What ever happened to CONSTRUCTIVE debates?

---

I see, thank you.

Actually, that's probably the simplest solution out there. As opposed to a huge complicated process creating life from nothing, it's another life being (of a sort) that made it all that way. Very simple. Not that I believe it's more likely.

Oh, and on Stoicism, from what I've learned, it seems to be that everyone collectively is sortof God, not that there's a single being.

I appreciate your thoughts Bobbo, and your apparent frustration. I've seen constructive dialog around some pretty touchy subjects on message boards...just not this one. I think it's worth asking why they tend to devolve around these parts. I have my thoughts on the matter...maybe they fit, maybe they don't.

Basically, it sounds like you're talking about debates on evolution and the existence of God and those matters. What I've seen is:

1. There are several folks here (including myself) who disagree with the overwhelming majority on these matters. A couple in that group have been needlessly harsh or condemning or whatever else.
2. The result of #1 has been that the rest of us have often been painted with the same broad brush that should only apply to the annoying minority.
3. There are many times when it does seem like those in the majority argue with an underlying tone of condescension. We have been told that we are anti-science, ignorant, lacking in intelligence, and lots of other pretty harsh things. That doesn't help matters.
4. Too often there have been those who hold the minority view who can't seem to offer constructive argument or participate in rational debate because they can't separate their rational thoughts from their emotions. The result is that they come dangerously close to imitating some of the nasty things that those in the majority seem to want to portray them as.
5. As was stated earlier, these topics do tend to go right to the core of our beliefs. Sometimes to the core of who we are. That might make it difficult for even the most rational and enlightened to keep in on a rational level.
6. All this being said, my current opinion is that the main reason constructive debates don't happen is because most people come at them with counterproductive motivations. What I mean is, they come at them motivated by a strong desire to change someone's mind in the matter. I think we've all seen that ain't gonna happen. Or the desire to play gotcha. That should be left to stupid politicians. Or the desire to lord knowledge over someone else. That just betrays ignorance. I think the kind of productive dialog that you seem to be talking about can only happen when both sides come at it with a desire to exchange information and then develop questions based on information gained, with the purpose of gaining even more information. The best discussions I've had are ones in which I've asked questions about the other person's beliefs, gained understanding, asked more questions, found common ground when it existed, and - probably most importantly - felt is was safe to do all of this.

I don't know if my rambling addresses your questions or not. But I think your basic question is a good one and is worth discussing and investigating (until this post goes to hell! :wink: )

Some interesting studies are the Eohippus, the Archaeopteryx (don't know if I spelled that right, and the Ceolocanth (don't know if I spelled that right either).

Originally Posted By: DxLISHxISx_43Bob, are you a scientologist now? Basically its a way of using the Google system to help people. The more links that a website has to it raises its ranks on Google when the words used in the link are searched for. So when people search for the word Scientology, at the top of the list will be the website for the biggest community against Scientology.

I think those "constructive" debates usually turned out to be "de-structive". :wink:

Originally Posted By: CiderHowever, don't put blanket claims over all religions like saying they don't advocate love or that they go against Science always and creates fear. I can use an example called Stoicism. It doesn't have any texts that are really defined as truth, but it uses self-questioning to find what appears to be true to someone. Not because they are told it by a religious text, but because they question things they've been told and use what evidence they experience themselves. I agree with you there, another example would be Jainism where the only rule that they have is to never harm or kill any living creature. Some of the most fundamental Jainists even wear a cloth over their mouths to prevent them from accidentally swallowing small flies.

What if we set up our "rules of engagement" as to make the debate purely educational and so people can feel safe to join in. All information backed up by citation and evidence, and that includes critical comments. Opinions are welcome, but should be relevant and non inflammatory.

All statements must be facts (which obviously discounts any discussion on the existence of God/gods). We can talk about science, politics, climate change (or lack there of), we can even talk about religion if you wish, as long as we keep to things that can be facts (aka, the controversy of whether Matthew was actually written by Matthew).

What I want, and enjoy, is intelligent debate about different subjects that involve our world. There are so many to choose from!

And by the way, saying that someone is 'ignorant' is not accusing them of being stupid or lacking intelligence, it is simply the lack of information.

nice dictionary reference bobbo! You can make the rules, and someone is still going to break them. People can not limit themselves to shit, they always bring god into it, even if htey knwo its wrong to do so and that its against the rules, someone is going to sooner or later jump in with god and then its going to degrade into a holy war.Id like to be able to have a discussion like you suggest, but I dont think its possible, not here.Or maybe Im just ignorant

This is going to be mean.. but.. maybe you should do something constructive with your life instead of spending so much time on the internet and here at A2A looking to debate.. You seem very intelligent.. put it to good use.

The Native American Church, or Peyote Church, has only one tenant, that is, be good to one another. Some are Christan Peyote church's some are native variants of the Peyote faith, most are somewhere in between. What all have in common is the one thing they believe god or the universe wants of us is to be good to one another.There are many religions that offer no absolutes, even variants of the big three. There can be a lot of good found in faith when we can find a way past the absolutes of men.There was one old, old, Christan Peyote Roadman (headman, shaman, priest, whatever you want to call him) that was talking at dinner after meetin' who said, he thought (I'm paraphrasing) absolutism is an affront to god. God seeks faith in the love we show to one another. Absolutism, is claiming to know the mind of god, and judge one another, and when we believe we know the mind of god we lose the faith we profess to have. So, I think faith can offer some things of good to society. Perhaps the key it educate people better so that they may better understand there is no absolute, and anyone who claims to have the absolute answers to the questions we would ask of god, can only give us answers from the world of man.I don't know what the hell I'm sayin' here, I'm rambling.

