Change in Moderation?

berberry,Note that I never said anything about topics being banned. That's not my decision to make. My conflation of the subjects of homosexuality, abortion, and racism was just to illustrate my point: these issues involve complex philosophy and deserve more nuanced and committed discussion than what they've historically received here at EvC. Discussing subjects like DNA and geology with someone who's unfamiliar with scientific theory is amusing, but perhaps educational. Engaging someone you know is an inflexible fundie in debate over such emotionally-charged issues over and over again is a sign that neither of you know when it's time to quit.Your response accuses me of siding with the fundie, ignoring the urgent need for dialogue, discriminating against gays, etc. etc. I don't think I deserve this. If you can't approach this matter with more objectivity, then you're proving my point.Adminssimo Hambre

quote:

---

Lam repeatedly tries to maintain his threads as Biblically-oriented, so at least the originator is attempting to maintain a Biblical context. Likewise, homosexuality seems to intuitively fly in the face of evolution, and thus the biology of homosexuality has produced some rather interesting (and educational) discussion.

---

You're talking about two completely different things here.Examining the cultural context, genetic basis, or psychology of certain phenomena is a far cry from poring over the Bible and trying to locate passages that support your position. I'm not a believer, and I don't honestly give two shits what someone can make the Bible say about species evolution, homosexuality, swearing, masturbation, cotton-wool clothing, or anything else. I deplore the fact that fundies have made the Bible part of every discussion, as if we're supposed to apply the wisdom of ancient xenophobic nomads to contemporary issues they couldn't conceivably understand. More to the point, I find it reprehensible that non-believers initiate discussions on Biblical literalism (thereby validating use of the Bible as a basis for societal discourse) and then act surprised when the fundies cling to their cherished myths.Note that Lam even started this thread by pointing out Bible passages that condemn homosexuality. He started this thread by asking for Biblical support as well. No talk of civil rights precedents, the 14th amendment, or any other matter that modern citizens see as relevant to the debate. This makes it clear that the debate has to be centered on the Bible, what we interpret the Bible to say, and the importance of Biblical exegesis to contemporary society. The subject under discussion becomes superfluous, and it becomes a shit-flinging match between two camps determined to paint the other as evil. I assert that this strategy is only intended to welcome abuse from the fundies, and allow anyone with a smidgen of tolerance to ridicule them for fanatical adherence to the Biblical tenets that we already expect fundies to accept blindly.I didn't get involved in those threads, and I'm not going to ban any discussions. However, let's not pretend those debates were rational examinations of the issue of sexual identity, or of the tolerance that a free society demands. I don't appreciate being painted as a discriminator and a homophobe for pointing out that Biblical discussions have jack shit to do with contemporary realities. If you want to talk about the real world, fine.Adminssimo Hambre

mike the wiz writes here:

quote:

---

You're not a good example of evo-harmony. Nor is Hambre - he's an admin, and he's a right militant. If I mention "God" in a thread - despite someone else bringing up the issue - he complains about me rather than the person who brought it up.

---

Mike, I'm not trying to single you out for bad behavior. You're a well-liked poster here at EvC, and I know people appreciate your input. The topics in question, though, were not about God or belief.Amlodhi had posted this post in the thread on "Probability of Life Arising Calculations
" concerning probability calculations and the parsimony principle. He only mentioned the Big Magic Guy to point out how believers have to resort to post-hoc rationalizations in order to "explain why a God created inhabited world appears to follow only the laws of chaos and indifference." You proved his point by serving up a dissertation on the moral nature of God, with Christ and Satan making equally ill-advised appearances. This was in the "Is It Science?" forum, Mike, so I tried to steer you back to the topic.The other instance was in the "Homo floresiensis" thread, after Quetzal had delivered a typically cogent examination of the difference between creationist and evolutionary taxonomic categorization. Amid his lengthy argument, he pointed out that, if the fossil in question was categorized as other than Homo, "your entire worldview about humanity's privileged place in God's creation has just been obliterated." You chose to sieze on that one mention to deliver a rambling sermon on the way God created the heavens and Earth, and gave Man dominion over all the animals. Again, I didn't think invoking God in the "Human Origins" forum was particularly appropriate, and just told you to stick to the topic.In both cases, Mike, the mere mention of God did not warrant a digression into theology.I know that I've debated you at length as MrHambre, and I'm never pleased with the amount of times you ride out of trouble holding onto your convenient skyhook. Claiming that "faith" is every bit as valid a basis for knowledge as the scientific method doesn't make it so. For every time you admit that your beliefs are not based on evidence, there are quite a few times when miracles, prophecy and spurious logical constructs act as support for your assertions that naturalists ("none-believers") are jaundiced bigots.You're free to debate the way we atheists don't understand or accept "faith," but do it in the Faith & Belief forum. When you use this "faith" argument in any other context, you're taking something personal and assuming it's a fit subject for public discourse. I expect that good-faith dialogue means arguing your point in terms relevant to the discussion.Adminssimo Hambre