I'd begun to suspect as much. This isn't exactly a conversation that anyone besides the two of us would be interested in.
An you'll notice, that by changing the tenor and style of your writing, I reacted very differently. You had to post under a different account to prove my point, but you did prove it.
All along, it has been the style of your writing that I've reacted to as much as the content.
The way you express yourself is as important as what you are saying.
It doesn't have anything to do with one being "better" than the other.
The first factor is the way the ideas were expressed. redFort wrote in complete sentences without any of the abbreviations and fragments you used. It was easy to understand what he had written, while there was an element of decoding to reading many of your posts.
Another factor is the perceived attitude. Like it or not, the way we write tends to create an impression of emotion in the reader's mind. For example, I've had people in a work setting think I was angry with them, because of the short, clipped sentences I used in business correspondence. I wasn't angry, but that's what they came away with. When I read your posts, they gave me the impression that you were being disrespectful and mocking. The way I read your original reply, I came away with the impression that you were mocking anyone who thought differently than you. Having put up with a lot of smug Religious figures in my life, that's something that grates on me.
I'm not making any claims as to the accuracy of my impression, just telling you what the impression was.
The final reason comes from the fact that I was an English Major in college, and things like L33T speak and SMS shorthand just rub me the wrong way.
Funny, for me, the name "Alvin the Maker" conjures up an image of a gigantic cartoon chipmunk holding the Universe in his hands, a mischievous grin on his face.
Actually I loved your comment about the first post
Thank you.
LOL & I still believe that it would be a very interesting piece for a book
Title Ideas: I was a Slashdot Troll Tweaking the Pseudo Intellectual Elite Harassing the Internet Same Idea. A study of how sentence structure and word choice changes the reaction of others.
The best we can do is smile, laugh it up.
If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?
Of cause I am an ass, & a very pretty one,ahahahha
And yet again, I'm made a fool of by a pretty woman. I'll refrain from the obvious jokes about pretty asses.
The thing I find amusing, is that I realized the commend she made was an insightful one. I was concerned that it would be ignored by a lot of people because of the way it was worded.
Little did I realize that I was falling into a trap, and that a subtle warning of that trap was in the very text to which I was replying.
Oh well. Live and learn. We all need to be taken down a few notches every once in a while.
I've tried the "Bought it in Compaq's" FM Transmitters in the Boston area, and found there were just far too many frequencies in use for such devices to be practical.
What does the slashdot crowd think would be a good way to let me listen to my portably devices in a car whose stereo has no Line In or Cassette adapter?
You're writing a book? Good for you. Be sure to find a decent editor.
Is it going to be a pop-up or paint-by-number-book?
u gonna be one of most unforgettable parts.
That's what your mother said.
Now reply, gimme one more. Ur word will be the last one, ur self importance will chill down & u will actually feel better.
To tell the truth, I feel pretty defeated. Everything I said encouraging you to be more articulate was clearly wasted. If you'd replied with decent grammar, I'd have been impressed and pleased. If you'd managed so much as two sentences without a childish spelling mistake, you would have won the "argument" such as it was.
Instead, all you've done is demonstrate the inability to write clearly. Instead of actual English, you've chosen to communicate in a broken, uneducated pidgin English. I feel sorry for you.
Or are you not being medicated for your condition? You clearly have issues relating to people, and some manic tendencies. Have you considered therapy? Your writing style is really more consistent with that of a third or fourth grader, if that. Writing at such a low grade level is going to come with significant challenges in the real world.
Are you capable of expressing yourself in a more articulate manner? If not, then you should seek tutoring, therapy or both.
That would require me to take you seriously, or care what you have to say.
You fail to understand my point. Your philosophical arguments are falling of deaf ears. No one cares what you're saying, just laughing at you because you're incapable of expressing yourself.
Your writing style has done an excellent job of presenting you as a clown, and the end result will be that most people will not take you seriously.
The ideas you're presenting are irrelevant. The simple fact is no one takes you seriously, or even cares what you're saying.
The only reason I'm even replying to you, is because I think the ideas you expressed deserve to be discussed and taken seriously, but you articulated them in just a juvenile manner that no one can take you seriously, or discuss the atheistic view you're trying to express.
