Jump to content


Photo

The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
510 replies to this topic

#501 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 March 2016 - 10:16 AM

Goku said:

Cal, there is a difference between sincerely telling people about Hell out of love and compassion for them, and using it as a debate tactic to try and scare people. The manner in which you tell people about facing God's judgement and going to Hell is reminiscent of the latter, not the former. In my experience you only bring up hell fire after an exchange with another poster in which there is a disagreement and, IMHO, when you don't seem to have good response.

What I mean is, when you seem to believe you can take your opponent down with facts, logic, and reason you don't seem to invoke hell fire all that much, but when you are pushed into a corner I see it a lot. I have debated dozens of creationists before, and in my experience when they start talking about hell fire my first reaction is that I won the exchange because I assume they have no substance left.


You give a negative response when you wish also. I have asked you several questions by name and you choose to ignore my questions. And yet you have the audacity to attack someone else? Get real.
You do the same thing! You need to take the beam out of your own eye! Practice what you preach! When you don't feel you want to anwer , uou choose to not respond.

Do you really think ignoring another being asking you a direct question is not hostile?
It's called being passive agressive!


 



#502 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 March 2016 - 11:57 AM

 

 

Goku: Cal, there is a difference between sincerely telling people about Hell out of love and compassion for them, and using it as a debate tactic to try and scare people. 

 

I'm not here for debate but hypothetically it is an argumentum ad baculum fallacy if someone uses a threat in the following form of argument;

 

"I am right. Agree with me or THREAT X".

 

Not sure whether it counts or not, that's up to you and Cal to discuss. I have suggested how I think the issue of hell should be handled, when I asked God if I was right or if Calypsis was right, He immediately led me to two scriptures. One scripture said that people need telling about the judgement of God (hell), the other scripture said that it should be done in a loving way (basically). To my mind, God's answer was, "you're both right". God wants the reality of hell preached but He wants it preached with carefully. It's a bit of both - the best way to do it is how Christ done it. (which is my new motto). I understand why Calypsis might be tempted to mention hell, when he is HOT, so to speak.(frustrated) :D We all get to that position in debate where we can become so frustrated we say inflamed things. He's hardly unique in that.

 

What I will say though is that this thread has turned into an all-out, "let's criticize Calypsis thread", which is a bit ad-hominem IMHO. I think that is perhaps why Calypsis might have chose to use the word, "vultures", because when we see the likes of Driewerf circling in the sky, that is an example of OPPORTUNISM. Recently Calypsis put Driewerf on ignore to which Driewerf responded with a particularly devious post, which was invented to GOAD Calypsis, by suggesting that Calypsis was accepting proof of the ToE. Driewerf took the opportunity to behave perversely in that instance. So when we see the atheists gather in this topic to have a good old character-assasination of Calypsis, is it really surprising that the word, "vultures", is mentioned? 

 

(Okay, back to lurking for me) those are just some of my thoughts. I really will shut up now. Lol  :)



#503 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 March 2016 - 12:58 PM

This comment has provoked me to respond once more to the matter of Calypsis' behavior.

What I will say though is that this thread has turned into an all-out, "let's criticize Calypsis thread", which is a bit ad-hominem IMHO. I think that is perhaps why Calypsis might have chose to use the word, "vultures", because when we see the likes of Driewerf circling in the sky, that is an example of OPPORTUNISM. Recently Calypsis put Driewerf on ignore to which Driewerf responded with a particularly devious post, which was invented to GOAD Calypsis, by suggesting that Calypsis was accepting proof of the ToE. Driewerf took the opportunity to behave perversely in that instance. So when we see the atheists gather in this topic to have a good old character-assasination of Calypsis, is it really surprising that the word, "vultures", is mentioned? 

 

(Okay, back to lurking for me) those are just some of my thoughts. I really will shut up now. Lol   :)

You have my agreement that this turned into a "let's criticize Calypsis thread."  

 

That you give Calypsis a pass for his unprovoked attack on me as a "vulture" is worth note.  That comment by Calypsis is what shifted the topic of this discussion from the 2LOT to him.  It was a response to a nearly year old post by BruceV.

 

In other words, the "character-assasination" (sic) was initiated by Calypsis.   Not Driewerf, not Goku, nor Keysi, nor Cheesburger, nor I....  It was entirely the actions of Calypsis that changed the focus of this discussion.

 

So, if you want to complain about a "good old character-assasination of Calypsis," maybe you turn your attention toward the one who initiated the direct attacks on the character of other members.   

 

Or do you think it is just fine for Calypsis to engage in an unprovoked attack the character of multiple members of this forum then you support Calypsis actions by accusing those who defend themselves as engaging in "character-assasination?"   That's certainly the message I get from your comment and those of Mike S.

