Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Creationism vs Theistic Evolution


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 448 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 15:26:54 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
"Theistic evolution absolutely is ID restated in teh same way ID is creationism restated. This appeal to sophistication and distinctions are red herrings which never really result in the distinctions they imagine themselves to be, we are just meant to be impressed that it doesn't contain exactly the same words!"

And you're basing this on what, Drew? I get quite annoyed by these kind of comments. I've illustrated the differences quite a few times. Framing the universe, with it's order, it's consistency and uniformity in terms that see it as intended is not the same as looking for gaps in natural processes for God to fill.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 15:20:38 BDT
H W says:
So who is winning?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 15:18:49 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
"Why not given the unsophisticated historical baggage the word brings with it? Just because we've dragged it along with science doesn't mean it's made any progress itself, the god is said to be 'the creator', 'the designer', why not 'the carpenter' too?"

Here you're actually historically wrong. The analogy of God as designer is an 18th century depiction of God (Paley's watch, etc). It's not biblical. Created, as I said in an earlier post, is not necessarily the same as designed. My parents, in some sense created me without designing me, for one example. Our entire life experience creates the people we are in a sense too. The image you have of God as carpenter is one belonging to a particular timeframe a long way distant to Jesus or St Paul, let alone the old testament writers etc. A more pre-modern view of God is that God is the ground of being, who intended and sustains his creation, rather than the cosmic carpenter of modern creationism.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 15:08:49 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
"No, I mean undefined. God is a place holder word for our ignorance, it's inserted into the equation but what it does, how it achieves it's goals are not mentioned at all."

You say its wrong to use God as 'undefined', and then somewhat ironically define God yourself as 'holder word for our ignorance'. But this definition obviously doesn't allow the possibility of the universe being intended open at all.

I'm not sure if you were implying I myself use God to mean something entirely undefineable. My definition of God would be something along the lines of 'the intention behind the universe and life within it, and the reason for their existence'. This is obviously very different to how some people see it, e.g. Karen Armstrong. But really I think it's what people generally mean if they are discussing a God in ontological terms, rather than the rather more mystical uses of the term 'existence' which grant God existence 'in some sense', which can be a little vague.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 14:40:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Apr 2012 15:49:37 BDT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Drew,

"I criticised your definition of 'agnosticism' because it contained elements that could be incorporated into theism and atheism therefore making for a poor distinction. I also criticised it as a useless label in the definitive given not knowledge is absolute. Wouldn't I therefore use a different definition to you?"

I explained what each part of the definition enabled agnosticism to be distinct from either theism/positive atheism, or negative atheism. Here's what I said:

"But the 'weighing up of arguments' does make it distinct from negative atheism, which doesn't necessarily involve weighing up anything - it's just an absence of belief in God. Positive athiesm, like agnosticism, involves 'weighing up arguments' too , which makes it distinct from negative atheism. The difference between positive atheism and agnosticism is that positive atheist is more swayed by the arguments (they either find less of worth in the arguments for theism, and/or more of worth in the arguments against theism). So both 'weighing up of arguments' and 'not swayed heavily one way or the other' are important in distinguishing what I mean by agnosticism from other positions."

So both the sections are important - the 'weighing up of arguments' may not distinguish it from theism/positive atheism, but it does from negative athiesm. The second part 'not being swayed one way more heavily than the other' distinguishes it from positive atheism/theism. Are you with me?

On gnosticism, you write:

"Who said it has anything to do with 'negative atheism'? I'm giving my basic definitions of terms and how they can interact, I have little time for restating them and confusing the matter further with tying labels to relative terms with positive/negative, weak/strong."

You said it did!! Here's what you said:

"Yeah, because negative atheism is a form of gnosticism. You re-label something like gnosticism but you're still essentially left with gnosticism, you're not really addressing atheism although the new label leads to to presume so."

