MrStakhanovite wrote:beefcalf wrote:That's the general conclusion I've arrived at, as well.
I would not parse this conversation through marg, she’s way too far out of her element to do much but make bad points.
Fact is you couldn’t defend your scientific worldview for squat. You provided no way to parse one theory from another, and basically conceded you couldn’t. The only thing you’ve managed to do is the tired old apologist tactic, “Well I can’t really make coherent sense of Church doctrine, but by golly, the Church has survived, helped millions of people and flourished, so it must be true.”
Oh, and you complained about the value of logic, using a complex string of symbols governed by logical rules. Good job sport!
beefcalf wrote:Do you realize how much more effective you would be at persuading people to see things the way you see them if you weren't always trying so hard to be a jerk?
Dude, people disagree with each other. How many ad hominems have you hurled at Seth and Chap and me simply because we see things differently? 'Sport', 'Dawkfag', 'midgets in the LDS Lollipop guild'.
You know what would make MDB a little better? If Stak and his nasty attitude took a hike.
You know what would make MDB a lot better? If Stak stuck around and used his knowledge of logic and philosophy to expand our collective understanding, and tossed the nasty attitude out the window.
Just sayin'
Mr. S. is quite intelligent enough to know that he is unlikely to persuade his opponents by abusing them.
One can only conclude, therefore, that his habitual mode of expression is chosen to satisfy other needs more important to him than winning assent.