Subject: *gasps loudly*
Author:
Posted on: 2015-09-17 12:58:00 UTC
I was overly apologetic? OHMYGOSHI'MSOSORRYYY.
*coughs* Eheh, actually sorry for that.
Well, I think I annoyed Des (probably a few more), but because he's a cool dude he forgave me.
-Alleb
Okay, so apparently, I have offended some people here on the Board by voicing my opinions on certain matters that, honestly, are highly controversial anyway.
I'm not going to apologize for having different opinions from apparently everyone else, but I am going to declare an official ceasefire. I'm tired of the arguments, I'm tired of everyone getting mad at me, and I'm tired in general.
I think the best thing for everyone, then, would be for me to take the rest of the week off from the Board and come back when cooler heads have prevailed. And then, I would ask that political discussions not be brought up here on the Board again, because frankly, it's against the spirit of the Board's Constitution in that it's going to incite heated disagreements, and it will cause people to do and say things that they might normally not do or say.
To be clear, I am not apologizing. In fact, I feel that I am the one who ought to be apologized to.
I am a Christian, and that does NOT mean that I despise gay people. It does NOT mean that I support ethnic cleansings, or wars based solely on race. It does NOT mean that I am a bigot. In fact, it's frankly rather bigoted to assume that I am a bigot, based solely on the fact that I am a Christian.
I do support Israel's right to exist, and I love my country based on what it means to be an American, not based on the bad things that we have done in the past. And I certainly will defend the Bible against anyone, even people that I consider friends. It breaks my heart that I would even need to do that, but I am drawing a line in the sand in that respect.
And I will not hide the fact that I am a Christian, and I will not apologize for it.
What I do apologize for is allowing this entire, stupid situation to blow out of proportion. I love this community. I really do. But honestly, I feel threatened by this hostile environment that we have all accidentally created over the past day or so. There's no point in trying to convince me otherwise, because some of the words that have been said to me have been quite hostile to my viewpoint, and I feel, to me personally.
So I'm going to leave for a little while. I feel saddened that this is necessary, but I'm doing this for the sake of everyone else in this community.
I'm sorry, everyone, that it has come to this. If we can agree to disagree, then I'll see everyone in one week's time. If not... well, let's leave it at this. I hope we can all work together to move past this.
Goodbye for now, PPC.
I haven't looked through all of the posts, so I don't know your arguments are the arguments used against you, but I was in the exact same position right after the same-sex marriage ruling. In the form of debate, it was (or, rather, it felt like) me v. everyone else, and that wasn't fun.
Anyway, I left for a week, came back, and I've been reading books relevant to discussed topics since. I've learned a lot. I think the vacation will be good for you. One thing I recommend; once you've calmed down a bit (are your hands cold? My hands got really cold when I was trying to debate) go back through people's replies and find the weak points. You can even try going through them and rebutting them, if you want (on a GDoc, I mean). It's good practice. Anyway, I'm praying for you, and I hope you enjoy your vacation.
-Alleb
(P.S. When you're back on the Board, page me, and we can set up a mibit chatroom if you want. I'd like to hear, in a more relaxed setting, what you think and how you tried to demonstrate it.)
... and maybe this is actually what you meant, I'm not sure...
But, instead of going through people's replies and finding the weak points in their arguments, try going through your own posts and finding the weak points in your own arguments. That's the only way you're going to improve your rhetoric.
Also, implying that you're so very right that only the other side can have weak arguments is pretty insulting. I don't think you actually meant that, but I thought it ought to be pointed out. {= )
~Neshomeh, catching up on things.
And I apologize; you're right, the implication is insulting. I assure you that I didn't mean it that way.
Also, you wrote your reply very tactfully. It was a gentle pointing out, not an accusation, and rather than simply telling me what I had said wrong, you gave a viable alternative. Just... very nicely done. :) The world could use more people who know how to phrase things as nicely as you do.
-Alleb
I remember mine, it was shortly after I joined, and it was a Free Speech Question. I may have started slightly reasonable, but it deteriorated very quickly. It was not my proudest moment. I was basically making stray arguments and it was, well frankly fact-free. I knew I was not going to change my mind, and it became clear that the other sides were not going to budge, but instead of being reasonable I resorted to gut and visceral arguments.
And old bit of advice for attorneys is this. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table. Basically that means, just get angry and impassioned and hope for the best.
Though this current argument now in question, there were a few ad hominem towards the end. And that does make a big difference. And if I recall your argument earlier this summer never got to the personal attacks. This one was a bit more personal.
If it were at all intentional, I would be some master troll.
The largest one that I was involved with was probably the Fallout: Equestria one. Don't feel guilty though, as I was on the stronger side. Bitter? Oh yes. But regret? I managed to keep my cool.
However, the one that made me step back a bit was probably the free speech on jokes one. Punching up vs punching down, people needing to accept other forms of humor, all that fun stuff. I made some piss poor analogies, and overall bad arguments. I still believe in what I said, but I did question my beliefs for quite a bit.