This criticism makes no sense. How is an absence of belief in God relabeling a belief their is knowledge?? I think you know this is wrong now and perhaps just forgot you said it.

"How can you do that in any way that gives you meaningful labels? Everyone is going to not only have a different scale and means of seeing the scale, imagining the labels can really start to effectively communicate doubt or confidence it futile, it's why I stick to the belief labels and even then don't assume them to be inferring absolute knowledge. This is all a fallout of your inability to read things as tentative when put in the context of atheism and theism."

My scale is about how swayed people are by the arguments for/against the existence of God - so it is about beliefs and not knowledge. I think is is where your critique is badly mistaken. You seem to think I see bigots at either end of the scale who claim to KNOW, whereas everyone in the middle is more happy to acknowledge some level of doubt. This isn't the case at all. All I mean is that someone who is a 1 or 2, or a 6 or 7, is more swayed by the arguments one way or other. That's not a criticism of those positions or a claim about them not having 'absolute knowledge' to justify being a different number to them on the scale. Look back at my main post where I outline the scale - Drew, these really are things you're reading into it, not out of it.

"If all you've done is apply doubt to the atheist position I think you are still wrong in your working assumptions, you have to extend it to theists as well and at this point it becomes useless to have a third position assuming it can comfortably take a portion of the middle ground as those employing the label 'agnostic' exclusively must do. It's hard with a label to summaries or communicate effectively how persuasive you find certain arguments, you'd have to relabel yourself at every point which is extremely impractical."

Yes, theists have doubts too, of course. Why does it matter if you have to 'relabel' yourself when you come across new arguments which might change your mind slightly? Now, suppose there is a book out there with an argument for theism which blows my mind, and I find myself so swayed by it that I find it the best of all arguments. I still have to assess, in my own mind, how significant it is in relation to all the rest of the arguments. It might sway me from a 6 to a 3, maybe? Or perhaps its so good I think it blows all other arguments out of the water - then I'm a 1 or 2. That still doesn't mean I claim to KNOW that this argument proves God. Its just that it's persuaded me, for now, so my scale is about belief, not knowledge. I never said it was about knowledge, I've said in every post it's about how persuaded by arguments a person is = beliefs!

"If you're approach has nothing to do with 'absolute knowledge' either then your third label of 'agnosticism' is as useless and we are using my definition of 'atheism' and 'theism' rather than yours which suggested and still implicitly suggests absolute knowledge."

Ok, you tell me the appropriate term for someone who looks into the existence of God, and isn't heavily swayed either that there is or isn't a God. Why is this not a good use of the word 'agnostic'? What should we call such people? They're not theists, as they don't belive in God. But they are distinct from SOME atheists - not in the sense that they lack belief in God (they share the 'negative' atheism - the absence of belief), but in the sense that they don't find the arguments against God's existence all that persuasive either. And again, how persuaded by something you are is about a person's beliefs, not knowledge!

"Why have these prefixes of negative and positive for atheism been introduced half way into the discussion?"

Are you kidding me? I've been using them from the start! Here's what I said very early on (my second post to you, and my fisrt post was simply asking for you to clarify something, so it's literally been evident right from the start):

"I also think it's useful to distinguish between two kinds of atheism; 'positive atheism' is when you have reasons for disbelieving in a God, and 'negative' atheism when you simply lack a belief in God. Its clear you're both, but your more of a positive atheist by degree than I am, at least regarding the God proposed by theistic evolutionists. This will be evident to anyone who's read any of our posts. It would follow that I'm more agnostic about it. If you view it as a scale then I think it's a little clearer what I mean."

And in my next post,

"So the scale is more,

1. Finds arguments for theism wholly convincing - 2. fairly convincing - 3. some are quite challenging - 4. plausible but not convincing - 5. arguments against seem to outweigh - 6. arguments against are much, much better. 7. Arguments against are wholly convincing.

Something like that. Its very like Dawkins' 7 point scale.

