Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

Nope, he expressedly said that instead of RNA being the precursor, something like PNA was instead.

We're splitting hairs here - we're making the same point, that he thinks that there was something before RNA. He isn't necessarily right anyway - as his reasoning is that RNA wouldn't form in pre-biotic conditions - something recent findings disagree with.

Are you referring to the polio-causing virus created in a NY lab from *ahem* DNA? Where they took DNA, broke it down to RNA, and in the same chemicals where RNA does it's thing, they got copies of RNA packaged into shells? It's an awesome experiment on how you can replicate what RNA does currently in organisms, but tells you NOTHING about the pre-biotic world. You still need the existing RNA for it (which breaks down so they had to use DNA), and you end up with a virus that NEEDS a host to survive, Where was the host back then even IF this scenario was possible?

What sentence made you think I was referring to this? Serious question, as I don't know about this experiment and I don't know how I would have referenced it.

Based on every new experiment, we can just leave your assertion at "we are continuously... challenging our ideas".

You wish . With all these experiments, we've seen the plausibility of life from non-life rise. Heck, that TED talk video I always show - where they throw some random shit together and it acts lifelike. That alone is amazing.

I keep banging on this drum, and I know you've watched it Sanky - but for everyone else please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

 

[Pollux]

FFS, I went to a Catholic high school and even they had the good sense to teach evolution in Science classes.

Me too.

 

[MJLord]

Surely it comes under religous studies already ? At least thats what happens in the UK

 

[genjiZERO]

]

2. Again, you are packaging a particular philosophical conception of science and selling it as The Scientific Method. With one hand you are pushing forward the view that you don't believe philosophy of science has any bearing on you as a scientist, and on the other you are pushing a philosophical conception of science and declaring it to be 'non philosophical'.

3. And this is precisely what I mean -- falsifiability was not a concern of scientists until after Popper wrote about it. You are presenting it as some kind of philosophy-neutral description of scientific process, when in fact it's just a repackaged conception of science attributable to a philosopher. A view that has become particularly prevalent self-image among scientists themselves, but still not an actual description of the way science has been done and continues to be done. And if you think 'well I work in a lab so I know what it's like and it's definitely like I say it is'--it might be somewhat like that for you. For every 10,000 biologists sitting in a lab running repeats of experiments to gather data, there's an Einstein tucked away in a study somewhere uncovering insights about spacetime without running a single experiment, and science accomodates both.

For example, before falsificationism was popular, there was a view of science, called conventionalism, that asserted that particular hypotheses were in fact not tested at all in science, because they were conventions selected by scientists and not properly speaking empirical hypotheses. This was a philosophical conception put forward by a scientist, Henri Poincaré. Poincaré would have denied that the spirit of science is putting forward empirical hypotheses capable of falsification (as would, I suspect, most scientists prior to the 1930s).

Moreover, scientists have not historically been that great at judging what they do. Newton, for example, claimed he arrived at his mechanics by a process of induction from Kepler's laws. It didn't take very long for his contemporaries to point out that such a feat is impossible.

As for dismissing Galileo, Newton, Darwin etc. as not being scientists: at least you're consistent!

2. I'm not saying it has no bearing. I'm saying that as a scientist it's unnecessary to dive into it.

3. In the year 2012 falsifiability and empiricism are the only things scientists are concerned with. Why? Because it's objective. The 1930s is the Stone Age in comparison to what we are able to do and know now. They didn't even have the structure of DNA, now considered one of the most elementary concepts in biology. In contemporary times if you aren't doing research you aren't doing science.

You keep mentioning Einstein, but he's a special case because he was both a mathematician and a physicist. Most accurately he's a "theoretical physicist" - the people who try to glue together empiricism and the overarching theory. Of course their work is extremely important, but very often it's imprecise. Einstein's work was imprecise. Quantum mechanics seems to be undermining Special Relativity. Theoretical physicists are often the celebrities of the scientific world, but their work is often unnecessary for much scientific work (the biggest exception being thermodynamics). As a biologist the only time I've ever used anything Einstein has ever done was when I answered a question about Special Relativity on a physics II exam. I can't imagine chemists needing to use it either. Probably not even physicists who are looking at anything under the galactic level...