Was much the same for me. Mine was more of censorship of any kind is bad, which if very pro-free speech nations, like the US, is still a minority viewpoint. But as I said, I just got visceral and angry. I was not arguing from a position of strength. Which is why I looked terrible.
Honestly, it's one of the better things that's happened to me. I had thought, foolishly and arrogantly, that I was good at debating, but I didn't really have the first clue. Since then, I've learned so much, about so much. It's great!
Oh, also, you were one of the people I had contact with on evolution, right? Well, here is a book I think you might find interesting. It's from a journalist's PoV, and it deals entirely with scientific, logical, and some philosophical (towards the end) arguments for a Creator. It's brilliant, and I absolutely love it.
-Alleb
...but the question of a creator is unscientific. By this I mean it is outside the scope of science.
Science advances by disproving things. By the very nature of a creator, it is outside the scope of observation and thus unable to be refuted. For any experiment that could be devised, there are two equally-supported hypotheses: the results are due to laws that came about independently of a creator; or they are due to laws devised by a creator. There cannot be an experiment that separates these two hypotheses. Thus, the existence or non-existence of a creator is not scientific, but philosophical.
The book contains no conclusive proof of a Creator, because you're right. No experiment can prove or disprove God. But it does highlight some of the fingerprints of God, and it gives good reasons to believe in Him. It's just an all-around fun read; I thoroughly recommend it.
-Alleb
If the cosmic microwave background had turned out to include a clear binary encoding of Genesis 1, that would be pretty conclusive proof (once human intervention had been ruled out) that the universe had been created by something that associated itself with the God of the Bible, and that it either had access to time travel, was intervening in the universe on a continuous basis, or had dictated Genesis 1 to someone at some point.
(It didn't, for the record.)
But the key is disprove. The scientific method isn't about looking randomly at the universe and seeing what you find. It's about forming a testable hypothesis - 'God will have imprinted Bible texts on the CMB' - and devising an experiment to check if it's true - which it wasn't, though this was not a proper experiment, because I had the answer before I wrote the question.
If you postulate (say) 'God will save any Christian from being mauled by lions, a la Daniel, provided that Christian prays continuously and sincerely during the test'... then that's very easy, though unethical, to check. (And then the Christian reporters say, 'Clearly she just wasn't sincere enough... let's get some more subjects...')
I do not recommend doing that.
But until you can point to a specific physical measurable effect and say, 'If you do this, then this will happen, and there is no possible cause other than an intelligent operator', no, no experiment can disprove God.
hS
That's not scientific proof. It's a strong philosophical argument, or would have been if it had happened that way. So I disagree with your subject line, but the rest is in agreement with me.
Why not?
The appearance of a massively-long coherent and previously-determined-as-meaningful text in the CMB is a horrifyingly unlikely event. That means it needs explaining as something other than randomness - because it's clearly non-random.
The only explanations I can come up with - scientifically speaking - are 1/ intervention at the detection level (which we ruled out, somehow), 2/ injection at the creation of the universe, and 3/ injection at a later point.
Either 2/ or 3/ would require unimaginable levels of power; I'd call that (a) god(s).
You're right that it can't be held as proof of a specific god, though, if that's what you were going for. That part's philosophical/logical deduction.
hS
Apologies; I clearly wasn't thinking straight when I said that. Of course, as part of science it would still be subject to being superseded if new evidence came to light providing another explanation (such as us discovering time travel and someone travelling back to the beginning of the universe and using their super-technology to imprint it back then).
However, as we stand now, you are clearly correct: the existence of a being of phenomenal power would be the most rational explanation.
Between the Christian God and a Creator. A Creator is something akin to the Deist God — s/he/it created the universe and vanished. Such a God is indeed out of science's purview.
The Christian God, however, has a measurable effect on the world, if He exists (answering prayers, causing miracles, etc). Therefore He is very much within the purview of science, since you can devise experiments to disprove his actions.
...you then run into the issue of omnipotence. Any experiment you could devise to disprove the existence of an omnipotent creator, no matter what the result, could be met with the counter-argument 'but what if God/Allah/the Flying Spaghetti Monster changed the results to make it look like he doesn't exist?' And thus the experiment is not able to disprove the omnipotent being's existence and is therefore unscientific.
Like I said, for any experiment we could conduct, natural causes and a divine being are equally valid explanations (unless said being both interacts with the universe in measurable ways and is not omnipotent - are there any religions like that?)
((I guess this is going to be my "big argument"? Seeing as I haven't had one yet...))
There's a difference between what you did and what he did: you weren't rude. I even felt like you were overly apologetic.
Plus you were arguing about evolution, which isn't going to offend anyone. This... is a whole other thing.
~Seafarer, who apparently has a thing about reading trainwreck arguments.
I was overly apologetic? OHMYGOSHI'MSOSORRYYY.
*coughs* Eheh, actually sorry for that.
Well, I think I annoyed Des (probably a few more), but because he's a cool dude he forgave me.