Positive atheism can be put on a scale, because its based on arguments rather than an absence of something. You find the arguments for God pretty much vacuous. perhaps you're between 6 and 7 on my scale. Perhaps I'm around a 5 to 6. There is a difference, because there's a difference in what is convincing or plausible to each person. But both of us still remain athiests in my negative sense, but different by degree in the positive sense."

Perhaps by using the word 'wholly' convincing I have chosen my words poorly and this is why you think I see position 1 and 7 and positions of claims to knowledge and certainty? If so I can onl apologise for the poor wording. People can be convinced by things and then revise them later. On reflection 'wholly' was a poor choice of word, and has probably contributed to your discontent with what I've been saying. Was this the reason why you think I take theists/positive atheists to be claimers of 'knowledge'? I can't see anything else that implies it. If so I can only apologise for what I can see was possibly a point of confusion.

"I still don't see how you can really know how one person is swayed more or less than another, the only reasonable basis someone might call themselves an atheist or agnostic (note how little people uses the term 'negative atheist' or 'positive atheist' to identify themselves) is that some recognise belief to be binary and that they can't and don't need to comfortably relate confidence/doubt in a label and some imagine that a lack of absolute knowledge is something to communicate or don't want the heat created by the label atheist."

I've replied enough times to the absolute knowledge guff, so I'll bypass that for repetition is boring. You're right that people don't label themselves positive/negative atheists. That's because I came up with it, although I've heard various simular distinctions made here and there. But surely you can see what I'm getting at; there is a big difference between never having thought about it and someone like Christopher Hitchens who is very strongly swayed by arguments against the existence of God?

"Why is atheism the position given extra definition by positive and negative distinctions? Why not extend the epistemological separations to the theistic position too?"

Good question, here's why,

Theist - someone who believes in God

Agnosticism - someone who weighs up the arguments and is not swayed heavily one way or the other

positive atheist - someone who has weighed up the arguments and is more persuaded that God does not exist

negative athiest - an absence of belief in God.

Now, why not have two theist positions? Presumeabley positive theism would be someone who weighs up the arguments and finds arguments for God's existence more persuasive. I'm fine with that. But what would negative theism be? To be consistent, it would have to mean 'an absence of a lack of belief in God' to mean the opposite of negative atheism. That doesn't really mean anything to me. Having an 'absence' of a 'lack of' something seems a bit pointless as definitions go. A theist HAS a belief in God, and that's the key feature which marks it from negative atheism.

"Scales can only concern agnosticism, you can use it to delineate position where you feel it's fitting to call people atheist, theist and agnostic but it's all rather fruitless as you can't really get a scale that everyone can interpret equally. It can be useful to show the variation wider than the usual three-way option most people think of but that's about it."

Ok, well I'm glad you see it's use, if only it be a very small one. I think its worth remembering where all this sprang from. You began by basically asserting I meant something my agnosticism which I never said I did, when you wrote;

"In the way that you use the term, as more of a middle ground, non-commital term then I don't think it's as stupid as being a theist, I'd have to say it's more stupid. If you've involved yourself in arguments and if you have any idea of what it means to be human and come out the other side of a debate not only unable to form a descision properly but thinking that being finite in knowledge is something that needs to be articlulated, then I don't think you've understood the question of what you *believe*."

I've gone into a lot of boring depth about how I see agnosticism, and I still don't see that this assertion about what I meant reflects what I've been saying. I have explained that being 'finite in knowledge' is not important or a problem for my use of theism, positive atheism, negative atheism or agnosticism. I do not see that you have any real grounds for asserting agnostics more stupid than atheists or theists, if we're using what I actually mean, rather than the agnosticism you wrongly took me to mean. I still maintain that the above paragraph by you, which is centrally the source of difference between us, has not been justified. I like talking to you, but you really did put words in my mouth and expected me to go with it, which isn't at all fair.

On with the next post.

p.s. I think we should now stick to writing miniposts!

