It's really just division of labor. In our society we have multifurcated the work required to keep us all alive and our society moving along. We all trust the other to do their part in keeping things working, whether it's trash collectors or nuclear physicists. And that trust is a kind of faith.
Division of labour and motherfucking knowledge. From the lowest level maths instructor the the highest level physicist there is massive overlap on every level. It isn't "I don't understand the Higgs-boson" therefore everything is faith. It is that overlap which allows not only science to work, but nearly everything. Do you think that everyone involved in building a bridge knows the entire process? No. But there is overlap at each level to allow cooperation and communication. There is a series of interconnected disciplines which work together.
We do not have "faith" the trash collector will show up, we have a reasonable expectation. Based on knowledge of their job. Not all the ins and outs, but enough to where it isn't faith.
Despite you agreeing that religion and science are two different things, you are still trying to put them on the same playing field.
It's really just division of labor. In our society we have multifurcated the work required to keep us all alive and our society moving along. We all trust the other to do their part in keeping things working, whether it's trash collectors or nuclear physicists. And that trust is a kind of faith.
Then Trump gets elected and decides eroding all the trust is the way forward.
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.
See the heaven thread on belief - we don’t have 100% religious faith either.
Also see all the comments that you are trying to compare apples and lump hammers. Religion and science are totally different fields and require totally different kinds of faith.
You wouldn’t compare theology with car manufacture, why compare it with ‘science’.
Is there such a thing as ‘science’ anyway? It’s a thousand disciplines in a million fields, is it not?
Surely, there is a difference between trust in scientific work, and faith in the supernatural. Science works by being wrong, and advances via the wrongness being corrected. This is based on observation and prediction. But it works. We don't bother with phlogiston today.
But we are not talking about science, we are talking about how 99% of people have faith in it without having the first understand of it. Not just science either, also bridge construction etc.
The process of science makes no difference in this instance. When the person is loudly proclaiming something about religion and contrasting it with science whilst having very little understanding never mind experience of it then the faith required is no different.
Surely, there is a difference between trust in scientific work, and faith in the supernatural. Science works by being wrong, and advances via the wrongness being corrected. This is based on observation and prediction. But it works. We don't bother with phlogiston today.
Science doesn't work in the way that the vast majority of people think it does.
And many of the great scientific insights came about before the scientific method had been properly and formally formulated. Some actually came about due to very sloppy science.
Much/most came about before the advent of decent statistics.
The idea that it is a process by which other ideas are measured is bunk; by that reasoning 99% of science would be thrown out.
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.
See the heaven thread on belief - we don’t have 100% religious faith either.
Also see all the comments that you are trying to compare apples and lump hammers. Religion and science are totally different fields and require totally different kinds of faith.
And that, I feel confident in claiming, is what I have been saying.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it, and if I have not given that impression, I will make sure it is clear from nnow on.
You wouldn’t compare theology with car manufacture, why compare it with ‘science’.
Is there such a thing as ‘science’ anyway? It’s a thousand disciplines in a million fields, is it not?
So, I start a thread about the Trinity (In which my beliefs would be seen as heretical by most mainstream Christians) and people begin to argue/discuss what they see it to mean.
Where would contrasting this subject to science be of any relevance whatever?
But we are not talking about science, we are talking about how 99% of people have faith in it without having the first understand of it.
Where has that been said? As far as I know, all that has been said is that scientists, having discovered something via the scientific method, do not ever say that their findings ar 100% proved.
The process of science makes no difference in this instance. When the person is loudly proclaiming something about religion and contrasting it with science whilst having very little understanding never mind experience of it
True, I could not quote you verbatim some of the fascinating facts in the book I have mentioned, but there they are, able to be referenced and checked.
So, I start a thread about the Trinity (In which my beliefs would be seen as heretical by most mainstream Christians) and people begin to argue/discuss what they see it to mean.
Where would contrasting this subject to science be of any relevance whatever?
I do not know. It is a thread I would not join anyway.
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.
See the heaven thread on belief - we don’t have 100% religious faith either.
Also see all the comments that you are trying to compare apples and lump hammers. Religion and science are totally different fields and require totally different kinds of faith.
And that, I feel confident in claiming, is what I have been saying.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it, and if I have not given that impression, I will make sure it is clear from nnow on.