I could deal with the be good to one another, and iM pretty fucking good to nature, dont create too much waste recycle shit I can, spend time outdoors, know far too much shit about wilderness survival and minimal impact, I cant get behind the god part of it.maybe what I need to do is create the first church of chance.take the parts of your stuff I like, and add in marijuana instead of peyote. Ill avoid that shit, it was not a good time for me that whole sick and throw up to get high, fuck man that was violent,I swear my stomach was outside my body before I was done.I guess if hubbard can do it with the fantastic volcano stories (me and Java had this conversation a few years back, bobbo didnt teach me anything new :D)I could do it based on being good to each other and minimal impact on nature. How the hell do I get the government to overlook the weed issues? that is my only problem.

Originally Posted By: JapanFan14Some interesting studies are the Eohippus, the Archaeopteryx (don't know if I spelled that right, and the Ceolocanth (don't know if I spelled that right either). Those are great topics of discussion:Eohippus, or Hyracotherium as it is primarily classified, is an early ancestor of the horse, as well as many other creatures including tapirs and rhinoceros, which lived about 55 million years ago. A common argument for those against evolution is that the Eohippus had 4 toes on its front legs and 3 toes on its back legs, while modern horses only have one toe. This is explained by the development of side ligaments developed around the fetlock to help stabilize the central toe during running. The extra toes became unnecessary and thus shrank and eventually disappeared.Archaeopteryx (great job on the spelling Abi) is a reptile/avian transitional creature that lived about 150 million years ago and is believed to be an ancestor of modern birds who are believed to have evolved from dinosaurs. It is disputed by anti-evolutionists who say that the Archaeopteryx is in fact just a bird and not a transitional form although this is not true. The Archaeopteryx displays many characteristics of both reptiles and birds such as:- It had feathers. (Birds do, dinosaurs don't)- An Opposable hallux, or "big toe". (Birds but not dinosaurs)- The Pubis is elongate and directed backward. (Birds and some dinosaurs)- A Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline. (Birds and some dinosaurs)- It doesn't have a bill. (Birds have bills, dinosaurs don't)- Trunk region vertebra are free and not fused. (Dinosaurs, not birds)- The bones are pneumatic, ie. They have air-sacs. (Birds and some dinosaurs)- Neck attaches to skull from the rear and not from below. (Dinosaurs, not birds)- Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip unlike birds who have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.- Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth. (Dinosaurs, not birds)There are quite a few others, but you get the point.Coelacanth was a fish-tetrapod transition that was believed to have gone extinct 70 million years ago but was found alive and completely unchanged in form! Or so was claimed. The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures.Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.Thank you Abi, I had heard the names before and you gave me the opportunity to learn more about them. This is one of the main reasons why I like debates, I'm a nerd and like to learn!!

the winged legs with feathers dinosaur?odd timing to have that come up, I just saw a special on it about a week or so ago. I think it was national geographic channel I was watching, or maybe PBS on saturday night. they often run odd shit then.

Quote: Absolutism, is claiming to know the mind of god, and judge one another, and when we believe we know the mind of god we lose the faith we profess to have I love this sentiment. It's one I have expressed many times myself. This is why I tend to class myself as more agnostic than athiest because I can't know for sure. I think anyone who professes to know for sure is diluding himself.hmmmm, that almost sounds like I'm suggesting every human should be agnostic... have I just started the church od unsupervised?be nice to everyonesmoke em if ya got emknow that you don't knowno pants allowdyes, this will workunsupervised saw that it was good

"I just started the church od unsupervised"I think that should read " the church odd, unsupervised"so long as it involves fuck! Im more than slightly disappointed, I intended to make a link here It ws to be a link to a video from the old days (before it sucked) of SNL, eddie murphy doing the cooking show, with the dread locked vest wearing jammacian character, adding the jimmy ganza! ingredients.not a fucking whisper of it on line, nothing nadda zip!is anyone old enough to even know what Im talking about? yeah yeah yeah yeah! ahhh the return to drug lore and the 70s

actually, typos are a holy sacrement oF the church. Would you like to become the pope?

I'm way to young to know what you're refering to :wink:

ya know that best part? I actually am ordained to conduct weddings and blessings, no shit I swear it. Id have to go dig shit out to find whee it lays, you start a fucking church, Im on board, Ill be the pope! and Ill make enough typos to fill a book 5 times the size of the bible in a year!

we're happy to have you aboard, your holyness

cool cool, but my funny hat? its not so funny, its a leather hat, looks much like the one brad pitt wore in snatch, nearly identical actually, but black and not so fucking smashed and wrinkled. its pristine, i ordered it from Australia, its kangaroo hide and I already own it, I wear it all the time, not daily but often, this is now the official pope of the odd church of unsupervised, I have decreed it, let it be done!who wants to kiss my as.. I mean ring?