Many thanks

Ben

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 10:11:38 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Note again that the definition of agnosticism bares no resemblance to the one I used and you were supposedly criticising me for using."
I criticised your definition of 'agnosticism' because it contained elements that could be incorporated into theism and atheism therefore making for a poor distinction. I also criticised it as a useless label in the definitive given not knowledge is absolute. Wouldn't I therefore use a different definition to you?

"Also I note that the definition of gnostic - 'their belief is knowledge', has nothing to do with negative atheism - an absence of belief in God. Yet you accused me of relabelling gnosticism as negative atheism. So the criticism still makes no sense."
Who said it has anything to do with 'negative atheism'? I'm giving my basic definitions of terms and how they can interact, I have little time for restating them and confusing the matter further with tying labels to relative terms with positive/negative, weak/strong.

"Drew, the way I was using 'the labels' was really quite different. I was looking at a scale at how swayed people are by arguments for/against God's existence."
How can you do that in any way that gives you meaningful labels? Everyone is going to not only have a different scale and means of seeing the scale, imagining the labels can really start to effectively communicate doubt or confidence it futile, it's why I stick to the belief labels and even then don't assume them to be inferring absolute knowledge. This is all a fallout of your inability to read things as tentative when put in the context of atheism and theism.

"I wasn't using agnosticism as a declaration of an absence of knowledge. I'm just as aware as you are that saying 'but you can't be sure!' is not an argument for being neutral on a subject. Most atheists don't claim to be completely sure. I wasn't suggesting they do. Rather, they may find certain arguments more persuasive. This is the difference, and why it's a difference by degree rather than theist/positive atheist/agnostic being three distinct categories of person regarding how they contemplate the arguments."
If all you've done is apply doubt to the atheist position I think you are still wrong in your working assumptions, you have to extend it to theists as well and at this point it becomes useless to have a third position assuming it can comfortably take a portion of the middle ground as those employing the label 'agnostic' exclusively must do. It's hard with a label to summaries or communicate effectively how persuasive you find certain arguments, you'd have to relabel yourself at every point which is extremely impractical.

"My approach had nothing to do with 'absolute knowledge' either. Your point requires me to mean your definition of agnosticism rather than mine."
If you're approach has nothing to do with 'absolute knowledge' either then your third label of 'agnosticism' is as useless and we are using my definition of 'atheism' and 'theism' rather than yours which suggested and still implicitly suggests absolute knowledge.

"But the 'weighing up of arguments' does make it distinct from negative atheism, which doesn't necessarily involve weighing up anything - it's just an absence of belief in God. Positive atheism, like agnosticism, involves 'weighing up arguments' too , which makes it distinct from negative atheism."
Why have these prefixes of negative and positive for atheism been introduced half way into the discussion? The way you are using positive and negative atheism comes with a statement of agnosticism rephrased, and while you seem to think this keeps the term 'agnostic' relevant and distinct in the way you first used it I don't think it does. It seems an implicit way of admitting that the 'weighing up arguments' bit of your definition was not exclusive without having to admit that your original three-way labels of theism, atheism and agnosticism had one more than necessary.

"The difference between positive atheism and agnosticism is that positive atheist is more swayed by the arguments (they either find less of worth in the arguments for theism, and/or more of worth in the arguments against theism). So both 'weighing up of arguments' and 'not swayed heavily one way or the other' are important in distinguishing what I mean by agnosticism from other positions."
I still don't see how you can really know how one person is swayed more or less than another, the only reasonable basis someone might call themselves an atheist or agnostic (note how little people uses the term 'negative atheist' or 'positive atheist' to identify themselves) is that some recognise belief to be binary and that they can't and don't need to comfortably relate confidence/doubt in a label and some imagine that a lack of absolute knowledge is something to communicate or don't want the heat created by the label atheist.

"Not really. The scale is theism - agnosticism - positive atheism."
Why is atheism the position given extra definition by positive and negative distinctions? Why not extend the epistemological separations to the theistic position too?

