Evolution?

[darkendless]

Jayhawker Soule says more in a single sentence than most posters do in an entire post.

Jayhawker Soule explains his reasons if you ask him nicely, and will refer you to a book or website if required.

I've never been more than insulted for my posts. Thats the harsh truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've never been more than insulted for my posts. Thats the harsh truth.

Which post, specifically, did you feel under-appreciated?

 

[Magic Man]

He just has little patience with poor reasoning or lack of evidence. True, he's rather curt and dismissive.
I suspect he thinks it a waste of time trying to bring non-intellectuals or the uninformed up to speed.

I have little patience for those things as well. However, that's not usually the problem with him. Most of the time there's nothing actually wrong with what he's insulting, like in this thread, for instance. Sure, there are times when he has good reason to be so dismissive. The problem is not that he does it then, it's that he does it at times like this when it's not warranted and its only purpose is to stroke his own ego.

But thanks for calling me a non-intellectual.

If you do manage to draw him into discussion, though, he's usually brilliant and offers fascinating insight and analysis. I find his links excellent as well -- informative and thought-provoking.

He somtimes has good insights, but not usually. Usually, it's either nitpicking or he just misunderstands things. Either way, even if he does have good insights, there's still no call for the ridiculous things he says that would get pretty much anyone else here warning.

 

[painted wolf]

Does a 'god' that is thought to be 'co-existent' with the universe qualify as a creator god? If so, and if that's what you believe in, you'd be a creationist wouldn't you? And you'd then be covered by the "except"?

I think a 'co-existant' god can qualify as a "creator god". Just because in the instant that god 'becomes' so does the universe... that, doesn't leave that moment of 'becoming' as a non-creative event.
I do call god "Creator" after all.
But I'm not a "creationist".

Then again, I don't see the universe and Creator as being separate entities either.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Are we talking about the same Jayhawker Soule here?

Yup. I still don't get it, but there are some of you who seem to look past all of his BS. Most of us don't have any patience with it, and for good reason.

 

[Magic Man]

Jayhawker Soule says more in a single sentence than most posters do in an entire post.

Um...no, he doesn't. You might enjoy his so-called "witty" one-liners, but they say little other than "I like to make fun of people for no reason, just because I can and it makes me feel better". Otherwise, he'd offer insights rather than just words like "drivel" and "childish", etc.

Jayhawker Soule explains his reasons if you ask him nicely, and will refer you to a book or website if required.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Regardless, I still don't understand why so many people give him so much slack. I have even more trouble understanding why people dismiss Jay's ridiculous behavior as "cute" or "honest" or "insightful" than I do understanding opponents of gay marriage or fundies in general. It's a mystery to me.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps it is because we have more experience with him...

What looks like a childish let down to you, to us is simply a curt but brutally honest indication of what he thinks of a particular argument.
He almost never attacks an individual. No matter how personally insulted you feel by the fact that he has dismissed your argument.

Frankly I've seen far more insulting things said from various other sources... indicating that the religious are inherently ignorant or that an ignorant statement is solely the result of ones faith. Just as an example.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps it is because we have more experience with him...

I doubt it. I've been here for over a year. Not as long as some, but certainly long enough to have plenty of experience with him.

What looks like a childish let down to you, to us is simply a curt but brutally honest indication of what he thinks of a particular argument.
He almost never attacks an individual. No matter how personally insulted you feel by the fact that he has dismissed your argument.

But that's the problem. There are times when it's more than just brutal honesty. Whatever you think, it's never conducive to conversation to use words like "childish" or "drivel". Even if that's what you think, you need to use a little tact. I do it all the time.

He never technically attacks an individual, which is how he gets away with it. However, calling something someone said "drivel" or "childish" to me equals attacking someone directly. You can say "Oh, well, I didn't mean you", but that would be disingenuous.

Frankly I've seen far more insulting things said from various other sources... indicating that the religious are inherently ignorant or that an ignorant statement is solely the result of ones faith. Just as an example.

wa:do

Sure, there are other, more insulting things out there, but that doesn't excuse this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that's the problem. There are times when it's more than just brutal honesty. Whatever you think, it's never conducive to conversation to use words like "childish" or "drivel". Even if that's what you think, you need to use a little tact. I do it all the time.

:biglaugh:

 

[Magic Man]

:biglaugh:

Thank you for another perfect example. You never disappoint.

 

[painted wolf]

I doubt it. I've been here for over a year. Not as long as some, but certainly long enough to have plenty of experience with him.

Perhaps then it is the quality of the interaction? I can't speak for Sey, but I've been through Jay's treatment and come out the other end.... all the better for it, I should think.
In part, rather than complain about Jay's responses, I questioned them and him, rather than dismissing either.

Or perhaps it's a difference in how we view the internet. "nice" and "mean" have different connotations in an anonymous environment. I personally try not to get worked up about deciding if people are being "mean" to me or not. (It has been noted that I have a very high tolerance for things.)
Part of that is quite likely from dealing with Jay all these years.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps then it is the quality of the interaction? I can't speak for Sey, but I've been through Jay's treatment and come out the other end.... all the better for it, I should think.
In part, rather than complain about Jay's responses, I questioned them and him, rather than dismissing either.

Or perhaps it's a difference in how we view the internet. "nice" and "mean" have different connotations in an anonymous environment. I personally try not to get worked up about deciding if people are being "mean" to me or not. (It has been noted that I have a very high tolerance for things.)
Part of that is quite likely from dealing with Jay all these years.

wa:do

Sorry, I guess I just expect a higher standard. When I come to RF, I generally expect not to see silliness like Jay's. My main thing, though, is that when it's someone else, people jump all over them for saying those kinds of things, but when it's Jay, somehow it's OK.

