why does this forum care so much about religion

[Splendour]

Kurto what are you afraid of? Afraid someone might think things through for themselves? One of the articles was addressing the crisis in mathematics and his historical takes on the evolution of mathematics and how it fit in with the trinitarian view. Why do you have to dumb everything down? Someone who really knows math might agree and that bothers you?

Bunny, I am answering the op. There's insight in these articles relevant to questions he raised. I don't have to state an opinion when I am giving him information that might answer the question he raised.

[kurto]

Splenda - I just posted to you the problem with the second agreement. Yet you ignore it and ask what I'm afraid of. There is a major logical fallacy since the entire premise of his paper requires everyone to accept the infallible truth that the Christian conception of God and the contents of the Bible are fact.

It is quite consistant that you post links to articles and then pretty much ignore all the posts that point out major holes/flaws in the posts.

Others have pointed out that you don't even have anything to add about the posts.

Just because you post something doesn't mean that its particularly compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the articles was addressing the crisis in mathematics

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know a lot of mathematicians who agree that there is a crisis in mathematics. Any that think that what math is missing is Christianity? (I have to admit I'm laughing out loud even typing this.)

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to dumb everything down?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its your contention that I could dumb it down. One could argue that it was pretty 'down' many years before I looked at it.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who really knows math might agree and that bothers you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you're the one who'd be most bothered by people's reaction to this. I suspect you'll have trouble finding a lot of mathmeticians who believe the only reason they can do math is because the Christian God allows them to.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, I am answering the op. There's insight in these articles relevant to questions he raised. I don't have to state an opinion when I am giving him information that might answer the question he raised.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh sure - you dont have to post according to how I'd like you to, that wasnt what I meant. I was responding to this:

[ QUOTE ]
...probably no one read them here since I haven't heard any forum comments on them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to point out that there was another possible explanation for why people hadnt responded besides your supposition that probably no one had read them. I didnt mean to say anything more than that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Splendour]

Kurto this is the mantra of this forum:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

The ideas expressed in the articles posted are directly opposed to many of the ideas routinely expressed in this forum. On a daily basis I read posts with people asking for arguments from theists positions and for explanations of theist arguments. Because you don't agree with the arguments presented doesn't make them pusillanimous, but quite the contrary.

Maybe other posters will agree with me that we need fewer poster trying to act as censors in this forum.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto what are you afraid of? Afraid someone might think things through for themselves? One of the articles was addressing the crisis in mathematics and his historical takes on the evolution of mathematics and how it fit in with the trinitarian view. Why do you have to dumb everything down? Someone who really knows math might agree and that bothers you?

Bunny, I am answering the op. There's insight in these articles relevant to questions he raised. I don't have to state an opinion when I am giving him information that might answer the question he raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are debaters on a pretty good forum. What we are interested in is mainly the debater's view on things, linking articles is great when you feel the need to explain some term to someone who asks for an explanation or someone asks for a link or your viewpoint is attacked as 'unsupported' and you feel the need to reference it.

When you use them as arguments against people used to science you should know:

1.) If you're good in your field, you really only need light browsing of an article to see if its junk, you don't need to read it in its entirety. I'm sure others here will testify to this also. That an article is debunked on the basis of a few silly lines in the abstract IS the reality of science, and I will even say its a good thing. So don't post links to bad articles - it will completely ruin your credibility in the argument!

2.) People used to reading scientific articles have very highly evolved BS radars, which you need, because bad articles often attempt to cover up flaws - generally when people have worked for 1 year on something, they want it to fit. Therefore you should think twice before presenting articles, make certain it is a good and solid article. If you can find something which is actually reputable in non-theist camps, you will have come along way. Examples of things like that are renowned history articles, linguistics articles etc.

3.) Reading a heavy article in a new field is very hard work, not many here really want to spend 2 hours reading an article and checking up on the references to see if it holds true - a statement and reference to a _reputable_ source will get the job done much easier.

4.) If you are debating with diehard atheists and don't want to get picked apart, I would avoid articles which uses the bible as fundamental proof. They add nothing to the debate, sorry. In those cases you might as well present the bible as your proof, the articles add nothing but fluff.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto this is the mantra of this forum:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize there was a mantra. Furthermore, I never saw anyone saying you didn't have a right to post it. You were suprised that no one had commented on your post. I posted my thoughts about some possible reasons why.

[ QUOTE ]
The ideas expressed in the articles posted are directly opposed to many of the ideas routinely expressed in this forum. On a daily basis I read posts with people asking for arguments from theists positions and for explanations of theist arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

People have asked for theists here about their ideas. You seem to post other people's ideas to which you cannot even begin to discuss intelligently. This is not your argument. You regularly show your complete inability to discuss the merits of the articles you post.

[ QUOTE ]
Because you don't agree with the arguments presented doesn't make them pusillanimous, but quite the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you're misusing your dictionary. I posted a criticism of the second article. You, as usual, cannot address my specific complaints. Since you post articles and cannot discuss them, its a little unclear what your purpose is... or, for that matter, if you even understand what you've posted or the responses that have been posted.

Making further discussion somewhat pointless.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe other posters will agree with me that we need fewer poster trying to act as censors in this forum.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough, I don't see a lot of censorship. If anything, people have been trying to get you to post some of your own thoughts and arguments. But you usually just post links that often have little to do with the discussion at hand and, links to which you don't seem interested in actually discussing.

[Splendour]

Thanks for your post tame_deuces.

One of the important ideas expressed in the articles beyond the blatant theistic point of view was the juxtaposition of historical perspectives on mathematics versus current perspectives. This in this day and age could be perceived as a radical/revolutionary paradigm not unlike the rebirth of Renaissance Arts from the Middle Ages. One of the key points these people are making is that there has been a fundamental shift in the approach to mathematics from the way the Ancients approached it. If they are right that this is a mistake then this has been a pretty radical departure and may hold future solutions to questions in mathematics.

Throughout history people have written papers and had the papers dismissed or their ideas were discovered late or their ideas were censored because they didn't agree with the current prevailing political/theological climate. In these particular articles the positional pro-Christian rhetoric is central to the articulation of the ideas they are arguing.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Throughout history people have written papers and had the papers dismissed or their ideas were discovered late or their ideas were censored because they didn't agree with the current prevailing political/theological climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact the Wright Brothers were laughed at and then proved right does NOT mean that when you are laughed at YOU are right.
common misconception

luckyme

[Splendour]

lol...that's right I'll look like that guy with the egg on his head. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Throughout history people have written papers and had the papers dismissed or their ideas were discovered late or their ideas were censored because they didn't agree with the current prevailing political/theological climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact the Wright Brothers were laughed at and then proved right does NOT mean that when you are laughed at YOU are right.
common misconception

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of morons who we've never heard of that were rightly called morons. A good rule of thumb is that if people are calling you a moron, odds are you are one.