"Negative atheism is not part of the scale, because the scale is for arguments for/against God, and negative atheism doesn't necessarily involve any engagement with any arguments at all. I suppose you could say a 3 on the scale is a 'weak' theist and a 5 is a 'weak' atheist, but I'm not especially keen on that. Someone can just as fervantly hold to their reasoning for being a 5 as someone who is a 7, so 'weak' doesn't seem an appropriate way of putting it to me."
Scales can only concern agnosticism, you can use it to delineate position where you feel it's fitting to call people atheist, theist and agnostic but it's all rather fruitless as you can't really get a scale that everyone can interpret equally. It can be useful to show the variation wider than the usual three-way option most people think of but that's about it.

"This 'absolute knowledge' theme is something foreign to me. My scale doesn't engage with 'absolute knowledge'. it neither rejects or acknowledges it - it just doesn't engage with it. I don't know how it would be incorporated. I don't mention it in any of my posts, and I can't see why my outline in the previous post would rely on it."
If you don't acknowledge it or work with it why implicitly attach it to the positions of theism and atheism and express "being unsure, and being in the process of balancing out ideas, not yet swayed one way by a large degree more than the other" for agnosticism. That definition would seem to imagine that there is absolute knowledge and that it's you that doesn't have it but atheists and theist assume themselves too, it would be a common misunderstanding.

"By 'vague, nebulous attempt' presumeabley you mean the belief the universe was intended for life."
No, I mean undefined. God is a place holder word for our ignorance, it's inserted into the equation but what it does, how it achieves it's goals are not mentioned at all.

"You seem to hold the 'carpenter' view of God that A.J also slips into."
Why not given the unsophisticated historical baggage the word brings with it? Just because we've dragged it along with science doesn't mean it's made any progress itself, the god is said to be 'the creator', 'the designer', why not 'the carpenter' too?

"Theistic evolution isn't ID - where God intervenes and tweeks things that can't unfold naturally to fit what he wants. It's the idea that God is ultimately responsible for the universe - why it is there, why it is fruitful, why it is orderly."
Theistic evolution absolutely is ID restated in teh same way ID is creationism restated. This appeal to sophistication and distinctions are red herrings which never really result in the distinctions they imagine themselves to be, we are just meant to be impressed that it doesn't contain exactly the same words! A theistic evolutionist like Paul Davidson has God working everything to his plan, involved with every moment balancing the universe and life on it's knife edge, the only difference is he doesn't have the guts or inclination to actually make the statment anymore meaningful than that and actually give his god some proper work to do.

"Evolution is a natural process, looking for God's fingers to account for gaps where it doesn't seem that nature can do it isn't what it's about at all."
Well it's is either about that or just taking over the theory wholesale while adding nothing to the end result. Either way it's testable wrong or useless, those are the only options science has left religious claims. The best they can do is satisfy themselves with 'Hey, at least you can't tell me I'm wrong!'.

"It involves 'inference to the best explanation', which is that the universe exists, is consistent and orderly, and produces living creatures capable of appreciating it, because it was meant to be."
"because it was meant to be" is not an explanation it's a further claim. Gods of any sort are no explanation, explanations add something, bring us knowledge and understanding of a process, no god added to the hypothesis has done that. They just sit there giving us a different name for our ignorance.

"But if we're going to say it's not, we need to provide something much, much better if we can assert it as 'stupid' as you do."
No we don't. I can recognise a lazy response that's not telling us anything and call it such without knowing the correct answer. this is exactly why you render yourself stupified by holding to deferencial agnosticism to these claims, you're suggesting that in the absence of a proper workable explanation that really does tell us something about the thing we seek to understand we entertain anything even the ancient hypothesis that has so far failed at every step, from volcanoes to sun rises.