People will take you more seriously if you use actual sentences and run a spell check on what you type.
The general idea you're proposing, that we're just evolved apes, full of superstition, is hardly a new one. The way you present it however, is fairly random and incoherent. Your thoughts are difficult to follow and it's clear form your writing that you don't care enough about the conversation to proof or even spell check what you've written.
Ultimately, you've done a disservice to what you're trying to express by phrasing it in such a random, childish manner.
Everyone else in the discussion, regardless of what they think, has made an attempt to express themselves coherently and respectfully. The result has been an actual exchange of ideas, with the hope of people carrying away a better understanding of what others believe.
Please try to participate in the discussion, instead of trying to run over it.
Thank you for the clarification. My knowledge of the debate is somewhat outdated and rusty, and I appreciate you taking the time to bring in some of the accurate terminology and additional links. It looks like some interesting reading.
Good point. Another point often made is that everything Darwin observed and documented was Adaptation AKA Micro-Evolution. All of the "Creationists" ideas he was taught were of the extreme variety. For example, his religious training taught that the animals on Earth were created just as they were and set down in their current geographic placement. Naturally, this isn't even consistent with the Bible (See Noah) let alone observed phenomenon. Part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was a reaction to the absurd level of conservative ideas being bandied about. I often wonder what Darwin would have concluded if his training had been grounded in the far more liberal ideas espoused today, or if he had even been presented with Creationist alternatives to Young Earth Creationists, which were the only kind of Creationists around at the time.
I never said it's what _I_ believe. I'm just repeating what I remember of what I was raised with.
The idea is that ANY belief regarding the nature of God is a religion, and that the actions of Atheists and the way they express themselves about their beliefs is consistent with the way practitioners of any religion conduct themselves.
In the end, it's something many who believe in God claim as a way of expressing their frustration with the fact that Atheists will often conduct themselves with the same arrogance and "I'm better than you" attitude that members of one Religion hold against another.
I'll just skip over most the debates that rage over this topic, but the can of worms you're poking at is massive.
In the end, it's a matter of Philosophy and Theology intersecting with Science. One of the arguments is that atheism is as much of a religious decision as belief in a God, and that refusing to allow the existence of God to be a given is as major a failing as refusing to take into account the existence of Air or Calcium.
Even many Creationists avoid referring to it as a "Science." "Model of Origins" is a common phrase, the use of the word "Theory" being deliberately avoided for various reasons. One of the stated points, is that Creationism and Evolution, being models of how the past might have taken place, can't be tested in the laboratory. Even if you manage to observe animals evolving in the laboratory, you can't guarantee that's what happened in the past. Just the fact that you find what looks like evidence of evolution in the fossil record, you can't replicate it in the laboratory. At that point, it becomes a historical debate and investigation more than a scientific one.
In the end, most of the scientists doing research related to Creationism, don't call Evolution or Creationism "theories" but "Models of Origins", as an admission of the uncertainty in proving past events.
To tell the truth, the scientists and researchers are actively trying to find a more accurate vocabulary to describe the endless debates. The dogmatic statements about the "Science of Creation" are coming not from researchers trying to integrate their faith with observed phenomenon, but the dogmatic embarrassments who openly reject observed reality and substitute their own quasi-Biblical Version.
Besides, most the Christians I know point out that in terms of Faith on God and considering Jesus the Messiah, it doesn't matter if the first chapters of Genesis are literal or not. It doesn't matter if life on Earth was Created or Evolved. The idea is that God Created the world, Created humans, an the details of how that came to be are trivial. It doesn't matter how much Nitrogen was in the air Moses Breathed any more than how Adam came to be, or if he even existed at all.
While logically, the phrase "Intelligent Design" should refer only to "Architect Created it this way" models of origins, the common usage of the phrase has come to include a wide variety of Models that include generous amounts of evolutionary behavior.