A better example (arguing your perspective) would have been Francis Crick. Crick not only helped model DNA, he also contributed to the "Central Dogma", and helped discover codons. Later in his career (1976) he started doing more philosophical work like "what is consciousness?" (his book The Astonishing Hypothesis is a very good Philosophy of Science book if you have not yet read it). But again, it's not his philosophical musings that are important to the field it's the decades of critical primary research he did.

Again, a lot of those "historical scientists" don't meet contemporary standards. Maybe their work was the most rigorous that was possible at their time, but it's not now. There's a reason that falsifiability and empiricism has become the standard of science - because it's shown to be the most accurate at doing all that scientists want to do - make neutral statements about how processes in nature work. Those prior methodologies did not survive because they were less precise in doing that.

The works of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc. are wonderful and clearly created science. Biology is essentially a field entirely dedicated to testing evolution... but that doesn't make Darwin a biologist. Jesus created Christianity, but wasn't a Christian himself. In light of the realities of contemporary scientific practices and standards these people are more properly proto-scientists or the forefathers of science.

 

[Sanky Panky]

What sentence made you think I was referring to this? Serious question, as I don't know about this experiment and I don't know how I would have referenced it.

Link me the experiments then, or is it mainly from the TEDTalk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

I feel that relaxing the definitions of life DOES NOTHING to help us understand the origin of information in life (DNA), which is the basis of life.

A drop of oil in water has a body, moves if I shake it, and can split itself if I apply enough force. Is a drop of oil life? A drop of some chemical, will react with chemicals in its environment due to simple molecules reacting with other molecules. Molecules will bind, molecules will break apart, all mechanically. Movement can be created by a molecule binding with other molecules in a domino effect, or like magnets.

THIS IS NOT LIFE, and it doesn't help abiogenesis to lower standards in order to accommodate itself to the many challenges it currently faces. They can't create complex molecules, they can't create information, they can't replicate DNA, so they have to lower the bar. This is quite the opposite of progress IMO.

 

[twobear]

genjiZERO: Without wanting to be rude, I don't think that very much of what you've said characterising science is true at all, but I have a shitload of work to do at the moment so I cant really reply properly. If I have a chance I'll reply another time or PM you.

 

[genjiZERO]

genjiZERO: Without wanting to be rude, I don't think that very much of what you've said characterising science is true at all, but I have a shitload of work to do at the moment so I cant really reply properly. If I have a chance I'll reply another time or PM you.

It's all good. I think we're at an intellectual impasse anyway. I think science should be narrowly defined and you think it should be more broadly defined. Because it's an abstract idea it's ultimately an arbitrary distinction regardless. I'm fine with shaking hands and walking away. Plus it takes an hour to write a response. I've got loads of things to do too. Cheers

 

[Kinitari]

Link me the experiments then, or is it mainly from the TEDTalk?

I feel that relaxing the definitions of life DOES NOTHING to help us understand the origin of information in life (DNA), which is the basis of life.

A drop of oil in water has a body, moves if I shake it, and can split itself if I apply enough force. Is a drop of oil life? A drop of some chemical, will react with chemicals in its environment due to simple molecules reacting with other molecules. Molecules will bind, molecules will break apart, all mechanically. Movement can be created by a molecule binding with other molecules in a domino effect, or like magnets.

THIS IS NOT LIFE, and it doesn't help abiogenesis to lower standards in order to accommodate itself to the many challenges it currently faces. They can't create complex molecules, they can't create information, they can't replicate DNA, so they have to lower the bar. This is quite the opposite of progress IMO.

I -really- don't want to get into it - but you are being disingenuous. It's obvious why people are arguing over the definition of life - because the definition is arguable. Pinning it down is an essential step to understanding what would be viable research. I don't really get why trying to define what life is makes you so... worked up. It's an obvious and important aspect of Abiogenesis research, and it is separate from duplicating DNA or the like (which really isn't all that important in Abiogenesis research anyway).