"The other options, each outlined in Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma (plus one additional option noted by Lee Smolin) are all a long way from givens. So, despite various problems with it, the alternatives don't exactly show it up as being as stupid as you seem to think it is, to my mind."
Just because there are mysteries to be solved doesn't mean all hypothesise are even and unable to be adjudicated. I would suggest that it stands against a hypothesis to be out there while the thing it attempts to answer is still identified as open question. To me that should stand as a negative against it, showing it to be in a very important sense unworkable in it's current form. How much work do you see the proponants of the God hypothesis developing it, the past 2,000 years would suggest it's been an up hill struggle with them. It's the history of the idea that you forget I think is most stupid though, you do know what it is you're dealing with when you meet a theistic evolutionist don't you? In this country it will most likely be a Christian.

"The 'above' you refer to displays using a different use of the word agnosticism as if it was what I meant, asserting I mean things I never reference at all e.g. 'absolute knowledge' being central to the scale despite no need for it, claiming gnosticism has some relevance to negative atheism when it doesn't (even given your clarification on what you mean by the term), and illustrating theistic evolution as 'stupid' but actually providing a critique of ID."
You never referenced 'absolute knowledge' directly but the term agnosticism as a distinctive and idenpendent label is useless without it. I see little use for you adding positive and negative to atheism other than to introduce elements agnosticism to it without acknowledging you are redrawing the boundaries you were originally working to. Neither do I see any great distinction between theistic evolution and ID, I think the best you've done there is open up the consideration to one of cosmology and teleology rather than biology which dies give us mysteries to be more agnostic about but wasn't really the original question.

"There isn't a 'middle ground fallacy' in the scale. There's a middle ground (point 4) but that doesn't mean there's a middle ground fallacy."
This has nothing to do with the scale but with thinking the rational position is always inbetween the two percieved extremes. People labeling themselves 'agnostic' do this and those that meet thistic claims on modern scientific mysteries as if it's a new or developed idea from that which has gone before with calls for respect and balanced doubt are falling into the middle ground fallacy.

"Eh? No, nobody on the scale 'has no arguments'. The chaps sitting around the 4 mark weigh up the arguments and don't find themselves swayed heavily one way or the other. That's not the same as having no arguments to weigh up. I may have mis-understood you, I read over this sentence several times and I don't really know what you mean to be honest."
Sorry got a bit distracted with that last bit, should have proof read a little more. What I'm saying is that theistic evolution has no arguments just a very basic hypothesis that their god is the root cause of everything. They don't even pretend they should offer arguments other than to beterate anyone who supposed we could expect that thing we use to indicate accuracy of an idea: evidence. To be agnostic to this idea is totally illogical. Having made your mind up about naturalistic evolution, ID and literal scriptual creationism to then remain indifferent to a position that presumes no evidence should be reasonably expected and not see it as a total con is stupid. They identified the element that failed in the first attempt to get God into science and just removed it, you should be able to see that.

Anyway, that's long enough. I'll leave have a bit of a break before tackling the others.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 09:48:53 BDT
Sombrio says:
So why did Mr. Parker use a pen name ?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Apr 2012 09:18:31 BDT
H W says:
Most authors use a pen name because their birth name is boring, or rubbish etc.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 16:05:40 BDT
Spin says:
Jack: You use a pen-name? So you simply want cash from the sales of your book without having photographers camped on your lawn? As long as money rolls in who cares about authorship or responsibility? Using a pen-name is fine if one is an established writer and wishes to break from the genre expected of you by the public, or if one publishes something exteremely controversial which may result in threats to ones life or safety. But to use a pen-name as an alter-ego, for no reason other than to fool the reader and seperate onself from responsibility of ones work, reeks of intellectual cowardice and a materialistic disrespect for the arts. (and do not reply by naming famous authors who used pen-names. I consider them to be at fault as well).

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 15:02:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Apr 2012 15:02:57 BDT
Sombrio says:
Never heard of him. Is Hong Kong Phooey a peudonym for Jackie Chan ?