Not wanting to speak for Boogie, but I think you are missing the point here, SusanDoris. The word 'compare' includes the meaning of contrast - it is about looking for both similarities and differences. Clearly you are not looking for similarities, but I don't think the meaning of what Boogie has said changes in any way if you replace the word 'compare' with 'contrast.' Contrasting apples and lump hammers would equally be pointless.
So, I start a thread about the Trinity (In which my beliefs would be seen as heretical by most mainstream Christians) and people begin to argue/discuss what they see it to mean.
Where would contrasting this subject to science be of any relevance whatever?
Well, yes, I don't get the point of comparing them. The supernatural is distinct from the natural world, isn't it?
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.
See the heaven thread on belief - we don’t have 100% religious faith either.
Also see all the comments that you are trying to compare apples and lump hammers. Religion and science are totally different fields and require totally different kinds of faith.
And that, I feel confident in claiming, is what I have been saying.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it, and if I have not given that impression, I will make sure it is clear from nnow on.
I can see I'll have to clarify my meaning of compare in future too! In the current cituation, I do not think that science and religious beliefs are alike.
Not wanting to speak for Boogie, but I think you are missing the point here, SusanDoris. The word 'compare' includes the meaning of contrast - it is about looking for both similarities and differences. Clearly you are not looking for similarities, but I don't think the meaning of what Boogie has said changes in any way if you replace the word 'compare' with 'contrast.' Contrasting apples and lump hammers would equally be pointless.
SusanDoris, I think you have made clear you don't see science and religious beliefs as the same, which was also what I understood Boogie to be saying. I'm not sure that anyone was claiming they were the same. I understood Boogie's point as being that they were so different (like an apple and a hammer) that there was no point in comparing (contrasting) them.
But also bear in mind that difference is not necessarily the same as being mutually exclusive. Just as someone earlier made the comparison with poetry and science. Poetry and science are both valid (though completely different) ways of describing our experience on earth. They co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive, but operate under very different frameworks and understandings. So comparing them in terms of 'Science is right; poetry isn't scientific and is therefore wrong' would be reductive and missing the point.
So, if you wouldn't join a thread on the Trinity, SusanDoris, why join threads such as the one Curiosity Killed mentioned where the discussion was all about whether to set up new churches as opposed to old ones?
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
If you were to post in a thread on the Trinity it'd be, 'Why are you discussing the Trinity? What scientific basis do you have for doing so?'
Likewise on a thread about the desirability or otherwise of setting up new churches.
'Are they explaining to people that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs?'
It'd be like gate-crashing an evening class in Japanese and complaining that they aren't teaching Korean at the same time.
Or attending a guinea pig and cavy conference and complaining that they didn't have dogs on show like Crufts.
I can't speak for Boogie but I think that's the sort of point she's making.
So, if you wouldn't join a thread on the Trinity, SusanDoris, why join threads such as the one Curiosity Killed mentioned where the discussion was all about whether to set up new churches as opposed to old ones?
Because I found that more interesting and with strong practical implications.
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
See if you can post the same question in a year's time!
If you were to post in a thread on the Trinity it'd be, 'Why are you discussing the Trinity? What scientific basis do you have for doing so?'
Likewise on a thread about the desirability or otherwise of setting up new churches.
'Are they explaining to people that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs?'
It'd be like gate-crashing an evening class in Japanese and complaining that they aren't teaching Korean at the same time.
Or attending a guinea pig and cavy conference and complaining that they didn't have dogs on show like Crufts.
I can't speak for Boogie but I think that's the sort of point she's making.
And I bet you have quite enjoyed thinking up those various conjectures!
SusanDoris, I think you have made clear you don't see science and religious beliefs as the same, which was also what I understood Boogie to be saying. I'm not sure that anyone was claiming they were the same. I understood Boogie's point as being that they were so different (like an apple and a hammer) that there was no point in comparing (contrasting) them.
But also bear in mind that difference is not necessarily the same as being mutually exclusive. Just as someone earlier made the comparison with poetry and science. Poetry and science are both valid (though completely different) ways of describing our experience on earth. They co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive, but operate under very different frameworks and understandings. So comparing them in terms of 'Science is right; poetry isn't scientific and is therefore wrong' would be reductive and missing the point.