And your oil example is nowhere near as complex as the ones shown - again, being disingenuous. These procells do almost everything a living organism would do - take in energy, move around, replicate, leave 'waste' etc etc etc.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I -really- don't want to get into it - but you are being disingenuous. It's obvious why people are arguing over the definition of life - because the definition is arguable. Pinning it down is an essential step to understanding what would be viable research. I don't really get why trying to define what life is makes you so... worked up. It's an obvious and important aspect of Abiogenesis research, and it is separate from duplicating DNA or the like (which really isn't all that important in Abiogenesis research anyway).

It's ok if you want to have philosophical debates as to what life is, as long as you recognize WHY they have to turn to this. They have to turn to this BECAUSE abiogenesis is unable to explain how life with DNA came about, so they have to lower the pole to trying to explain how quasi-life came about, and even then they have to manipulate chemicals to force them to behave a certain way that "looks" like life. This would advance our understanding if they even had a mechanism for going from quasi-life to life with DNA. They are still at square zero on that one.

And your oil example is nowhere near as complex as the ones shown - again, being disingenuous. These procells do almost everything a living organism would do - take in energy, move around, replicate, leave 'waste' etc etc etc.

Sure, I forgot to add enzymes into the oil to make them behave how I expect enzymes to behave. That's what they did. It's still drops of chemicals mechanically reacting to other chemicals.

I don't get worked up over the definition of life. I just want to account for all the aspects of life that abiogenesis is unable to explain at all.

 

[Leeroy3101]

Do they only plan on having the Judeo-Christian type of ID being taught? I hope they understand they'll have to cover many of the bases to not violate separation of church and state laws.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Do they only plan on having the Judeo-Christian type of ID being taught? I hope they understand they'll have to cover many of the bases to not violate separation of church and state laws.

ID doesn't get into the nature of the designer beyond a few necessary attributes that almost all monotheistic religions share.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do they only plan on having the Judeo-Christian type of ID being taught? I hope they understand they'll have to cover many of the bases to not violate separation of church and state laws.

Article makes it sound like straight-up creationism, not creationism in science's clothing (ID).

 

[Necromanti]

ID doesn't get into the nature of the designer beyond a few necessary attributes that almost all monotheistic religions share.

Not all religions are monotheistic.

 

[Mario]

It's ok if you want to have philosophical debates as to what life is, as long as you recognize WHY they have to turn to this. They have to turn to this BECAUSE abiogenesis is unable to explain how life with DNA came about, so they have to lower the pole to trying to explain how quasi-life came about, and even then they have to manipulate chemicals to force them to behave a certain way that "looks" like life. This would advance our understanding if they even had a mechanism for going from quasi-life to life with DNA. They are still at square zero on that one.

I think you are putting forward a somewhat cynical view that the traditional definition of life is being challenged merely for scientists in the field to achieve some sort of credibility and to "fit the data". The traditional view of what is and isn't life is being challenged because it would appear that there are shades of grey and that there are steps between explicitly non life elements and "life" in the traditional sense.

Knowing what was and wasn't alive was previously an easy thing when taking a macro view of the world from a human standpoint. There are things that grow and have agency, and we are attuned to such things in order to promote our own survival through sustenance and protection.

But the world is turning out to be not so black and white, and the notion that somehow some dirt gets struck by lightning and turns into something wriggling around is no longer the "alternative" explanation. There appear to be multiple stages, happening at the microscopic level, that are difficult for humans to relate to in our every day world.

The definition of life needs to be amended because it turns out to be a more complex categorisation task than what was originally the case when the word was established.

I just want to account for all the aspects of life that abiogenesis is unable to explain at all.

The overarching theory of abiogenesis is attempting to explain a natural process to go from a state of non life to "life". Evolution explains the current manifestation of "life as we know it". Between the two of them, as complete theories, they would explain everything you are looking for. There are many gaps and unanswered questions to resolve, but forward progress is being made. Just because there is currently no "end to end" solution here right now does not invalidate the field, and it certainly does not give any support to a supernatural explanation.

 

[Kinitari]

I appreciate you taking up threw mantle Mario, I don't have the energy for it, me and sanky can get... Really into our conversions, hours will pass.