The way you so easily bandy about the names of these top Eastern thinkers like this makes me think you must be no transcendental slouch yourself ?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 14:55:09 BDT
I thought that eastern philosophy was brought here by Hong Kong Phooey...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 12:49:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Apr 2012 12:50:24 BDT
Sombrio says:
OK. I accept your judgement.

But whatever my nature,.... it doesn't affect the validity of the statement. (I think Confucius actuallly originated it. And he was one smart cookie, as you know.)

He was also the originator of the Chinese fortune cookie,.... the method by which Eastern philosophy was first introduced to the West.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 10:13:23 BDT
Only a weirdo would say that. ;-)

Posted on 1 Apr 2012 09:02:00 BDT
Sombrio says:
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 07:31:49 BDT
You took that seriously? Sheesh!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Apr 2012 07:12:48 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Then why mention it?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 23:00:16 BDT
Jack Darmend says:
if you read a book but cannot remember it and you cannot remember who the author was ?
that book has got you confused dot com NO ?
So, an author is concerned with his own celebrity , and you claim to be an author , so you should know
but I write under a fictitious name and am not concerned about my celebrity at all ,

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 22:50:35 BDT
Jack Darmend says:
that is not a Nobel prize coming up , me thinks it is your lights going out

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 19:20:10 BDT
Spin says:
Jack: Not true? So I read a book whose plot was so great I cannot remember it and was written by an author I do not remember? Hmm. I am crazier than I thought I was. (PS a writer is very different from an author. The latter is concerned with his own celebrity. The former simply expresses what has to be told,)

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 19:16:48 BDT
Jack Darmend says:
one discusses it with ordinary folk
NO such thing as ordinary folk
we are all different , I am not you and you are not me I am not ordinary but I dont know about you ,
are you ordinary ?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 19:12:04 BDT
Jack Darmend says:
Spin
I have just seen your message and I have to correct you on one point , ( THE BOOK YOU CLAIM TO HAVE NO KNOLEDGE OF }
NOT TRUE !!
I spent a great deal of time working on my book and I am not going to claim to have no knowledge of it
I am not a liar , and I am not ashamed of what I have done ,
you say you are an author , If this is so you will know that every author derives most of his idea's from his thoughts and has to let other people know what he thinks even if he uses fictitious names for his charachters

Posted on 31 Mar 2012 18:33:55 BDT
Spin says:
A thread concerning Creationism vs Science turns into personal arguments concerning the validity of selling ones opinion rather than sharing it.... Says it all really, does it not?

Posted on 31 Mar 2012 18:30:17 BDT
I've discovered time travel! Where Jack's original post used to be it says that Amazon deleted it 44 minutes ago. However, if i click on the 'an earlier post' link in my reply, it says that Amazon deleted Jack's post 6 hours ago.

Quick, call in the scientists! I feel a Nobel Prize coming on.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 18:15:37 BDT
Pendragon says:
Jack - All I know is what you yourself have written. These things I know. I stand corrected on the factual bit. Your words "this book is about TRUTH, not mythology". What is it that you say I know that I have not been told?

Whoops, looks like Amazon just deleted your original post. Welcome to your rehabilitation as a non-self publicist!

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 18:09:11 BDT
Spin says:
Jack: I do not know who you are but may I recommend something? Argue like hell about anything you want, but never advertise. As soon as you tell people that your thoughts are available for purchase, your contribution to genuine discussion is lessened. I am an author, but I do not advertise the fact. Why? Because, quite simply, who cares? If one wants to buy a book, one consults other threads. If one wants to discuss life, one discusses it with ordinary folks, not those seeking to profit. Refrain from advertising and defending your book (or the book you claim to have no knowledge of) and I have no doubt your (or their) book will sell, based only on your comments on a discussion site, not an advertisement. Think about it.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  448
Initial post:  8 Mar 2012
Latest post:  20 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions