your preferred conversation.
Not stupid, just inappropriate questions on the threads where she posts them. She had answers on her Images and Proving God? threads where she asked her own questions.
You cannot prove the existence of "the bias," which refers to a specific bias under discussion here (in this case, the alleged anti-atheistic bias which is supposedly driving this thread),
Prove it, no. Just as you cannot prove it doesn't exist. If I said general bias, then I apologise. What I am talking about is bias against confrontation of one's beliefs. That is the specific bias.
Your head banging might be why you fail to grasp this.
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Perhaps in future it would be more straightforward for me to respond to any post I'd like to respond to by saying: Please refer to Gamma Gamaliel's [post in Hell, but I think you would find that as boring as I would!
With all due respect, I believe this is the message that the posters in this thread are trying to convey to you. It doesn't make you more interesting to find yet another way to express the same point.
Yes, I have certainly noticed the message! And have acknowledged it. I am not here to become 'more interesting'and had never thought of it that way.
I have been on shore leave for almost a decade so I can't say I am as tired as the rest of the shipmates. I've always found your questions to be provocative, and our personal exchanges have been cordial.
Thank you for saying.
I appreciate your need to apply reasoning and critical thinking to questions weighty and slight. All valid arguments proceed from sound initial premises. The bias inherent in most people's POV is in flawed initial premises. It's the "blind spot".
We all have them.
Perhaps yours might be detected by completing the following assertion; "Holding an hypothesis that is not proven 100% by material, tangible measurable means is unacceptable because ..."
... that is not the way things work. Logically, there must always be an opening for the premise (or Theory) to be improved, or changed, or disproved in some way. At my age, there are quite a few thins I believe that are so extremely unlikely to change that I can safely regard them as 100% proved, but do not ever forget the proviso.
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Do you think that would allow free rein to your* confirmation bias?
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Do you think that would allow free rein to your* confirmation bias?
@SusanDoris there is quite a lot of meaning implicit in that phrase confirmation bias. The dictionary definition is:
confirmation bias
noun
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
That you should refer to posters on the Ship as giving free rein to their confirmation bias when they come to discuss belief, matters of faith and other issues from a Christian point of view, suggests that you feel you should be challenging their existing beliefs or theories. This is where a number of people are getting frustrated because so many of your posts show your confirmation bias based on a belief in scientism without really understanding science or scientific thinking. Which is often as unthinking and lacking in understanding of the world as fundagelical Christians can be.
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Do you think that would allow free rein to your* confirmation bias?
* your general not your particular
I'm sorry if I was not clear. I didn't mean in saying "the kind of points they wish to address" that the points would be ones with which they agree necessarily, but ones that give a POV that interest them with which to grapple. Much better than inwardly fuming, "Oh, there goes SusanDoris, again!" and losing track of what they came to the thread for in the first place. I'm not suggesting a general boycott of your posts, just not to let their irritation derail their thoughts and participation by engaging with posts that get them nowhere. Since the folks who have added to this thread are well aware of your opinions on theism and have made their opinions known on how you express those opinions, repeated wrangling about them gets discussion nowhere they want to go, anyway.
So, yes, "scroll-scroll-scroll" for those whose blood pressure rises at the very sight of your avatar.
Scroll-scroll-scroll. Don't feed the nice tap dancer if you don't want to.
OK, so yes, one can scroll past. But unless everyone does, it makes the general thread a little harder to follow.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
Do you think that would allow free rein to your* confirmation bias?
* your general not your particular
I'm sorry if I was not clear. I didn't mean in saying "the kind of points they wish to address" that the points would be ones with which they agree necessarily, but ones that give a POV that interest them with which to grapple. Much better than inwardly fuming, "Oh, there goes SusanDoris, again!" and losing track of what they came to the thread for in the first place. I'm not suggesting a general boycott of your posts, just not to let their irritation derail their thoughts and participation by engaging with posts that get them nowhere. Since the folks who have added to this thread are well aware of your opinions on theism and have made their opinions known on how you express those opinions, repeated wrangling about them gets discussion nowhere they want to go, anyway.
So, yes, "scroll-scroll-scroll" for those whose blood pressure rises at the very sight of your avatar.
Thank you - that seems like a sensible thing to do.
By the way, by 'free rein' I meant sort of knowing that there would be no disagreement or people asking what would be considered awkward questions. I can't think of a phrase I could have put in its place.
