Have you noticed?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

It is usually a custom to have debates brandish endless insults and derogatory remarks about a person, and as seen on this forum, my statement holds true. So often in debates we end up insulting others more so than debating. However, have you noticed that in the so many religious threads that are often brandishing the incessant "Pianistimo" bashing and the bashing of Christianity, Pianistimo herself has practically never uttered a single insulting comment to others. Some other members here however have freely claimed her as "stupid," "ignorant," "not adhering to proven fact," etc. To me humbleness is a strong quality of fortitude and expression, and arrogance is a sign of uncertainty. To a wandering eye the most arrogant remarks would be seen as incorrect. Stating this, I think it is important, for the sakes of good debate and social conduct, to keep discussions insult and degrading free, and never lose temper.

[tds]

susan's so coo

she the woman

[nicco]

Pianistimo is an example to follow. Although if everyone was like her...

[ihatepop]

Her posts are quite sincere and touching sometimes, and I say she has contributed quite a lot to the forum.

PS-PianiStimo

ihatepop

[prometheus]

Debussy Symbolism, Pianistimo has said many things that can be taken as 'insulting'.

If saying that the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is 'not adhering to proven fact' is arrogant or insulting or bad social conduct then what is saying that suggesting that I should be a nazi for accepting Darwinian evolution as science, saying that Dawkins is a nazi and saying that it is ok to butcher children, even babies, if god 'justifies' it?



Yes, people trying to debate religious people often end up failing to have a read debate. But who is to blame? It is the religious person because this person is unable to justify their views and not honest enough to admit this. So they end up ignoring what is said, ignoring facts, bending facts, making up arguments along the way, constructing everyhting in a desperate attempt to stay in the 'debate'.

Then the other person becomes frustrated.
If you provide the pictures of 22 proto-humans and the other person just calls all of them 'hoaxes' without reason then it is very hard not to become frustrated.

If someone repeats the same logical fallacy 20 times after you already explained 19 times why this is wrong and even whined 15 times about the failure to realise or even read the explenation then yes a person will become frustrated.

But I ask again, who destroys the debate.


I think every word spend, or probably wasted, on Pianistimo is an act of generosity. And calling her ideas stupid is being bluntly honest.

[thalbergmad]

I could not agree more.

The description of the word "frustration" should be changed in the dictionary.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Pianistimo herself has practically never uttered a single insulting comment to others.

I am glad you said practically.

I anticipate that some people found the homosexuality is evil comment insulting.

[debussy symbolism]

Debussy Symbolism, Pianistimo has said many things that can be taken as 'insulting'.

If saying that the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is 'not adhering to proven fact' is arrogant or insulting or bad social conduct then what is saying that suggesting that I should be a nazi for accepting Darwinian evolution as science, saying that Dawkins is a nazi and saying that it is ok to butcher children, even babies, if god 'justifies' it?

I don't see how stating something like that can ever be claimed as arrogant simply because stating something out of belief and without knowing the facts is not necessarily something to be angry about. "Back then" people had the notion that Earth was flat, so would you consider those people arrogant?

Yes, people trying to debate religious people often end up failing to have a read debate. But who is to blame? It is the religious person because this person is unable to justify their views and not honest enough to admit this. So they end up ignoring what is said, ignoring facts, bending facts, making up arguments along the way, constructing everyhting in a desperate attempt to stay in the 'debate'.

Then the other person becomes frustrated.
If you provide the pictures of 22 proto-humans and the other person just calls all of them 'hoaxes' without reason then it is very hard not to become frustrated.

If someone repeats the same logical fallacy 20 times after you already explained 19 times why this is wrong and even whined 15 times about the failure to realise or even read the explenation then yes a person will become frustrated.

I see your point, but you have to understand that to the believer, all of what you are saying is false. For example, if you were surrounded by a group of extremely religious people and they were trying to inculcate religious matter to you, you would reject it blatantly over and over again. Same thing here, only here it is only several (or just one) persons arguing religion over scientific fact.

By repeating the same explanation 15-20 times with no avail means that even if you should repeat it a 100 times you still wouldn't get results. Therefore it is best to just leave it there.

Hah! In all of my readings of Pianistimo's text, I never have encountered a single example that could ensure her beliefs. I myself trust facts over beliefs, although a few ruminations are definately worth it as somethings are still unexplained. Overall, what you may assume is arrogant, Pianistimo would assume as true, and what you may assume as truthful, she considers arrogant. Heh, according to Oscar Wilde, it is wrong to stifle other's beliefs, as that only suppresses that person's character. Furthermore, I think that this forum would benefit alot from not having any more material posted that could irritate others, namely other's propagation or religion and other's propagation of stifling the religion.

[prometheus]

It is not about me and Pianistimo. It is about reality as we can observe it today and the mythology of bronze age people more primitive and cruel than the Taliban.



Then there are two general questions:

Which gives a more accurete description of reality? The bible or science?


This is the question I spend most of my time trying to debate Pianistimo on.


The other is:

What kind of moral teaching does the bible provide and has it any place at all in our modern-day world?


That's all.

[soliloquy]

A- Debussy Symbolism, follow what you teach.


B- There are a lot of idiots on here that need to be rectified.  I find that usually the insults start getting thrown around when someone is just so incredibly stubborn with their belief that several people have given strong evidence is wrong.  Btw, I'm not referring to any of the stupid religious threads on here when i say that.

[pianistimo]

debussy symbolism - you were not exactly the person i thought who would stick up for me.  i love you i love you i love you. and, anyways - you are very reasonable and fair.  UNLIKE some people we know.

hmm.  and yet - i shall miss prometheus and thal.  just the name prometheus conjures up all kinds of associations.  especially with beethoven.  he fits his name - because he is a thought conscious person.  but about the babies?  i don't think he knows me.  i've had three of them and would never think killing a baby a good thing to do.  i don't think God did either.  i mean - why else did He spare Abraham's son issac.  i think He was making a point that He was different than other gods and did not require any kind of human (or baby) sacrifice.  and, when the israelites went to war - i'm sure they were more humane than the enemies they were fighting.  i mean - in war - things get skewed.  i look forward to a time when even the animals will be at peace.  there's somewhere's in isaiah that mentioned that people will be able to sleep in the forest and not worry about wild beasts.  also, the lion eating straw like an ox - and the lamb and little child together  - not worried about these typically wild beasts.  snakes are even mentioned as not being feared.  how could this be?  a dream? a myth?  well- it sounds a lot better than war and bloodshed.

i know this is a diversion - but if you read genesis before adam and eve sinned - they weren't told that animal meat was food.  from what i read in isaiah, in the milleneium (for people who believe this) the animals and people will be at peace again - and i don't think they'll be eating each other.

[jakev2.0]

Why can't people talk normally on these forums?

[soliloquy]

Why can't people talk normally on these forums?

That would just make a little TOO much sense.

[ihatepop]

Then there will be no chance for the plot to thicken...

ihatepop

[gilad]

i hate you all, thats not up for debate.

[ihatepop]

hate is quite a harsh word, young man! Whe not use something more peaceful?

*looks at username*

Err...I take that back...

 

ihatepop

[gilad]

haha ihatepop, very astute.

i love everyone here, that not up for debate.

now im sure you are younger a man than i am.