Just wasn't to add one thing Sanky - you can't expect to say something like "obviously scientists all realize abiogenesis is bull, and that's why this definition of life is being debated" and expect people to take that seriously! It's not surprising that scientists still try to pin it down - and it doesn't mean that they'll stop trying to find all the stepping stones between non life and multicellular organisms if they start classifying protocells as living.

 

[Cyan]

I do appreciate that Sanky at least attacks the relevant field/theory, rather than pulling the Hume card and trying to attack the entire edifice of science at its very foundation because he doesn't like one of the parapets.

 

[ZAK]

It's still drops of chemicals mechanically reacting to other chemicals.

Is there anything going on inside any organism other than chemicals reacting to each other?

 

[Sanky Panky]

I think you are putting forward a somewhat cynical view that the traditional definition of life is being challenged merely for scientists in the field to achieve some sort of credibility and to "fit the data". The traditional view of what is and isn't life is being challenged because it would appear that there are shades of grey and that there are steps between explicitly non life elements and "life" in the traditional sense.

They are being subjective in their definition of life because they need a plausible middle point, since the leap from inorganic to living seems so out of reach based on experiments. They subjectively attribute a body, movement, and splitting to something being "life-like", based on subjective human perception of what we see alive things doing. The key missing ingredient is what ALL life has in common, which is the transfer and interpretation of information contained in DNA. Life is self-sustainable with the right nutrients around it, because of this. Life has the built in machinery to sustain itself.

A virus, for example, is not alive. it's a carrier of information, that attaches itself to living things and contaminates the information. A drop of oil that moves and reacts to other chemicals is just as inorganic as a drop of oil in water. It's fun to watch it move when injected with enzymes, but it is just as inorganic as before. This is not even a middle step that would eventually yield genetic information. How to yield genetic information is what truly puzzles abiogenesis.

The definition of life needs to be amended because it turns out to be a more complex categorisation task than what was originally the case when the word was established.

I disagree. A key attribute of life is sustainability through the interpretation of genetic information. You can't simply apply physical attributes of the living to a non-living thing, and call it almost alive. How do robots fit into your definition of life? It looks like a living thing, it moves like a living thing, it is a living thing? is it a middle stage that could eventually yield life?

Just because there is currently no "end to end" solution here right now does not invalidate the field, and it certainly does not give any support to a supernatural explanation.

Unless our understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics change dramatically, including the reformulation of natural laws, I'll stick to the logic "X does not happen, therefore Y".

 

[ElFly]

They are being subjective in their definition of life because they need a plausible middle point, since the leap from inorganic to living seems so out of reach based on experiments. They subjectively attribute a body, movement, and splitting to something being "life-like", based on subjective human perception of what we see alive things doing. The key missing ingredient is what ALL life has in common, which is the transfer and interpretation of information contained in DNA. Life is self-sustainable with the right nutrients around it, because of this. Life has the built in machinery to sustain itself.

I disagree. A key attribute of life is sustainability through the interpretation of genetic information. You can't simply apply physical attributes of the living to a non-living thing, and call it almost alive. How do robots fit into your definition of life? It looks like a living thing, it moves like a living thing, it is a living thing? is it a middle stage that could eventually yield life?

Unless our understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics change dramatically, including the reformulation of natural laws, I'll stick to the logic "X does not happen, therefore Y".

Just because we have an incomplete knowledge of how life started right now does not mean we have to abandon the field, though.

You are demanding full answers from something people are still researching and pointing at their work-in-progress-ness as proof that the whole thing is a sham.

It's a silly position. Have patience or come up with a better testable hypothesis.

A virus, for example, is not alive. it's a carrier of information, that attaches itself to living things and contaminates the information. A drop of oil that moves and reacts to other chemicals is just as inorganic as a drop of oil in water. It's fun to watch it move when injected with enzymes, but it is just as inorganic as before. This is not even a middle step that would eventually yield genetic information. How to yield genetic information is what truly puzzles abiogenesis.

Eeeh, a virus is on the limit of what is alive, and the question is largely philosophical unless you are experimenting to create virus from a primordial soup or something. Is a spermatozoon alive? The virus needs other organisms to reproduce but so do many other life forms.

