The Evolution of evcforum.net

Hi Nighttrain,Thanks for the previous reply. After reading this one, I had a question; not to disagree, but just to ask about what might be acceptable to you. In the same vein, I don't think you can get mutual repect with a mindset that regards believers as idiots at best and evil at worst.There's two points in saying that: first, that extreme positions will always be hard to deal with; I think the goals of the board don't necessarily have to consider extremists. Second, that both sides exhibit the same type of behavior; each has a differing position WRT reason. Taking reason over faith or faith over reason, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut necessity to choose one as "better" than the other. So, this is really where my question is. Why not "convert" the mindset to a more faith-based basis for dialog? What is it that makes you think that reason, as opposed to faith, is the better direction for discussion?Thanks again for your thoughts... sorry if I sound like I'm being obtuse.Ben

A great comment.

Well said!I'll add my two cents for what it's worth. I came to this forum primarily to try and learn about science having no academic background in the field. I find it absolutely fascinating but I can only try and conceptualize what is being said as I don't have the math to understand it in any other form.I also happen to be a Christian. I'm not YEC, nor am I a Biblical literalist, but I do believe that Christ was God incarnate and in his resurrection etc.I'm hear to learn and occasionally present my ideas and ask questions, but on this forum I continuously see my faith being compared to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc. It seems to me that ridiculing people's most fundamental beliefs is hardly reasoned argument. It is rude, and if it wasn't for the fact that I can read the posts of people like cavediver, (even if I can only understand miniscule bits of his posts), I wouldn't stick around.I fully understand why you lose people like Faith and other Christians.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Sorry about that.

For the historical perspective:The "Proposed New Topics" forum came into existence on 4/13/04 (or 13/4/05, if you don't like the damn American notation). It started in April 2004. Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters... is the topic that triggered the Proposed New Topics idea. How do you all feel about the new posting rules? is the follow up discussion topic.For the admins only, there is the My 'New new topic control measures' proposal topic.Adminnemooseus

It is rude. I think it is a smallish percentaage of people that engage in such behavior. Knowing a bit about what some Christians have put some people through I can understand some of the nastiness however. I hope that the individuals doing it will grow up a bit over time.Meanwhile, I've been condemmed to eternal torment and am grouped in with all kinds of truely evil folk because I don't happen to go along with some of the beliefs of some of our visitors. For some reason I don't find that to be a particular problem nor does it make me want to leave. I don't know why a bit or rudeness is so hard to take.

I am one of those that more often than not compare any religious belief with the belief in santa claus and tooth fairy. While I can't say that I empathize with how you feel, I have to say that such a comparason is often not meant to ridicule. It is there to point out the obvious fallacy that some christians (and sometimes people of other worldly faiths) try to pass their faith-based "facts" as real world facts.If you're going to say something like 'god saves', why not say 'Ra shines'?I don't think it's necessary/fair for you to take offense in that. You choose to believe in the christian faith, and you have every right to do so. People like me choose to see Jesus=Ra=Santa=unicorn=etc., and we have every right to do so.

What is rude is taking the attitude that your "most fundamental belief" is more important or valid than somebody else's "most fundamental belief". Who are you to decide that a belief in God/Jesus is more acceptable than a belief in Santa Claus? (Don't get me started on the tooth fairy - there hasn't been a red cent under my pillow in years.) In most cases, I don't think it is the beliefs themselves that are being "ridiculed". Young-earth creationism is a ridiculous position to take, by any reasoned argument. If people set up their god as a YEC god, then they are bringing ridicule on themselves. I, for one, don't consider Faith a "loss". She shoved her brand of "Christianity" in everybody's face and then whined the paint off the walls if anybody dared to disagree with her. If there ever was a poster child for rudeness, it was Faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

And on the exact other side of the coin, I don't understand the rationale that, unlike all other stupid ideas, stupid ideas about something called "God" are to be granted the deepest respect and deference. Why are religious ideas priviledged?We all laugh when people talk about pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters, because those are silly things to believe in. I don't see why beliefs about God are supposed to be considered any less silly simply because the people who promulgate those ideas are, hilariously, totally serious about them.Why is your brand of bullshit so much more special than any other bullshit? I don't get it.

Well, it partly depends on what kind of "debate" you want to have.I don't suppose you "have" to show any deference at all. I mean, if you see nothing at all offensive with comparing God to "spaghetti monsters" it's fine as long as the owners of the board are okay with it.Just don't be surprised when Creationists get really scarce.Oh, wait a second...This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 06:03 PM

I'll try to answer all the replys to my post briefly in this one post. This is my point. Where have I indicated that my "most fundamental belief is more important than yours. Of course I think I'm right, as you believe you are. Frankly I also recognize that I am undoubtedly wrong in some of my beliefs as we all are.This quote is an example of what I'm talking about. He has accused me of having a position that I don't hold, nor have I given any indication of holding such a position. If he wants to believe in Santa then he has every right to; just as I have a right to my beliefs. His belief in Santa is as acceptable as my belief in Christ but it doesn't mean that we're both right, or both wrong for that matter.As I pointed out, I'm not YEC and I'm not a Biblical literalist. There are a majority on this forum who take science as the only source of knowledge and there are those who say that a literal translation of the Bible always trumps science. Personally I have to try and balance the two off against each other. Simply put, I look to science to find out about the physical world, and I look to the Bible and other sources to discern what lies beyond the physical.That is all off topic, but I just want to be clear on my own position.The point was raised that Biblical literalists and YEC types don't last long on this forum. I was trying to point out why. Ned commented on how some Christians are condemning of those who don't share their faith. I don't share that point of view but they aren't ridiculing what it is that Atheists believe. They are only advising you of what they believe are the consequences of your decisions. Comparing my beliefs to believing in Santa or the tooth fairy is said intentionally to demean and ridicule.I'm only giving an opinion on why I believe that there are so few Biblical literalists or Christians in general left on this forum.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I rest my case.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

And you just proved mine.

A delusional person who was absolutely convinced that they were the historical Napoleon might also be offended when we tell him that he's wrong.What nobody can seem to explain to me is why it's ok, why it's considered no big deal, to point out that Napoleon-guy's beliefs are delusions and rather silly ones at that; but the equally silly beliefs of theists are off-limits. I don't understand the inconsistency.

quote:

---

A delusional person who was absolutely convinced that they were the historical Napoleon might also be offended when we tell him that he's wrong.

---

And you're absolutely correct on that point, Crashfrog.The question I asked, though, is do you want there to be Napoleon-imitators around to argue with? Or not?I mean, if your only purpose is to see how many of them you can piss off in a given period of time, this kind of behavior makes great sense.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-03-2005 06:23 PM