Has anyone been saying that poetry is unscientific and therefore wrong? I don't recollect that, and it would be an extreme form of scientism. But saying that religion is wrong also seems odd to me. I think one traditional atheist reply has been that it's not even wrong. In other words, there are no constraints, and no measuring rod. Angels may exist, but I don't lose sleep over it.
To put it bluntly, if you can't read a Christian perspective on the Ship without scratching the itch to declare it invalid, fuck off. There are plenty of places elsewhere where no Christian perspective can be mentioned without that itch being fully explored, so have some generosity and go there. Or make your contribution and allow it to sit alongside the Christian perspective, rather than trying to destroy that perspective before asserting your own.
Quetzalcoatl, no, they haven’t. I was giving a hypothetical analogy of something more obviously incongruous to try to get SusanDoris to understand the point people are making. When the poetry v science comparison was alluded to earlier, SD’s reply didn’t indicate she understood the point being made, so I was spelling it out more.
I’m still not sure if she gets the point being made, as her response to Gamma’s analogies was simply that he must have enjoyed thinking of them - there is no acknowledging and engaging with the purpose of them!
While it's true that science and religion are neither comparable nor contrastable, I'm not sure the same can be said for the ways in which ordinary individual humans go about placing their trust in one or both or neither.
I don't currently count myself among Christian believers (though at other times in my life I have). When I believed, I used "evidence" like emotional experiences to support that belief -- a non-rational response -- but also on a lot of reading I did about the history and tenets of the faith itself (some of which I still hold to).
At present, in terms of science, I "believe" (for example) that children should be vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (assuming no allergies to the vaccines' ingredients). I base this belief partly on an emotional response to protecting kids from illness, and partly on reading I've done about herd immunity and the ability to virtually wipe out these diseases if only people would vaccinate their kids. That said, I haven't worked on these projects (any more than I helped spread Christianity or assisted in its theological development); I haven't concocted or tested vaccines, nor have I any personal knowledge of the relationship between use of the vaccines and lowering of MMR infection rates. I rely on what I've read about work done by others, just as I did when reading about Christianity.
In short, I'd be hard-pressed to explain the differences in my own cognitive and/or emotional responses to these two "systems" (for lack of a better term). AFAICT, I arrived at each conviction in similar ways, and submitted to each on similar bases.
That said, the two systems do operate differently, investigate different questions, and remain in separate categories. My own human engagement with the two systems, subject as they are to my own fairly stringent limitations, ends up more similar than different.
Why should I fuck off? As I said above, most human collections of ideas deserve to be subverted, I'm not sure why theism is exempt. I agree that it's inappropriate in the middle of specific discussions, which is what SD tends to do. Anyway, I don't see theism as invalid, but not even wrong.
So, if you wouldn't join a thread on the Trinity, SusanDoris, why join threads such as the one Curiosity Killed mentioned where the discussion was all about whether to set up new churches as opposed to old ones?
Because I found that more interesting and with strong practical implications.
But when we are discussing ways that people can come and enquire about the Christian faith, which is the assumption implicit in seeker activities, it really is irrelevant and disruptive to ask how atheists can challenge those activities. Which is what you did and what irritated me. I did say on that thread, that I was irritated by having to justify Christian input into Christian seeker services, because the whole point of those activities is to tell people who are interested, you know, voluntarily attending, not forced there at gunpoint, what Christianity can offer.
You may find my reactions intemperate, but they are not entirely unreasoned. It is extremely difficult to find a context for discussion which assumes neither an atheist nor a Christian clerical perspective. Being a lay person who greatly enjoys discussion, but finds that in most other context non-clerical faith-based perspectives are dismissed or go totally unheard, finding the Ship has been a lifeline. Now finding its discussions routinely filled with sand and completely hobbled causes great grief, which translates itself readily into anger.
You may find my reactions intemperate, but they are not entirely unreasoned. It is extremely difficult to find a context for discussion which assumes neither an atheist nor a Christian clerical perspective. Being a lay person who greatly enjoys discussion, but finds that in most other context non-clerical faith-based perspectives are dismissed or go totally unheard, finding the Ship has been a lifeline. Now finding its discussions routinely filled with sand and completely hobbled causes great grief, which translates itself readily into anger.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it....