... that is not the way things work. Logically, there must always be an opening for the premise (or Theory) to be improved, or changed, or disproved in some way. At my age, there are quite a few thins I believe that are so extremely unlikely to change that I can safely regard them as 100% proved, but do not ever forget the proviso.
I'm sorry but it is the way things work. This is the first thing one learns in Reasoning and Critical Thinking 101 as part of a degree in Philosophy. You might be a Scientist but I received an education as a logician.
There is no necessity for initial premises to be open to improvement. An argument is valid if it proceeds from sound initial premises. This is the most basic tenet of logic. If the initial premises are flawed then so is the argument.
One is always free to adopt a different premise, but make no mistake about it, if you haven't built a firm foundation for your argument then it will show itself invalid.
So I invite you to examine your initial premise. You avoided the question, which is something your shipmates accuse you of, and I am bringing your attention back to your initial premise. If you don't wish to engage then I understand.
... that is not the way things work. Logically, there must always be an opening for the premise (or Theory) to be improved, or changed, or disproved in some way. At my age, there are quite a few things I believe that are so extremely unlikely to change that I can safely regard them as 100% proved, but do not ever forget the proviso.
I'm sorry but it is the way things work. This is the first thing one learns in Reasoning and Critical Thinking 101 as part of a degree in Philosophy. You might be a Scientist but I received an education as a logician.
I do not claim to be a qualified scientist, logician or philosopher. I do not use the vocabulary of philosophy because I would probably use it incorrectly, but I hope I have picked up a few points about logic from reading the words of those who do understand it well. I will make mistakes.
There is no necessity for initial premises to be open to improvement.
If my words implied that, then that was a mistake I made and I might well have used the word premise incorrectly; apologies if so.
An argument is valid if it proceeds from sound initial premises. This is the most basic tenet of logic. If the initial premises are flawed then so is the argument.
One is always free to adopt a different premise, but make no mistake about it, if you haven't built a firm foundation for your argument then it will show itself invalid.
So I invite you to examine your initial premise.
Please state exactly what you think my 'initial premise' was. And I ask this genuinely, not with any confrontational tone or anything.
You avoided the question, which is something your shipmates accuse you of, and I am bringing your attention back to your initial premise. If you don't wish to engage then I understand.
Near as I can tell, her premise is that God doesn't exist because science cannot find him, so why bother discussing anything about religion?
Not that she is incapable of, at least slightly, greater nuance; but that is the predominant feel of her contribution.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps, deep down, she feels that religion is worth discussing, as there just might be something in it...
Man I hate that reasoning. It is lazy and misses the real causes of many problems. White supremacists are not secretly black.
I do not come here to discuss religion, I come here to discuss. I see no reason why SD does not also.
Crosspost, addressed @lilbuddha
You would think so, but while this thread has been grinding away, she's posted on the Creation thread in Dead Horses with a comment that of course creation is by evolution. Creationists on the Ship getting such an easy ride, not.
And looking for a link earlier through some of the earlier threads on these boards, I found the same stuff from SusanDoris repeated on those threads as more recent ones. Not that I'm going to be able to link and evidence that until later.
Near as I can tell, her premise is that God doesn't exist because science cannot find him, so why bother discussing anything about religion?
Not that she is incapable of, at least slightly, greater nuance; but that is the predominant feel of her contribution.
I have never (unless you can cite to the contrary) said that God doesn't exist. To my knowledge, there is zero objective (you know, the testable, verifiable type of evidence) to show that any God/god/s/etc exist(s). I totally lack belief in any such god/etc but always allow for the proviso that one might turn up one day. It is up to those who believe in and claim that any such God/etc exists to provide the 99.9% proof that one does. I know this is often said, but maybe that Is because it needs saying ... ... although you'd probably wish it wasn't by me!!
Yes, but what I find odd are her constant attempts to say that much in virtually every post. Why does she do it?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
No, you can forget that one!!
Perhaps, deep down, she feels that religion is worth discussing, as there just might be something in it...
I feel it is worth discussing because it is such a huge part of humans and human existence and has been since, as far as we know, humans first thought and spoke. I believe there are over 4,00 religions worldwide, but I haven't checked that number. There are innumerable religious leaders telling their followers that God A, B or C is this, wants that, will hear prayers, needs - as I heard an Indian religious shrine spoken of the other day - enormous wealth.
Comments
I'm not contesting the Hell call itself as much as I'm highlighting the bias which, partly, engendered the irritation which caused it.
And I am not calling for the religious intolerant one-noters to be dragged into Hell, I've no shyness in doing so if I feel irritated enough.
The bias is nothing radical or controversial, it is normal human behaviour. Those arguing that they don't see it, confirm it.
But they are not the subject of this Hell call, so that is currently irrelevant.
*part. Stressing that I am saying part. Russ deserves every Hell call he gets for is trollish behaviour as well as his anti-Jesus POV.
I wasn't saying that you had an inbuilt or innate bias. I'm quite aware that you have been 'reading, learning, looking and acquiring the understanding' you know have for a very long time.
How do I know that?
Because you lose no opportunity to say so over and over and over again.
I also acknowledged that all of us have biases and are posting from this, that or the other ideological position.
All I was saying was that, like the Weeble, you settle back on the same single point of gravity and reiterate the same points ad infinitum even on threads where it doesn't fit the subject matter.
CK's point was well made.
You don't appear to have understood it.
Meanwhile, @lilBuddha, yes, Raptor Eye has an annoying posting style at times. I'm sure that might result in a Hell Call at some point, if it hasn't done so already. I'm not about to issue one but would readily understand if someone ever did. Likewise if people called me to Hell for being a pain.
I don't think I've ever called SusanDoris to Hell, nor do I have any intention of doing so. Now she's here though, I am expressing an opinion.
I like having SusanDoris around. It makes for variety. However, it soon pales when her default response to every conceivable issue is a combination of:
- Are you sure that isn't something that's going on in your mind?
- I've read around a lot and listen to interesting programmes on the radio so I'm very well informed.
- That's how people used to think in those days but today we know better ...
There's only so long you can read that over and over and over and over again like a record needle stuck.
Q: How should people of faith respond to issues of conflict, social justice and equality?
SD: A: They should examine the evidence as I have done and then they would reach the conclusion that a faith position is untenable.
Q: If it were right to allow new churches to wither on the vine and to plant new ones, what form should they take?
SD: A: They should examine the evidence as I have done and then they would reach the conclusion that a faith position is untenable.
Q: What should my approach be to this particular Bible passage I'm preaching on this Sunday?
SD: A: should examine the evidence as I have done and then they would reach the conclusion that a faith position is untenable.
Q: I'm struggling with an apparent 'call' to a religious vocation ...
SD: A: You should examine the evidence as I have done and then they would reach the conclusion that a faith position is untenable.
Q: I want to learn how to paint icons. Can anyone recommend a suitable course?
SD: A: You should examine the evidence as I have done and then they would reach the conclusion that a faith position is untenable.
Need I go on?
Perhaps some kind of forethought would actually be helpful, SusanDoris. Not a scheme or a crusading, but a quick think about 'Okay, why am I posting this? How is this relevant to the thread, and to what others have said. Is it something that can further the discussion? And is it something I haven't already posted?'
Oh give me a freaking break. You've just rendered your position un-falsifiable. If we disagree with you? That proves we're wrong.
And before you or anybody else starts: this is about "the" bias, that is, the one you claim exists against SD because of her atheism and NOT because of her posting style. This is not about bias in general.
As we are?
Would you not accept my caricature of your posting style as accurate to a certain extent, exaggerated as it obviously is?
IJ
With all due respect, I believe this is the message that the posters in this thread are trying to convey to you. It doesn't make you more interesting to find yet another way to express the same point.
I have been on shore leave for almost a decade so I can't say I am as tired as the rest of the shipmates. I've always found your questions to be provocative, and our personal exchanges have been cordial.
I appreciate your need to apply reasoning and critical thinking to questions weighty and slight. All valid arguments proceed from sound initial premises. The bias inherent in most people's POV is in flawed initial premises. It's the "blind spot".
We all have them.
Perhaps yours might be detected by completing the following assertion; "Holding an hypothesis that is not proven 100% by material, tangible measurable means is unacceptable because ..."
AFF
When Mudfrog annoyingly brings everything around to his theology, that only works on threads where it is amenable, and he only does it on threads where it works for him. Similarly for other obnoxious Christian posters.
But ALL threads on religious subjects are susceptible to SD's reductionism. So it shows up in a lot more places, thematically speaking.