 

[Orayn]

Just because we have an incomplete knowledge of how life started right now does not mean we have to abandon the field, though.

You are demanding full answers from something people are still researching and pointing at their work-in-progress-ness as proof that the whole thing is a sham.

It's a silly position. Have patience or come up with a better testable explanation.

This, to me, is pretty much the only thing wrong with Sanky's reasoning. He's clearly scientifically inclined and pretty damn sharp, but he has certain hang-ups that he'll argue to the death because he's convinced that certain things are absolutely impossible.

 

[ruttyboy]

I disagree. A key attribute of life is sustainability through the interpretation of genetic information. You can't simply apply physical attributes of the living to a non-living thing, and call it almost alive. How do robots fit into your definition of life? It looks like a living thing, it moves like a living thing, it is a living thing? is it a middle stage that could eventually yield life?

So, does God have DNA? If not, you know that means God is dead right?

Unless our understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics change dramatically, including the reformulation of natural laws, I'll stick to the logic "X does not happen, therefore Y".

Nothing wrong with the logic, the problem is that you are excluding a billion 'Y's in favour of one you've already decided on.

Rather than get into an argument about abiogenesis, can I ask why you put so much faith in the scientific process when (according to you) it disproves things you disagree with, but aren't prepared to accept the same methodology when it looks like it might show you were wrong?

 

[JGS]

The most inexplicable part of these threads (and it happens whenever JGS is in a thread that mentions (even off-hand) abiogenesis) is how violently against the concept he is. It's like abiogenesis owes him some large sum of money and we're all saying it's fiscally responsible.

My question is wtf did abiogenesis ever do to warrant such a reaction from JGS?

Lol, I'm not violently against the concept at all. It is what it is. The only time I ever mention my disbelief in abiogenesis is when it is contrasted with my whacky belief in God. If that makes me violently against it, that says more about your view of questioning it than it does my disbelief.

My argument is always the same - if abiogenesis was indeed more credible, it would be self evident. It's not. It's simply a belief that garners as much support in the scientific community as a creator does in the non-scientific world. All the threads where this pops up (Again, only in the religion vs. atheist type threads) involve ones stating which one they believe.

If belief in a creator means automatically violent opposition to abiogenesis and the idiotic notion of "for us or against us/all or nothing" mentalitity that atheists seem to have with with that unproven/unproveable concept, then I guess I'm violent & I'm a risk to all you hold dear. On the other hand, if rational thought wins out and one can make the fairly easy conclusion that a person does not have to accept abiogenesis even as the scientific community embraces it, then it's easy to see this is just a disagreement where neither side has reason to accept the other's position on the matter.

 

[Measley]

Religion has no place in a science class.

Reminds me of people going to see doctors who try to "pray the disease away".

 

[jaxword]

Reminds me of people going to see doctors who try to "pray the disease away".

This should be allowed.

 

[marrec]

Lol, I'm not violently against the concept at all. It is what it is. The only time I ever mention my disbelief in abiogenesis is when it is contrasted with my whacky belief in God. If that makes me violently against it, that says more about your view of questioning it than it does my disbelief.

My argument is always the same - if abiogenesis was indeed more credible, it would be self evident. It's not. It's simply a belief that garners as much support in the scientific community as a creator does in the non-scientific world. All the threads where this pops up (Again, only in the religion vs. atheist type threads) involve ones stating which one they believe.

If belief in a creator means automatically violent opposition to abiogenesis and the idiotic notion of "for us or against us/all or nothing" mentalitity that atheists seem to have with with that unproven/unproveable concept, then I guess I'm violent & I'm a risk to all you hold dear. On the other hand, if rational thought wins out and one can make the fairly easy conclusion that a person does not have to accept abiogenesis even as the scientific community embraces it, then it's easy to see this is just a disagreement where neither side has reason to accept the other's position on the matter.

This is where we disconnect JGS. Up until that point you were making perfect sense. I'm not going to open this argument again because I know exactly where it will end up. How about this though, the teaching of abiogenesis theories and experiments is just another way of teaching the principles of science. Its not comparable to a belief in God because there is nothing to teach there, especially in a science class.