But you contrast it from the point of view of science. Not from a neutral point of view. You demand that religion dance on science's string. Which is to pre-decide the outcome of any such contrast.
The process of science makes no difference in this instance. When the person is loudly proclaiming something about religion and contrasting it with science whilst having very little understanding never mind experience of it
True, I could not quote you verbatim some of the fascinating facts in the book I have mentioned, but there they are, able to be referenced and checked.
No. You cannot check it. That is my point. Neither you nor I can check anything in the world of subatomic physics.
So, if you wouldn't join a thread on the Trinity, SusanDoris, why join threads such as the one Curiosity Killed mentioned where the discussion was all about whether to set up new churches as opposed to old ones?
Because I found that more interesting and with strong practical implications.
So what? It's bloody irrelevant, and it's ruder than a rude thing on rails to keep introducing irrelevant points on threads talking about entirely something else. Really, who do you think you are?
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
See if you can post the same question in a year's time!
Imagine yourself in September 2017. Now remember it's September 2018.
That's what people are complaining about. Not that this is something that you've suddenly decided to do, but that you've always had the tendency to do it, and they have already forbeared, for a year, for longer. All they're asking you is to tone it down. A bit. Just a goddamn bit.
Quetzalcoatl, no, they haven’t. I was giving a hypothetical analogy of something more obviously incongruous to try to get SusanDoris to understand the point people are making. When the poetry v science comparison was alluded to earlier, SD’s reply didn’t indicate she understood the point being made, so I was spelling it out more.
I’m still not sure if she gets the point being made, as her response to Gamma’s analogies was simply that he must have enjoyed thinking of them - there is no acknowledging and engaging with the purpose of them!
If Gamma Gamaliel would like to fconfirm that he expected all those individual analogies to be responded to, then I will of course do so. I heard them as being a whole set to try to ensure that the listener got the message! I'd have been hard put not to!
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
See if you can post the same question in a year's time!
Imagine yourself in September 2017. Now remember it's September 2018.
That's what people are complaining about. Not that this is something that you've suddenly decided to do, but that you've always had the tendency to do it, and they have already forbeared, for a year, for longer. All they're asking you is to tone it down. A bit. Just a goddamn bit.
That is why I mentioned a date a year into the future, not into the past.
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
See if you can post the same question in a year's time!
Imagine yourself in September 2017. Now remember it's September 2018.
That's what people are complaining about. Not that this is something that you've suddenly decided to do, but that you've always had the tendency to do it, and they have already forbeared, for a year, for longer. All they're asking you is to tone it down. A bit. Just a goddamn bit.
That is why I mentioned a date a year into the future, not into the past.
Is this a convoluted way of saying you’ve changed your ways?
Quite an interesting thread really, kind of free floating.
I too am finding it interesting, although I hadn't thought of the idea of it being sort of free-floating, although that sounds quite appropriate I think.
The process of science makes no difference in this instance. When the person is loudly proclaiming something about religion and contrasting it with science whilst having very little understanding never mind experience of it
True, I could not quote you verbatim some of the fascinating facts in the book I have mentioned, but there they are, able to be referenced and checked.
No. You cannot check it. That is my point. Neither you nor I can check anything in the world of subatomic physics.
To assume that I meant check it personally is downright daft!! I'll spell it out: there is a list of references at the end of the book, with presumably internet links to the studies and research done and confirmed by the scientists concerned, and, I expect, references also to those who challenged or opposed whatever piece of research one was checking on.
@SusanDoris they were all saying the same thing. You didn’t respond.
Yes, this. And not just Gamma - he was simply finding new ways to say the same thing lots of us have been saying in different ways, because nothing you have said, SD, indicates an understanding of the point being made. Just saying ‘I understand’ doesn’t indicate that you really do - just that you may think you do. Engaging with the points made in a relevant way, maybe saying in your own words what you are understanding, agreeing or disagreeing, but giving reasons - these kind of things would give some indication that you ‘get it.’
Mousethief made a good pount earlier, the first of his recent string of posts. I know you don’t engage with insults, but the first one was not insulting. I will find it and repost.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it....