For example: MPaul doesn't derail a thread on (say) the Christian origins of social justice into a discussion of dispensationalism. But SD will derail such threads with her "Can't an atheist be in favor of social justice?" non sequiturs. And so on and so on through any number of threads presupposing a Christian POV, or dissecting various Christian POVs, where any given Christian antagonist may not have a toehold for their hobbyhorse, but SD does, since ANY such thread can always be derailed by bloviating about how faith is unscientific, or how the question leaves out atheists, or whatever.
BTW, read for comprehension or at least completeness. I have said repeatedly that the bias is only part of the annoyance factor with SD.
<Bangs head against wall>
Did I not just say this wasn't about general bias?
For you to segue from the putative bias Shipmates have about SD's atheism ("the" bias) to bias in general ("Bias exists, we all have it") is precisely what I was attempting to prevent you from doing.
You cannot prove the existence of "the bias," which refers to a specific bias under discussion here (in this case, the alleged anti-atheistic bias which is supposedly driving this thread),
by arguing that bias in general exists. The article makes a difference.
Also, what Mousethief said and also A Feminine Force.
All of them on the money.
All this wrangling and posturing, when all you want to do is tell SusanDoris that her questions are too stupid for the scope of your preferred conversation.
Ahh-men.
Not stupid, just inappropriate questions on the threads where she posts them. She had answers on her Images and Proving God? threads where she asked her own questions.
Your head banging might be why you fail to grasp this.
If just everyone who has posted on this thread did this when SusanDoris posts in ways that displease them and only reply to people who have made the kind of points they wish to address on the thread, I think discussion could go pretty smoothly.
* your general not your particular
Ooookay then.
The one where you said:
That you should refer to posters on the Ship as giving free rein to their confirmation bias when they come to discuss belief, matters of faith and other issues from a Christian point of view, suggests that you feel you should be challenging their existing beliefs or theories. This is where a number of people are getting frustrated because so many of your posts show your confirmation bias based on a belief in scientism without really understanding science or scientific thinking. Which is often as unthinking and lacking in understanding of the world as fundagelical Christians can be.
I'm sorry if I was not clear. I didn't mean in saying "the kind of points they wish to address" that the points would be ones with which they agree necessarily, but ones that give a POV that interest them with which to grapple. Much better than inwardly fuming, "Oh, there goes SusanDoris, again!" and losing track of what they came to the thread for in the first place. I'm not suggesting a general boycott of your posts, just not to let their irritation derail their thoughts and participation by engaging with posts that get them nowhere. Since the folks who have added to this thread are well aware of your opinions on theism and have made their opinions known on how you express those opinions, repeated wrangling about them gets discussion nowhere they want to go, anyway.
So, yes, "scroll-scroll-scroll" for those whose blood pressure rises at the very sight of your avatar.
It's in Wikipedia, so therefore It Must Be True:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millstone
I wonder which one SD represents?
ISTM that this thread is grinding on and on, but not getting any smaller or finer, so I'll get me smock-frock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smock-frock
IJ
I'm sorry but it is the way things work. This is the first thing one learns in Reasoning and Critical Thinking 101 as part of a degree in Philosophy. You might be a Scientist but I received an education as a logician.
There is no necessity for initial premises to be open to improvement. An argument is valid if it proceeds from sound initial premises. This is the most basic tenet of logic. If the initial premises are flawed then so is the argument.
One is always free to adopt a different premise, but make no mistake about it, if you haven't built a firm foundation for your argument then it will show itself invalid.
So I invite you to examine your initial premise. You avoided the question, which is something your shipmates accuse you of, and I am bringing your attention back to your initial premise. If you don't wish to engage then I understand.
AFF
Perhaps we could use them as some kind of New Age mantra or therapy?
Ohm ... Ohm ... Ohm ...
Granted, it doesn't make for scintillating debate ...
Not that she is incapable of, at least slightly, greater nuance; but that is the predominant feel of her contribution.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps, deep down, she feels that religion is worth discussing, as there just might be something in it...
IJ
I do not come here to discuss religion, I come here to discuss. I see no reason why SD does not also.
You would think so, but while this thread has been grinding away, she's posted on the Creation thread in Dead Horses with a comment that of course creation is by evolution. Creationists on the Ship getting such an easy ride, not.
And looking for a link earlier through some of the earlier threads on these boards, I found the same stuff from SusanDoris repeated on those threads as more recent ones. Not that I'm going to be able to link and evidence that until later.
It ain't much but we are getting it.
To be fair, SD isn't the only Shipmate with one string to her bow.
As has often been said on these boards, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.