For ToErs Eyes Only

Sorry if I seemed abrupt Crevo. Will endeavor to signal intent and reasons for in future.. FWIW... I felt and expressed we were at stalem8 too. We had gone round in circles a few times so..

You a a long way short of being the worst RR ...but don't take that as licence

Hi BenIt always looks to me like they crawled into a hole and pulled the dirt in behind them, eyes closed, hands over their ears singing la-la-la.When a poster declares that they will cling to their beliefs, regardless of facts, evidence or logic, this is a closed mind and a direct violation of rule four of the Forum
Guidelines(4.Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation).The moderator should remind them of this fact and that they agreed to the rules and must now abide by them to remain a member.That’s the easy answer, in the real world it might not be so cut and dried, however, after reading thousands of call and response posts I question the wisdom allowing posters to drone on and on with the same tired arguments.Separating the wheat from the chaff becomes a chore and some of the real scientists that do instead of talk may not consider it worth their time.Is this a debate board, or a sounding board?I know that Percy is the final arbiter, but I couldn’t resist that final flourish.

It can go much deeper than that.
When someone’ s faith is so entwined with their view of reality that the see the word only thru the eyes of belief, then to challenge that belief is to ask them to do a 180 degree turn and embrace all that they have detested and reject all they have held good. They feel you are asking them to burn the flag and spit in Mom’s apple pie.The response can be violent.

It is rare that a person's beliefs are a bunch of interchangeable modules that can be individually lifted out and replaced.As a former fundamentalist, I can attest that often a person's entire set of beliefs are intertwined and interconnected, and one cannot simply change one "small part" of her beliefs without ripping huge holes in everything else.For a Christian literalist, it is not as simple as simply believing that Genesis is literal history and then believing that Genesis is metaphor. To go from one belief to another can be the intellectual and emotional equivalent of a stroke; one is left having to learn how to move all over again.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Of course, that's why we see the turn logical backflips without a net to keep thier skein of belief intact.Not all reactions are passive; on some of the other fora, the wish to kill is often expressed.Sounds like a real Damscus experience!lolThis message has been edited by DHR, 10-20-2005 07:41 PM

Seeing some people react against clear and indisputable fact does remind me of the Star Trek episode where they blow the brains out of a super computer with the phrase, "This sentence is a lie."

But your facts are merely your interpetation of what you observe, my interpetation of what I observe is differint than yours, so I win. (waves hands, runs away)This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-20-2005 07:58 PM

Close,DHR, but no cigar. You forget the threat of whining to admin.

Is it just me or does debating with anyone with the "godidit" mindset seem a waste of time? We seem to be debating not with the interpretaion of the evidence but with debunking the fundemental mind set of the religous individual.What I mean to say is that here, we could be seen to be argueing against religious belief, not evidence. To a literalist the evidence is irrelevant. One thread I read yesterday said that no other position other than the inerracy of the bible would be taken. Period.Whats the point talking?Sorry, feeling glum.

You know, Larni, we are on the same wavelength in a LOT of matters. I wouldn't dream of entering a discussion in one of the religion forums because it is an utter waste of time IMO.

We are not debating to convert the creationists. We are debating to leave a public record for all of the inquisitive people who visit the web site. Some of them are honestly trying to reach a decision. Let's continue to help them.

I think I have to agree with you there. Living in the UK I'm quite happy to let god bother'ers while away many fruitless hours talking about their god.I feel aghast though when I see US schools argueing over whether or not to include creation. America could be a far greater source of scientific and human progress if it devoted less energy to religion and more to pushing forwards.Churning out fundies could cause a theocracy. What then? Book burning? Oops, more to say but have to go......

Sound game theory, and I agree.When I was lurking here, what most impressed me (aside from Ned's nose), was the degree of civility and calm the evolutionists maintained in the face of remarkably obfuscatory replies. I have previously demonstrated my own difficulty with matching that standard, but I'm working on it.One thing to consider: the person who continually dodges questions and spouts nonsense starts to look like someone recruiting dupes; the person who maintains an unperturbed, reasoning engagement of the evidence starts to look like the possessor of a reasonable position.That is winning.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-21-2005 01:43 PM

Was it Kipling (or Bill Cosby) who said 'It`s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game'?:-p