But you contrast it from the point of view of science. Not from a neutral point of view. You demand that religion dance on science's string. Which is to pre-decide the outcome of any such contrast.
This. SD, you are coming from the assumption that everything real must be able to be evidenced through science. This is an assumption.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it....
But you contrast it from the point of view of science. Not from a neutral point of view. You demand that religion dance on science's string. Which is to pre-decide the outcome of any such contrast.
This. SD, you are coming from the assumption that everything real must be able to be evidenced through science. This is an assumption.
However, I make no demands, nor do I make the assumption that you here are saying I make. I certainly do not say that 'everything real must be able to be evidenced through science', I say that in order to be a Theory, or to work, be objective,, it is most likely to be so when the scientific method is used, and that there are vast numbers of things that remain as unknowns, or not enough evidence yet.
@SusanDoris they were all saying the same thing. You didn’t respond.
Yes, this. And not just Gamma - he was simply finding new ways to say the same thing lots of us have been saying in different ways, because nothing you have said, SD, indicates an understanding of the point being made. Just saying ‘I understand’ doesn’t indicate that you really do - just that you may think you do.
What demonstrates understanding, in your case, probably means changing your own listening behavior as well as your own posting behavior. You appear to pay attention (or find "interesting") only those posts you perceive as agreeing with your world view. What will actually get (and perhaps keep) you out of Hell, though, is paying attention to those who are asking you to provide substantive answers to questions and to cease making inappropriately-placed demands that people examine "first causes" on threads where these are generally assumed.
Comments
Division of labour and motherfucking knowledge. From the lowest level maths instructor the the highest level physicist there is massive overlap on every level. It isn't "I don't understand the Higgs-boson" therefore everything is faith. It is that overlap which allows not only science to work, but nearly everything. Do you think that everyone involved in building a bridge knows the entire process? No. But there is overlap at each level to allow cooperation and communication. There is a series of interconnected disciplines which work together.
We do not have "faith" the trash collector will show up, we have a reasonable expectation. Based on knowledge of their job. Not all the ins and outs, but enough to where it isn't faith.
Despite you agreeing that religion and science are two different things, you are still trying to put them on the same playing field.
Then Trump gets elected and decides eroding all the trust is the way forward.
See the heaven thread on belief - we don’t have 100% religious faith either.
Also see all the comments that you are trying to compare apples and lump hammers. Religion and science are totally different fields and require totally different kinds of faith.
You wouldn’t compare theology with car manufacture, why compare it with ‘science’.
Is there such a thing as ‘science’ anyway? It’s a thousand disciplines in a million fields, is it not?
The process of science makes no difference in this instance. When the person is loudly proclaiming something about religion and contrasting it with science whilst having very little understanding never mind experience of it then the faith required is no different.
Science doesn't work in the way that the vast majority of people think it does.
And many of the great scientific insights came about before the scientific method had been properly and formally formulated. Some actually came about due to very sloppy science.
Much/most came about before the advent of decent statistics.
The idea that it is a process by which other ideas are measured is bunk; by that reasoning 99% of science would be thrown out.
I do not compare science with religion, I contrast it, and if I have not given that impression, I will make sure it is clear from nnow on. Yes, and it pursues knowledge, not (total) faith.
Where would contrasting this subject to science be of any relevance whatever?
Not wanting to speak for Boogie, but I think you are missing the point here, SusanDoris. The word 'compare' includes the meaning of contrast - it is about looking for both similarities and differences. Clearly you are not looking for similarities, but I don't think the meaning of what Boogie has said changes in any way if you replace the word 'compare' with 'contrast.' Contrasting apples and lump hammers would equally be pointless.
Well, yes, I don't get the point of comparing them. The supernatural is distinct from the natural world, isn't it?
But also bear in mind that difference is not necessarily the same as being mutually exclusive. Just as someone earlier made the comparison with poetry and science. Poetry and science are both valid (though completely different) ways of describing our experience on earth. They co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive, but operate under very different frameworks and understandings. So comparing them in terms of 'Science is right; poetry isn't scientific and is therefore wrong' would be reductive and missing the point.
Of course, you are free to join any thread you wish, but can you not appreciate that it may grate a bit (a lot!) when you post the same thing in each one?