A strict interpretation of the "Intelligent Design" phrase can't even be taken seriously today, as it ignores the MicroEvolution that's been observed. Claiming that NO changes take place and there is no alteration over time, is counter to what has been observed in the human species alone, let alone what can be seen over time with other species, not to mention the fact that there's a lot of confusion, even in scientific circles, over the difference between directed breeding and MicroEvolution.
Mind you, it's been close to a decade since I was reading the "Creation Science Quarterly" (Yes, a real publication, and yes, I read it for years) but "Intelligent Design" is generally used to refer to any theory that includes even the smallest component of divine intervention. Mind you, not many people at the conservative end of the Creationist scale are happy with this state of affairs. The claim is made that using the phrase to refer to ideas like "God set up the rules and let it go" dilutes the phrase and muddies the waters.
In a sense, your statements reflect the views of many Creationists, but even they tend to ignore the apparent misuse of the phrase. It really is trivial to the overall debates over God's level of involvement in the form of the living organisms on planet Earth.
Damn it, I just responded to an AC. What a waste of time, no on will even read this.
Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?
Yes.
Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"
By the way, an ED209 will be on patrol in your neighborhood later this week.
Remember, the ED209 still can't tell the difference between tinfoil and a gun, so don't point ANYTHING at it.
By living in an OCP owned neighborhood, you and your family wave all rights to restitution and legal action against OCP regardless of the actions or behavior of any OCP employee, contractor or product.
In short, if your kid points a water pistol at another kid, the ED209 sees it and it blows both of them away, you can't sue.
And thank you for welcoming us to your neighborhood.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd begun to suspect as much. This isn't exactly a conversation that anyone besides the two of us would be interested in.
An you'll notice, that by changing the tenor and style of your writing, I reacted very differently. You had to post under a different account to prove my point, but you did prove it.
All along, it has been the style of your writing that I've reacted to as much as the content.
The way you express yourself is as important as what you are saying.
After i posted my last reply the rain started.
A rain of words, or a rain of reason?
Or both?
It doesn't have anything to do with one being "better" than the other.
The first factor is the way the ideas were expressed. redFort wrote in complete sentences without any of the abbreviations and fragments you used. It was easy to understand what he had written, while there was an element of decoding to reading many of your posts.
Another factor is the perceived attitude. Like it or not, the way we write tends to create an impression of emotion in the reader's mind. For example, I've had people in a work setting think I was angry with them, because of the short, clipped sentences I used in business correspondence. I wasn't angry, but that's what they came away with. When I read your posts, they gave me the impression that you were being disrespectful and mocking. The way I read your original reply, I came away with the impression that you were mocking anyone who thought differently than you. Having put up with a lot of smug Religious figures in my life, that's something that grates on me.
I'm not making any claims as to the accuracy of my impression, just telling you what the impression was.
The final reason comes from the fact that I was an English Major in college, and things like L33T speak and SMS shorthand just rub me the wrong way.
Funny, for me, the name "Alvin the Maker" conjures up an image of a gigantic cartoon chipmunk holding the Universe in his hands, a mischievous grin on his face.
Suddenly, he cackles "NOW I'll get my Harmonica!"
After I posted my last reply, a very apt quote was on the bottom of the Slashdot Page:
Here comes the orator, with his flood of words and his drop of reason.
Actually I loved your comment about the first post
,ahahahha
Thank you.
LOL & I still believe that it would be a very interesting piece for a book
Title Ideas:
I was a Slashdot Troll
Tweaking the Pseudo Intellectual Elite
Harassing the Internet
Same Idea. A study of how sentence structure and word choice changes the reaction of others.
The best we can do is smile, laugh it up.
If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?
Of cause I am an ass, & a very pretty one
And yet again, I'm made a fool of by a pretty woman. I'll refrain from the obvious jokes about pretty asses.
The thing I find amusing, is that I realized the commend she made was an insightful one. I was concerned that it would be ignored by a lot of people because of the way it was worded.
Little did I realize that I was falling into a trap, and that a subtle warning of that trap was in the very text to which I was replying.
Oh well. Live and learn. We all need to be taken down a few notches every once in a while.
Actually, I agree with redFort.
You're still an ass, regardless of gender, and I'm an ass as well, for falling for your bait.
