But dearest Mechanist, through your lame reactions you’ve made it abundantly clear, and continue to do so, that you’re not at all interested in any “being civil” or “a good environment to exchange ideas,” merely in affirmations for your preconceptions. That’s where the incivility actually started, a point that is obvious, it seems, to everyone but you. Therefore, your repeated accusations of incivility are fundamentally flawed for being self-servingly hypocritical. That’s in addition to what cyghost said.
So surprise everyone here and dispel the null hypothesis about you. Or do whatever tickles you and live with the consequences.
You always do this. You evade. You answer questions with questions. You make no argument beyond copying and pasting.
On any forum where people do respond to your “posts”, they are invariably negative and critical. This is supposed to be what you are craving. Your responses to such makes it abundantly clear that you are not interested in debate and simply want to preach to the choir. You are not up to the task of defending your position and do a bad job of presenting your side.
The only positive thing that can be said is that you are tenacious as hell
You’re the one with the ALWAYS. I used it more in a general hyperbole kinda way. You know, the way normal people talk. So no, not ALWAYS. But enough to make “always” quite spot on.
I remember our very first encounters where I asked you six (6!!) times how old the earth was and you couldn’t give me a straight answer once. You are as ever, the master evader!
Mechanist, can we cut to the proverbial chase here? What’s the basic, unifying plot with you? I mean, behind all the artful dodging, all the evasions and deflections, the goalpost shifting, all the innuendo and provocative suggestivities, the table-turning artifices and circumlocution and pussyfooting, there’s some central conviction or other that you’re not being entirely open about – maybe in the misguided hope of eventually sneaking it past your audience. It’s clear enough that it’s something to do with some “greater principle” you think science is missing, and it looks like it’s a god of some kind.
So, what are you, creationist? YEC or OEC? ID proponent? Deist? Theist? All of the above? None? What then?
Or are you just deeply confused, as appearances would indicate?
So… when you said I am only interested in affirmations of my preconceptions you were a bit confused what these preconceptions were? No wonder you are unable to make a null hypothesis about me. One has to wonder who the deeply confused one is. Now before I answer the question, I would like to make sure you are able to differentiate between the above terms as well as the ones I give you if you don’t mind. Just for the sake of clarity. So here goes:
Differentiate between creationist, YEC and OEC.
Differentiate between creationist and ID proponent.
Differentiate between deist and theist.
Could you perhaps define each of these as YOU understand them so that I can perhaps give you the correct answer…for the sake of clarity.
Then could you please…
Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.
Are you…
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)
I don’t mind giving an answer as long as both parties agree on the definitions.
Here’s how the relevant terms you ask should be understood:
Creationist: someone who believes the universe with everything in it was purposely and specially planned and created by a supernatural agent or deity with humankind in mind specifically, possibly as an eventual outcome. (Example…)
YEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few to several thousand years old – in line with a literal reading of the creation story of some religious text supposedly given to humankind by revelation. (Example…)
OEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few billions of years old – in line with current scientific understanding, where a figurative reading of some religious text’s creation story is required. (Example…)
ID proponent: a creationist who accepts the totality of humankind’s scientific understanding as valid but adds to it that things are as they are because they were intentionally designed to be that way and to change according to a blueprint. This position is largely independent of any specific religious text. (More…)
Deist: someone (not necessarily a creationist, as defined above) who believes that a deity created the universe as a once-off act without any subsequent interaction with or interference in it other than possibly observation. This creator has no especial interest in any specific part of the creation, perhaps not even for the whole of it. (More…)
Theist: someone who believes that a deity (or more than one) created the universe and has actively participated in its development through direct guidance and adjustment in order to keep the developments on track to some ultimate goal or outcome. This creator has humankind’s fate as a priority concern and may occasionally interfere in people’s lives. (More…)
Given their irrelevance to my questions, I will answer your questions once you have adequately answered mine. However, in the unlikely event that your answers involve one or more of those other terms you ask about, you should give your understanding of them as needed.
“Should be understood” you say, and you give wiki links? Mmmm, ok, fair enough.
I guess by those definitions I should be a theist, creationist and ID proponent. But I would like to think I am just a theist… the mono-kind. But if you find it hard to differentiate between theist, creationist and ID proponent, so be it.
If it answers your question, could you be so kind to do the following.
Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.
Are you…
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)
I am of the opinion that they want to create the impression that their position is independent of religious texts, yet they signed a document stating that if their “scientific” findings contradict the Bible, they assume that their findings are incorrect.