 

[CornBurrito]

This should be allowed.

Should people be allowed to take their children to prayer healing sessions for serious diseases in lieu of scientifically based treatment?

edit: Hmm that's a bit off-topic. Maybe I should start a new thread for it.

 

[JGS]

This is where we disconnect JGS. Up until that point you were making perfect sense. I'm not going to open this argument again because I know exactly where it will end up. How about this though, the teaching of abiogenesis theories and experiments is just another way of teaching the principles of science. Its not comparable to a belief in God because there is nothing to teach there, especially in a science class.

There's nothing to "teach" with abiogenesis. It's so slight a concept that you couldn't even brand it a religious thought. It is simply a starting point- nothing more, nothing less.

I can't grasp why you can't accept what scientist already accept regarding this. The only difference between me and them is the belief aspect of it. There is literally no reason for me to believe it other than peer pressure.

I have never said that creation should be taught in science class as there are way too many interpretations of it. I don't think this law is a particularly big deal but I would opose any law that actualy required it's teaching.

Although I don't believe that how life started should be a scientific teaching at all since no one really knows, I accept that abiogenesis is a mainstay in the science class and if there has to be a beginning taught, I think it's a better base for science since creation is open to so many viewpoints. I also realize that it doesn't hold much weight after that.

 

[marrec]

There's nothing to "teach" with abiogenesis. It's so slight a concept that you couldn't even brand it a religious thought. It is simply a starting point- nothing more, nothing less.

I can't grasp why you can't accept what scientist already accept regarding this. The only difference between me and them is the belief aspect of it. There is literally no reason for me to believe it other than peer pressure.

I have never said that creation should be taught in science class as there are way too many interpretations of it. I don't think this law is a particularly big deal but I would opose any law that actualy required it's teaching.

Although I don't believe that how life started should be a scientific teaching at all since no one really knows, I accept that abiogenesis is a mainstay in the science class and if there has to be a beginning taught, I think it's a better base for science since creation is open to so many viewpoints. I also realize that it doesn't hold much weight after that.

Then we've come to some kind of agreement, even if the depth of the agreement is rather shallow.

Maybe we should talk about the law itself now? :lol

 

[jaxword]

Should people be allowed to take their children to prayer healing sessions for serious diseases in lieu of scientifically based treatment?

If adults want to destroy their own health for whatever magical powers they think they have, they should have every right to.

Now, with children...that's a slightly different matter and far more complex.

 

[JGS]

First off, sorry for mssing this. Dude was kind enough to link but not without saying I was scared to respond. I honestly didn't know it was there and our conversation was fairly complete. Honestly, I feel quite silly replying so late, but since my [fake] honor was challenged twice abut this post, I'll go ahead and reply and hope you don't actually care lol.

I have to be honest. You have an incredible reputation--one of the most unanimous reputations I have ever seen on GAF--of being disingenuous. You've got a negative tag over your reputation from some admin (I have no idea who, long before my time I'd assume). People have stated it in this thread, in response to nothing--you literally have posters spontaneously announcing that you're not worth talking to because of your reputation. marrec is making this claim about you right now, just a few posts above. Clearly your reputation distracts from conversation in the thread.

I agree that the reputation distracts anytime a conversation about religion, abiogenesis, & nothing else in particular comes up. However, I think the reputation is largely unwarranted. The way it normally goes and there's not much I can do about it outside of actually agreeing with statements I don't agree with. It also comes up when the replyer misunderstands something that I stated.

However, because the conversations are primarily about religion, the perception received is inconsequential. I know the demographics of the place and although I agree with most on most things, religion will always be an all or nothin proposition on this board.

The perception is that you enter a thread, you make a claim (often of the form "[[some] liberals/atheists] are incorrect in <x> way."), and when called on your claim, you rejigger your claim and say "That's not what I meant, this is what I meant" or do not reply at all--effectively, being slippery or coy or evasive or disingenuous.

I dind't rejigger anything in the slightest and this why I think many on the board could be just as disingenuous. If you think I "rejiggered" my response to you, it would be wise to explain why instead of accusing me.