Have a nice life.
Not obscure at all.
Check out the movie "Pump up the Volume" for a media approved version where the pirate Radio DJ is still the hero.
I've tried the "Bought it in Compaq's" FM Transmitters in the Boston area, and found there were just far too many frequencies in use for such devices to be practical.
What does the slashdot crowd think would be a good way to let me listen to my portably devices in a car whose stereo has no Line In or Cassette adapter?
Good point. I took a look at his account. It was only created a week or two ago, and all the posts have been random drivel.
You're right. It's far more likely that he's some kid trying to pull a digital "Jerky Boys" routine.
Who knows? He may really be writing a book, based on the responses he's gotten from acting like an idiot.
Or we could be giving him too much credit.
I am gonna publish ur comments in my book
You're writing a book? Good for you. Be sure to find a decent editor.
Is it going to be a pop-up or paint-by-number-book?
u gonna be one of most unforgettable parts.
That's what your mother said.
Now reply, gimme one more. Ur word will be the last one, ur self importance will chill down & u will actually feel better.
To tell the truth, I feel pretty defeated. Everything I said encouraging you to be more articulate was clearly wasted. If you'd replied with decent grammar, I'd have been impressed and pleased. If you'd managed so much as two sentences without a childish spelling mistake, you would have won the "argument" such as it was.
Instead, all you've done is demonstrate the inability to write clearly. Instead of actual English, you've chosen to communicate in a broken, uneducated pidgin English. I feel sorry for you.
You forgot to take your pills today, didn't you?
Or are you not being medicated for your condition? You clearly have issues relating to people, and some manic tendencies. Have you considered therapy? Your writing style is really more consistent with that of a third or fourth grader, if that. Writing at such a low grade level is going to come with significant challenges in the real world.
Are you capable of expressing yourself in a more articulate manner? If not, then you should seek tutoring, therapy or both.
So, I take it you're Homophobic.
Do you fear that which you desire most?
That would require me to take you seriously, or care what you have to say.
You fail to understand my point. Your philosophical arguments are falling of deaf ears. No one cares what you're saying, just laughing at you because you're incapable of expressing yourself.
Your writing style has done an excellent job of presenting you as a clown, and the end result will be that most people will not take you seriously.
The ideas you're presenting are irrelevant. The simple fact is no one takes you seriously, or even cares what you're saying.
The only reason I'm even replying to you, is because I think the ideas you expressed deserve to be discussed and taken seriously, but you articulated them in just a juvenile manner that no one can take you seriously, or discuss the atheistic view you're trying to express.
A quick note:
People will take you more seriously if you use actual sentences and run a spell check on what you type.
The general idea you're proposing, that we're just evolved apes, full of superstition, is hardly a new one. The way you present it however, is fairly random and incoherent. Your thoughts are difficult to follow and it's clear form your writing that you don't care enough about the conversation to proof or even spell check what you've written.
Ultimately, you've done a disservice to what you're trying to express by phrasing it in such a random, childish manner.
Everyone else in the discussion, regardless of what they think, has made an attempt to express themselves coherently and respectfully. The result has been an actual exchange of ideas, with the hope of people carrying away a better understanding of what others believe.
Please try to participate in the discussion, instead of trying to run over it.
Thank you for the clarification. My knowledge of the debate is somewhat outdated and rusty, and I appreciate you taking the time to bring in some of the accurate terminology and additional links. It looks like some interesting reading.
Good point. Another point often made is that everything Darwin observed and documented was Adaptation AKA Micro-Evolution. All of the "Creationists" ideas he was taught were of the extreme variety. For example, his religious training taught that the animals on Earth were created just as they were and set down in their current geographic placement. Naturally, this isn't even consistent with the Bible (See Noah) let alone observed phenomenon. Part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was a reaction to the absurd level of conservative ideas being bandied about. I often wonder what Darwin would have concluded if his training had been grounded in the far more liberal ideas espoused today, or if he had even been presented with Creationist alternatives to Young Earth Creationists, which were the only kind of Creationists around at the time.
I never said it's what _I_ believe. I'm just repeating what I remember of what I was raised with.