 

At this point, something about planks, motes, and eyes comes to mind.......

 

 



#504 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:26 PM

Mike the wiz said:

Goku: Cal, there is a difference between sincerely telling people about Hell out of love and compassion for them, and using it as a debate tactic to try and scare people.

I'm not here for debate but hypothetically it is an argumentum ad baculum fallacy if someone uses a threat in the following form of argument;

"I am right. Agree with me or THREAT X".

Not sure whether it counts or not, that's up to you and Cal to discuss. I have suggested how I think the issue of hell should be handled, when I asked God if I was right or if Calypsis was right, He immediately led me to two scriptures. One scripture said that people need telling about the judgement of God (hell), the other scripture said that it should be done in a loving way (basically). To my mind, God's answer was, "you're both right". God wants the reality of hell preached but He wants it preached with carefully. It's a bit of both - the best way to do it is how Christ done it. (which is my new motto). I understand why Calypsis might be tempted to mention hell, when he is HOT, so to speak.(frustrated) :D We all get to that position in debate where we can become so frustrated we say inflamed things. He's hardly unique in that.

What I will say though is that this thread has turned into an all-out, "let's criticize Calypsis thread", which is a bit ad-hominem IMHO. I think that is perhaps why Calypsis might have chose to use the word, "vultures", because when we see the likes of Driewerf circling in the sky, that is an example of OPPORTUNISM. Recently Calypsis put Driewerf on ignore to which Driewerf responded with a particularly devious post, which was invented to GOAD Calypsis, by suggesting that Calypsis was accepting proof of the ToE. Driewerf took the opportunity to behave perversely in that instance. So when we see the atheists gather in this topic to have a good old character-assasination of Calypsis, is it really surprising that the word, "vultures", is mentioned?

(Okay, back to lurking for me) those are just some of my thoughts. I really will shut up now. Lol :)

I think Mike W has given an excellent analsysis of justfiation for the constructions of cognitie concepts leading to the actual trigger of hostility in both the talker and the listener.

However In Mike Summers theory the unstated trigger concept of anger or frustraation is an inappropriate should statement which denies reality. Let me beat it to death--a neurotic agreement is in force! I have a moto; Cherechez le should (look for the should)!

Here it comes; " He shouldn't be sayinng these things to me. I am right. It's awful he doesen't accept the truth! I"ll show him I am serious about this! He's makin me angry! I am right". As my my mpm would say two wrongs don't mae a right!

I read that Hitler played this game. When asked why someone did what the Fuher said they answered, "You Have never seen the Fuher angry"! Anger is called a negative control tactict. We are taught to intimidate ourselves based on another's display of anger! Yes we are trained to do this on cue much like Pavlov's dogs!. I m suggesting the elegant sollution is to stop triggering anger!

I suggest the elegant solution is to stop denying reality. Once something happens we can do little about it! Howevr we often lie to ourselves an say, He shuldn't have... The solutuin? Break the neurotic agreemet! My soultion is to not trigger the emotion anger by stopping our shoulding. Accpt reality! It should have nappened because it did.

That is the elegant solution I use to keep my cool. Works every time! If you can understand this statement then you are on to the elegan solution! People always do what they shpuld and never do what they shouldn't!



#505 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 March 2016 - 01:57 PM

Piasan said:

Or do you think it is just fine for Calypsis to engage in an unprovoked attack the character of multiple members of this forum then you support Calypsis actions by accusing those who defend themselves as engaging in "character-assasination?" That's certainly the message I get from your comment and those of Mike S.


That's not the message I am saying! It's, "You are doing it to yourself and the only way to stop is to quit!" Got it? Much ado about nothing!

Yeah, I am a silly old legless man that needs to get a life. LOL We each individually control our response to a stmuli. You may push my buttons but I can always discinect my bell! We are doing it to ourselves.

Jesus set us an example of control when His own creation crucified Him. Did he ever say, "Why are you crucufying me?" He never once said, "I shouldn't be up here!" Humans are good at whining! Get over it!

We whine over our light affliciton! You can call me anything you want except later for dinner! lol I attack silly ideas not the people that create them! That's where I am comming from!



 



#506 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:05 PM

You give a negative response when you wish also. I have asked you several questions by name and you choose to ignore my questions. And yet you have the audacity to attack someone else? Get real.

You do the same thing! You need to take the beam out of your own eye! Practice what you preach! When you don't feel you want to anwer , uou choose to not respond.

Do you really think ignoring another being asking you a direct question is not hostile?
It's called being passive agressive!