As I've said, there are times when Jay's stupid comments are justified. If it was just limited to that, I'd have no problem. The problem is that he doesn't know when to stop. He could be just as honest and say what he wants without the use of crap like "drivel" and "childish". If he disagrees, then all he has to do is say so, and say why, but generally that's too much to ask from him.

Yes, I tend to look back at my comments to make sure there is nothing wrong with them. For the most part, I find, as in the case of this thread, that there's nothing wrong with them. Occasionally I find some minor detail wrong, but nothing that warrants such a reaction. In any case, there's just no call for the way he says things. That's the main point. Regardless of whether or not it's true, it's the way he does it, and that's why I'm suprised that there are so many who have been hypnotized by him.

 

[themadhair]

Maybe this is a debate about forum style (it sure as **** wasn’t about evolution)? In general I prefer a forum where the posters are sharper and more to point. Not sure Jay fits that but I’m not here long enough to tell.

 

[darkendless]

Which post, specifically, did you feel under-appreciated?

Ill say every post you've ever quoted me in. I don't mind being called wrong and i often am, i just dislike being insulted or called some "whitty name" for being wrong. Unlike you Jay, i don't have an extra 40 years of wisdom to boast

 

[rojse]

But that's the problem. There are times when it's more than just brutal honesty. Whatever you think, it's never conducive to conversation to use words like "childish" or "drivel". Even if that's what you think, you need to use a little tact. I do it all the time.

There are plenty of good reasons not to be tactful, which include, and is not limited to:

- The person you are speaking to will not appreciate this gesture
- The person you are speaking to will have no idea what your real opinion of them is
- The person you are speaking to does not deserve tact
- The person you are speaking to is saying extremely silly things.

 

[Alceste]

I think a 'co-existant' god can qualify as a "creator god". Just because in the instant that god 'becomes' so does the universe... that, doesn't leave that moment of 'becoming' as a non-creative event.
I do call god "Creator" after all.
But I'm not a "creationist".

Then again, I don't see the universe and Creator as being separate entities either.

wa:do

Well I was thinking of saying that you panentheists don't really fit into my tidy little picture, but I wanted to keep it simple. I don't think there's anything unreasonable or illogical about the proposition that God and the universe are either the same thing, or immaterial and material manifestations of the same phenomenon, as long as the phenomenon itself is subject to the laws of physics (even if we haven't figured them out), both are aspects of "nature", and "God" isn't presumed to be human-like (i.e. bigoted, vengeful, covetous, proud, jealous, etc.) Heh - I suppose that's a lot of conditions, but what the heck. It's all got to fit into what I see and experience.

 

[Brotownious'_87]

I think ROJSE sums it up with his slogan quoted from Olaf Stapledon, Last and First Men

"There was no shred of evidence that this aesthetically admirable cosmos was the work of a conscious artist, nor yet that any mind would ever develop so greatly as to be able to appreciate the Whole in all its detail and unity."

good work Rojse​

 

[Alceste]

There are plenty of good reasons not to be tactful, which include, and is not limited to:

- The person you are speaking to will not appreciate this gesture
- The person you are speaking to will have no idea what your real opinion of them is
- The person you are speaking to does not deserve tact
- The person you are speaking to is saying extremely silly things.

I'm not going to get any more sucked into this pointless discussion of Jay's merits than I already have, God willing, but I would like to point out that to employ any of the above "reasons" one must presume to know an awful lot about the inner life of "the person you are speaking to". Some might find that arrogant.

People in most cultures associate humility (the genuine kind) with wisdom. (I'm not making that up! It's been studied!) So if a person were to employ the above reasons and find themselves being frequently ignored, it would be their own doing.

In my view, the only valid reason for being openly dismissive of / rude to people you know nothing about is that you genuinely are a jerk, and to be respectful would be a dishonest representation of your character.

 

[Magic Man]

There are plenty of good reasons not to be tactful, which include, and is not limited to:

- The person you are speaking to will not appreciate this gesture

Good. Now, all you have to do is show that he only isn't tactful it in that situation. I have an example to the contrary. Regardless, as I said, it's still not conducive to conversation.

- The person you are speaking to will have no idea what your real opinion of them is

Why do they need to know your real opinion?

- The person you are speaking to does not deserve tact

As I've said, there are cases like this. However, Jay doesn't limit his insults to these cases, and that's the problem.

- The person you are speaking to is saying extremely silly things.

Why does that in and of itself deserve insults? Wouldn't it be better to try to talk to them, especially when you know they're a reasonable person?

But thanks for saying I would not appreciate the gesture even though I do when everyone else does it), I don't deserve tact and I'm saying extremely silly things. It's always nice to be told that.

 

[painted wolf]

Well I was thinking of saying that you panentheists don't really fit into my tidy little picture, but I wanted to keep it simple.

We do have that annoying habit don't we.
But that is the problem with 'tidy little pictures'... if biology has taught me anything it's that there is always an exception to the rules. So rules are more of general guides than hard laws to be clung to.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable or illogical about the proposition that God and the universe are either the same thing, or immaterial and material manifestations of the same phenomenon, as long as the phenomenon itself is subject to the laws of physics (even if we haven't figured them out), both are aspects of "nature", and "God" isn't presumed to be human-like (i.e. bigoted, vengeful, covetous, proud, jealous, etc.) Heh - I suppose that's a lot of conditions, but what the heck. It's all got to fit into what I see and experience.

Absolutely...
IMHO God is as "human like" as it is "wolf like" or "star like" or whatever like.
Creator encompasses everything.

wa:do