If you were to post in a thread on the Trinity it'd be, 'Why are you discussing the Trinity? What scientific basis do you have for doing so?'
Likewise on a thread about the desirability or otherwise of setting up new churches.
'Are they explaining to people that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs?'
It'd be like gate-crashing an evening class in Japanese and complaining that they aren't teaching Korean at the same time.
Or attending a guinea pig and cavy conference and complaining that they didn't have dogs on show like Crufts.
I can't speak for Boogie but I think that's the sort of point she's making.
Amen 🙏
Absolutely, and using my favourite subject as an analogy too
I’m still not sure if she gets the point being made, as her response to Gamma’s analogies was simply that he must have enjoyed thinking of them - there is no acknowledging and engaging with the purpose of them!
I don't currently count myself among Christian believers (though at other times in my life I have). When I believed, I used "evidence" like emotional experiences to support that belief -- a non-rational response -- but also on a lot of reading I did about the history and tenets of the faith itself (some of which I still hold to).
At present, in terms of science, I "believe" (for example) that children should be vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (assuming no allergies to the vaccines' ingredients). I base this belief partly on an emotional response to protecting kids from illness, and partly on reading I've done about herd immunity and the ability to virtually wipe out these diseases if only people would vaccinate their kids. That said, I haven't worked on these projects (any more than I helped spread Christianity or assisted in its theological development); I haven't concocted or tested vaccines, nor have I any personal knowledge of the relationship between use of the vaccines and lowering of MMR infection rates. I rely on what I've read about work done by others, just as I did when reading about Christianity.
In short, I'd be hard-pressed to explain the differences in my own cognitive and/or emotional responses to these two "systems" (for lack of a better term). AFAICT, I arrived at each conviction in similar ways, and submitted to each on similar bases.
That said, the two systems do operate differently, investigate different questions, and remain in separate categories. My own human engagement with the two systems, subject as they are to my own fairly stringent limitations, ends up more similar than different.
Completely hobbled? Eh?
If I carry on reading this thread, I'm going to wish myself dead. Which I do, anyway, most nights, before I go to bed. (But that's MY problem).
Where are those lovely Hosts and Admins when you need them?
Swilling GIN, I bet....
IJ
Imagine yourself in September 2017. Now remember it's September 2018.
That's what people are complaining about. Not that this is something that you've suddenly decided to do, but that you've always had the tendency to do it, and they have already forbeared, for a year, for longer. All they're asking you is to tone it down. A bit. Just a goddamn bit.
Why do you do it? Do you know what you do? If so, are you going to stop and change your debating style?
(Why do you attend a guinea pig discussion and ask where the dogs are?)
Golly, when I read the ship, I have to actually click on a thread to bring it up, and even then nothing makes me read all the posts.
Grow the fuck up, in other words.
Is this a convoluted way of saying you’ve changed your ways?
Come back @Martin54 - all is forgiven!
Yes, this. And not just Gamma - he was simply finding new ways to say the same thing lots of us have been saying in different ways, because nothing you have said, SD, indicates an understanding of the point being made. Just saying ‘I understand’ doesn’t indicate that you really do - just that you may think you do. Engaging with the points made in a relevant way, maybe saying in your own words what you are understanding, agreeing or disagreeing, but giving reasons - these kind of things would give some indication that you ‘get it.’
Mousethief made a good pount earlier, the first of his recent string of posts. I know you don’t engage with insults, but the first one was not insulting. I will find it and repost.
This. SD, you are coming from the assumption that everything real must be able to be evidenced through science. This is an assumption.
I hasten to obey your command, O King.
Yes, that was probably one of the most Pathetic Posts I've ever posted (YMMV).
I'll get me coat, and a bottle of GIN from the off-licence on me way out.
mousethief, I love you (and your posts) nevertheless!
IJ
What demonstrates understanding, in your case, probably means changing your own listening behavior as well as your own posting behavior. You appear to pay attention (or find "interesting") only those posts you perceive as agreeing with your world view. What will actually get (and perhaps keep) you out of Hell, though, is paying attention to those who are asking you to provide substantive answers to questions and to cease making inappropriately-placed demands that people examine "first causes" on threads where these are generally assumed.