 

Of course I give negative responses when I want to; this is a debate forum not a care bear convention, but I don't threaten people with torture, let alone endless torture. Get real yourself. 

 

There are several reasons why I tend not to respond to you. The main reason is that we are coming from such different mental wavelengths that seem more fundamental than mere disagreement on some issues to the point that I wonder if there is any point in having a dialogue with you - or if you are just trolling for the lolz. Then there is the blatant issue that you are purposefully obtuse when conversing with nonbelievers. As a general example you always complain whenever an evolutionist uses figurative language, but you never once complained and seem to have no problem understanding, accepting, and behaving like a normal human being when your fellow creationists use figurative language. It is highly hypocritical and I do believe you do this on purpose - IOW you troll nonbelievers for the mental high or whatever you get out of it. At least I can buy that whenever Enoch goes off on figurative language it is because it's his pet peeve, because he does it with everyone, but you don't even attempt to hide the hypocrisy. 

 

I'll just end by saying that your posts in general spew of passive aggressiveness and self pity which you blame other posters for. Why would anyone want to deal with that nonsense. If you are upset with my actions, or lack thereof, then I've heard from a self-proclaimed therapist that you have no one to blame but yourself. 



#507 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:21 PM

I'm not here for debate but hypothetically it is an argumentum ad baculum fallacy if someone uses a threat in the following form of argument;

 

"I am right. Agree with me or THREAT X".

 

Not sure whether it counts or not, that's up to you and Cal to discuss. I have suggested how I think the issue of hell should be handled, when I asked God if I was right or if Calypsis was right, He immediately led me to two scriptures. One scripture said that people need telling about the judgement of God (hell), the other scripture said that it should be done in a loving way (basically). To my mind, God's answer was, "you're both right". God wants the reality of hell preached but He wants it preached with carefully. It's a bit of both - the best way to do it is how Christ done it. (which is my new motto). I understand why Calypsis might be tempted to mention hell, when he is HOT, so to speak.(frustrated) :D We all get to that position in debate where we can become so frustrated we say inflamed things. He's hardly unique in that.

 

What I will say though is that this thread has turned into an all-out, "let's criticize Calypsis thread", which is a bit ad-hominem IMHO. I think that is perhaps why Calypsis might have chose to use the word, "vultures", because when we see the likes of Driewerf circling in the sky, that is an example of OPPORTUNISM. Recently Calypsis put Driewerf on ignore to which Driewerf responded with a particularly devious post, which was invented to GOAD Calypsis, by suggesting that Calypsis was accepting proof of the ToE. Driewerf took the opportunity to behave perversely in that instance. So when we see the atheists gather in this topic to have a good old character-assasination of Calypsis, is it really surprising that the word, "vultures", is mentioned? 

 

(Okay, back to lurking for me) those are just some of my thoughts. I really will shut up now. Lol  :)

 

I can understand frustration, but it does appear to be a long-standing theme with Calypsis, and not a blue moon kind of thing. 

 

I don't like ganging up on people, Calypsis included, but Calypsis has always had a way with insults, and now all he seems to do is drive-by insults. We've each tried to reason with Calypsis individually, and as the Bible says if you have a problem with someone first try to reason with them individually. If that doesn't work take two or three with you, and if that doesn't work involve the whole church/community. I see this recent "let's criticize Calypsis" as analogous to the culmination of such a teaching. 



#508 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:43 PM

In the mean time a new insult;

Most of the skeptics we are debating are brain dead



#509 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:46 PM

I don't think it helps that this is a naturally sensitive field and it can also be difficult to tell if someone was joking or genuinely annoyed by something someone has said. (I know, I know Mike S, you don't believe anyone has the power to offend anyone else). Also that we come from quite a varied mix of culturesand languages.


Maybe now that most of us have had the chance to get a bit of it off our chests the air will be cleared a bit and we can get back to the important stuff. Blackjack, bevvy and brothe...ah maybe not here.
  • Goku likes this

#510 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 March 2016 - 03:48 PM

 

 

Piasan: That you give Calypsis a pass for his unprovoked attack on me as a "vulture" is worth note

 

Is that what I done? :rolleyes:

 

Pi, I said "vultures", and moved it into the hypothetical realm, by saying that the atheists that have ganged up on Calypsis were, "opportunistic", which might make the word, "vulture" a relevant one if their motives are to gang up on someone.



#511 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:09 PM

Well, after reading through the last three pages of "Let's bash Calypsis", I think the off-topic discussion has run its course, along with this thread. Calypsis is going to be taking a long break from posting in the forum, and any continuation of this "discussion" in other threads will result in suspensions.

Thread Locked.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users