The idea is that ANY belief regarding the nature of God is a religion, and that the actions of Atheists and the way they express themselves about their beliefs is consistent with the way practitioners of any religion conduct themselves.
In the end, it's something many who believe in God claim as a way of expressing their frustration with the fact that Atheists will often conduct themselves with the same arrogance and "I'm better than you" attitude that members of one Religion hold against another.
I'll just skip over most the debates that rage over this topic, but the can of worms you're poking at is massive.
In the end, it's a matter of Philosophy and Theology intersecting with Science. One of the arguments is that atheism is as much of a religious decision as belief in a God, and that refusing to allow the existence of God to be a given is as major a failing as refusing to take into account the existence of Air or Calcium.
Even many Creationists avoid referring to it as a "Science." "Model of Origins" is a common phrase, the use of the word "Theory" being deliberately avoided for various reasons. One of the stated points, is that Creationism and Evolution, being models of how the past might have taken place, can't be tested in the laboratory. Even if you manage to observe animals evolving in the laboratory, you can't guarantee that's what happened in the past. Just the fact that you find what looks like evidence of evolution in the fossil record, you can't replicate it in the laboratory. At that point, it becomes a historical debate and investigation more than a scientific one.
In the end, most of the scientists doing research related to Creationism, don't call Evolution or Creationism "theories" but "Models of Origins", as an admission of the uncertainty in proving past events.
To tell the truth, the scientists and researchers are actively trying to find a more accurate vocabulary to describe the endless debates. The dogmatic statements about the "Science of Creation" are coming not from researchers trying to integrate their faith with observed phenomenon, but the dogmatic embarrassments who openly reject observed reality and substitute their own quasi-Biblical Version.
Besides, most the Christians I know point out that in terms of Faith on God and considering Jesus the Messiah, it doesn't matter if the first chapters of Genesis are literal or not. It doesn't matter if life on Earth was Created or Evolved. The idea is that God Created the world, Created humans, an the details of how that came to be are trivial. It doesn't matter how much Nitrogen was in the air Moses Breathed any more than how Adam came to be, or if he even existed at all.
While logically, the phrase "Intelligent Design" should refer only to "Architect Created it this way" models of origins, the common usage of the phrase has come to include a wide variety of Models that include generous amounts of evolutionary behavior.
A strict interpretation of the "Intelligent Design" phrase can't even be taken seriously today, as it ignores the MicroEvolution that's been observed. Claiming that NO changes take place and there is no alteration over time, is counter to what has been observed in the human species alone, let alone what can be seen over time with other species, not to mention the fact that there's a lot of confusion, even in scientific circles, over the difference between directed breeding and MicroEvolution.
Mind you, it's been close to a decade since I was reading the "Creation Science Quarterly" (Yes, a real publication, and yes, I read it for years) but "Intelligent Design" is generally used to refer to any theory that includes even the smallest component of divine intervention. Mind you, not many people at the conservative end of the Creationist scale are happy with this state of affairs. The claim is made that using the phrase to refer to ideas like "God set up the rules and let it go" dilutes the phrase and muddies the waters.
In a sense, your statements reflect the views of many Creationists, but even they tend to ignore the apparent misuse of the phrase. It really is trivial to the overall debates over God's level of involvement in the form of the living organisms on planet Earth.
Damn it, I just responded to an AC. What a waste of time, no on will even read this.
Oh, there are a LOT of other options, and many schools of thought on how to define "Intelligent Design".
Those two were just the ones mentioned in the current discussion.
Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?
Yes.
Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"
That some day, somehow, I will get the elusive First Post.
By the way, an ED209 will be on patrol in your neighborhood later this week.
Remember, the ED209 still can't tell the difference between tinfoil and a gun, so don't point ANYTHING at it.
By living in an OCP owned neighborhood, you and your family wave all rights to restitution and legal action against OCP regardless of the actions or behavior of any OCP employee, contractor or product.
In short, if your kid points a water pistol at another kid, the ED209 sees it and it blows both of them away, you can't sue.
And thank you for welcoming us to your neighborhood.
Sincerely,
OCP Overlords