-Alleb
As I've said back then, I'm not the sort of person to hold grudges (for the most part: if you've earned my hatred — a very hard accomplishment indeed; it happened exactly twice in my life — then you've earned it forever). I also get the idea that I don't have to agree on anything with someone in order for that person to be a friend of mine.
I am a Christian, and that does NOT mean that I despise gay people.
Hi there, Mr Straw Man!
Dude, nobody made this equivalence. Not a single person said 'you're a Christian; you must be bigoted.' People have been calling you bigoted because you have been expressing bigoted beliefs. (Note: I am not intending to call you a bigot, though I vehemently disagree with your views on gay marriage.)
Also: people don't want you to apologise for having different opinions. They want you to apologise for being rude to them.
Other people have covered the other points, but I'll add that I don't remember hS ever being offended enough to directly ask for an apology on his own behalf.
Oh, and that last bit seems like an appeal to emotion to get us to pity you and go easy on you. I doubt you'll ever read this, but just know that it won't work.
See you in a week.
Take it away, Mr. Wilder!
Your bigotry doesn't warrant an apology just because you were called out on it.
Can you apologise to me for deliberately, directly insulting me with your incredibly condescending post about how reading the Bible cover-to-cover and spending eight years studying it every single weekend doesn't equip me to understand it - doesn't make me smart enough to understand it?
Because I'm not really interested in seeing you around again unless you're capable of actually admitting that was incredibly insulting and wrong. Weird, I know.
hS
I was about to type a lengthy reply to the response you made to me on that other post, in a possibly not-very-nice way: systematically picking apart what I see wrong, line by line. I can respect your wish to drop that thread and will not respond there.
However, I will disagree on one point here. If you think that being gay is a sin, I will consider your opinions bigoted. That is just how I'm going to roll, as a queer Jew who has problems with people trying to impose Christian values on legislative policies and American society as a whole. You're right that Christian =/= bigot. You are completely entitled to think whatever you want, regardless of your religion, and I can agree to the fact that you are entitled to your opinion and free speech and whatnot. I am equally entitled to be "hostile" to that viewpoint (though I don't think that was addressing me, specifically, as I did my best to be as non-hostile as possible; if not, please correct me and point out where :"O ) just as your words seem hostile to me.
I have had zero intention of attacking you as a person because I honestly hate the ad hominem logical fallacy so much. What I will contest is your words and the opinions you express.
Have a good vacation, and I hope that even if we don't end up seeing eye-to-eye on this, that we can agree to be cordial towards each other!
Are you human?
If the answer is yes, awesome! I will do my very best to show you the perfect love of Christ. Are you gay? I don't care. Lesbian? Don't care. Queer, straight, transgender? I am not caring of this thing. You are human, and you're not getting out of that; therefore, to the best of my ability, I will show you the love that Christ has given me. God is no respecter of persons, and I'm trying to be the same.
If the answer is no, and (as your Boarder name says) you are actually some rats operating a keyboard... congratulations on your grammar, I guess?
-Alleb, who is a Christian, if anyone was wondering about that. They probably weren't. This is a long sign-off.
Not gonna lie, I'm not sure what exactly this is in response to! :0 I don't have issues with Christians, if that's what you're worried about- see "You're right that Christian =/= bigot" in my first post :p
It seemed to me like that was what you were saying, so I thought I would try to answer.
-Alleb
No one wants you to apologize for being Christian. Nor does anyone want you to apologize for being American. Or for being pro-Israel. I think some people would probably like you to apologize for saying their relationship is a sin, but eh, whatever. If you ever change your mind, cool, if not, meh.
I do take exception to the idea that political threads should be gone - I've actually rather enjoyed most of the thread, even the disagreements. Honestly, I don't think it's been that hostile. We've had far more heated debates - for example when same-sex marriage passed the first time around in the US. I haven't seen anyone get heated, except when autism came into the conversation - people have just been calling your beliefs into question in ways you dislike, but I have not seen anyone attack you for them, or tell you to stop caring about the Bible or America. Nor has anyone called you a bigot for being a Christian. Multiple people have pointed out to you that they are also Christians, but disagree with you on the definition of sin. That's been a fact of Christianity for like two thousand years or so.
I'll say it one more time: many of the PPC Board members are also Christian, and no one wants you to hide, apologize for, or stop being Christian. Yes, most of us have tried to change your mind on a few fine points of your theology, but that's not the same as attacking your religion. Hopefully if you read the thread again in a week or so of cooling off, you'll see what I mean.
Good luck with the rest of your week-or-so, I'll see you when the thread falls off the edge.
The Constitution:
4. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into personal attacks, flaming, or any form of disrespectful conduct for any reason, everyone involved should step back and calm down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely.
There was one point, I think, where someone (Voyd I think?) said, rather than "that thing you just said sounds bigoted," which is okay, to "you are a bigot" or somesuch. I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone to be careful and check their rhetoric before submitting.
…and also to apologize for any places where I've done that.
Now, for the love of all that is good and holy, someone burn this soapbox.
Burning soapboxes is always fun. Unless there's actual soap inside. Actually, come to think of it, fire in general is fun...