This kind of proves my point that the reputation is unearned. Never said anything about liberals (Gaf is the only group that ever consider me less than liberal in my views) but your brain puts it in there. This is why when I challenge no one seems to be able to find a quote to the contrary. Instead they twist a reply to match what they think.

It's similar to how I always have to say I believe evolution because I inevitably am perceived to be a YEC just because i believe in God. Your example is the most basic form of disagreeing on the board and I say more than most, probably more than I should, but it's always to the point.

It gets more vague as I am required to narrow my view because my view simply isn't that narrow. You can't make me do something I can't do which is exactly why I could expoind anymore than what I said to you. There was no where else to go. Do like you do for everyone else and take their one post at face value. If it's a troll (It might be a troll sionce I never grasped what that is), ban me. If it's not but stupid, ignore it.

Now, imagine that after hearing of your reputation, someone enters this thread.[/QUOTE]I want to make this pretty clear though. The perception does not concern me. I am on Gaf and I speak what I speak because I'm pretty confident in what I say. I tend to be respectful of other posters until they insult me. I've barely raised my text voice at all in this thread and don't intend to. So where does the accusations of being disingenous spark from?

What they see is:
- You make a claim of the form "some atheists are incorrect in <x> way"
- I respond to it asking you something to substantiate it.
- You reply that I have misinterpreted your claim and restate it in a different way
- I apologize for reading your claim incorrectly, do my best to assess it again, and I ask if I have read your claim correctly this time. I go out of my way to make sure I am reading your claim correctly BEFORE I actually discuss whether or not I agree with it.
- You reply saying "I said what I meant" and "Be my guest to read more into it thought", essentially making it impossible for me to discuss your claim with you because you won't confirm whether or not I understand the claim to begin with.

Imagine yourself as this third party reader who has never seen you post, but knows you by reputation. And they enter this thread. Do you think they'd be likely to agree with the description I posted above of your reputation, or disagree with it, based on how you've presented yourself?

Again, the reputation part isn't an a real issue. Even with Mods, it's not an issue because all you have to do is ban me and it can be entirely on wrong headed perception of my personality. You would be wrong but there would be nothigng i could do about it.

In regards to you actual post, I think you're being a bit unfair. I made a pretty clear cut statement, you misinterpretted it, & then you expect me to re-explain what i already said. Why should that be an expectation? I have no reason to evade anything unless it's to avoid trolling. i said what i meant and if you need further clarification, ask in a way doesn't imply your view was the corect one. Otherwise, why should I spend more time on it?

I assume you do not intend to come off as disingenuous or coy or evasive or trolling. So it's obviously a case where people aren't fairly perceiving the real you. That's OK, it happens to me sometimes, and it can be really frustrating. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here--why do you think people feel you are like this? How do you think people should read your posts differently to come to a different conclusion about you? What kind of tone and what kind of words should people use when they're responding with you to get what they consider is a more satisfying discussion out of things?

You are correct. I am not disingenuous. I speak my mind pretty clearly and there's nothing duplicitous about the answers. Since I never am disingenuous, I never think I am disingenuous and so how I come off is how i come off.

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. I just feel like I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and you're really not helping me and I have no idea what else I can possibly do at this point to try to empathize with your perspective in conversations or when trying to moderate a thread.

I never have an issue with replying unless I'm angry which is rare nowadays. What I don't do is backtrack to see how many replies I have. If it's important enough, let me know. I assume most things are never that important. Bottom line is I will say things as I like to. I'm not interested in being given benefit of the doubt although I do appreciate it. If people want to take time to figure out a double meaning to something I stated, that's their time to kill.

Otherwise, I am so predictable as to know what I'll say on a particular thread. I'm a broken record. there's nothing new to see and the replies I make have been the same replies I've made since I got here. If that's yours or others definition of disingenuos, not much I can do about it until you (As the Mod Collective) do something about it. It's not like I look forward to religion bashing threads and dismissing that retaliation as garbage, but everyone knows I'll do it most times. Otherwise, I'll say whatever I feel like until the rules of the board change to not allow me to do so. It's only my reputation that's sullied in the process and I can live with that. I've been all this time.