The Evolution of evcforum.net

Your opinion is noted.My opinion is that Bible literalists and "Christians"^* do not leave because they are insulted. They leave because their opinions are not swallowed hook, line and sinker. They leave because they don't have "reasoned arguments" to back up their opinions. They leave, in fact, because they do think their opinions are superior - and don't need reasoned arguments.They leave because the bar is set too high for them.-------------^*By the way, there are a lot of Christians here who are not in the "swallow my opinions whole or I'll run away" camp.

---

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

The question becomes what do you accept as evidence. If the only thing that is acceptable is that which can be tested by empirical means then I suppose you are right. Obviously someone who is a Biblical literalist believes that the Bible should be used as evidence. (Obviously not in the science forums.)If then the only evidence that is acceptable is that which is scientific then change the title of the forum.This message has been edited by GDR, 11-03-2005 06:06 PM

But if they had read the Bible they'd understand that it is impossbile to read it literally. Literalists either don't bother reading the Bible or approach it, just as they do science, from a position of willfull ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I couldn't care less. And somehow, I doubt that there's any shortage of the deluded.

I happen to agree with you but so what? If you aren't prepared to entertain YEC types on this forum then say so. The evidence that they provide is based on a literal reading of the Bible.If the only reason to bring YEC's to this forum is to ridicule their beliefs in an effort to convert them, then don't be surprised when they don't hang around.Having said that I do agree that there are many on this forum, like yourself, that have engaged them in thoughtful dialogue. But in the majority of threads there is someone like crashfrog that will come in with the tooth fairy thing, (which is insulting to all people of faith whether they are YEC or not), and the whole tone of the thread changes.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

There are atheistic Fundies too.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'll leave it to you to tell them who they are.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

Having said that I do agree that there are many on this forum, like yourself, that have engaged them in thoughtful dialogue. But in the majority of threads there is someone like crashfrog that will come in with the tooth fairy thing, (which is insulting to all people of faith whether they are YEC or not), and the whole tone of the thread changes.

---

I want to point out that you are putting all the emphasis on non-believers not showing the utmost respect for the beliefs of theists. However, you make no mention of the beleivers who not only misrepresent, caricature, and insult non-believers but also those who are theists but do not believe as they do. Why exactly should one group be exempt from restrictions and the other not? I am not advocating flame wars, but you are laying all the blame on one side. The number of rational and civil YECs, IDists, and biblical literalists is vanishingly small.Rudeness, references to tooth fairies and pink unicorns have been present at the site since I arrived here years ago. The lack of interesting debates is something relatively new. I don't think the general tone of the participants explains the change in quality of the debates IMO.

Speaking as an atheistic fundie------One key text JW`s like to show you when starting indoctrination is Isa 1:18 -'Come and let us reason together, saith the Lord'---. Now while that quickly disappears as the lessons proceed with them, I still think it a good basis for dialogue. Until you grasp that there will be no reasoning with lock-step creationists, and they really only want to show you what good Christians they are. Now I`m a great one for mutual respect, but it has to be earned, not given to all with an opinion. And when my views are dismissed without a cursory discussion, then there is no way I will give 'mutual respect'.And especially when I have travelled the long road from religion to atheism and beyond. The world is full of whacko ideas and the more you pander to them, the more they stay entrenched. If there is no rational basis to believe suggestions put to me, why should I agree with them? If views fly in the face of evidence I have been accumulating for years, should I dismiss the facts as false? If people want to blind themselves to what has been repeatedly proven, should I accept their world-view as equal to mine?
Sample:
Ath:The world wasn`t formed as described in Genesis
Creo: Lies
Ath: There is no evidence we can find for the Exodus
Creo: Lies
Ath: We can`t find evidence of the Flood
Creo: Lies
Ath:The Bible doesn`t exist in the original form
Creo: Lies
ATh: No loving God would persist in killing off millions with disease
Creo: Lies
I know that is a tad black and white, but that`s the kind of person we have to show mutual respect? Apologetics of all kinds should press for it to be an Olympic event as the spectacular back-flips,side-somersaults and forward three and a half in the pike position are wonders to behold.
Religion has provided many benefits as well as many excesses, but should a limited understanding of how the world works be given equal ranking with observations proven over and over again? To hear creationists debating by posts in the scores on how a Scripture should be interpreted, leads me to believe that they have no greater grip on reality than bacteria believing they rule the world (in fact, bacteria might have the edge). Covering the PRATT files for the 1001st time isn`t going to change either the atheist/evo conclusions, or the world-view of a proselytiser straight from the AIG/CR fool factory. The only benefits I can see from the dialogue at EvC are that those on the Evo side polish their presentations in various ways, and the creationists might go away with a seed of knowledge planted in what may become fertile ground.

Well, I've never come in with any tooth fairies, so I'm not sure what you're talking about; but if what you're saying is that you have no problem asserting that the beliefs of others are ridiculous while yours, predicated on the same lack of evidence and consistency, are to be held as inviolable, why should we treat that level of intellectual dishonesty with respect?Haven't you just insulted everybody who believes in the tooth fairy? Aren't you guilty, then, of exactly what you're complaining about? Why should we treat your beliefs with respect if you refuse to grant the same courtesy to others?

I think our friendly neighbourhood Frog gets too much bad press, because he is mis-understood, a lot of the time. And that's not his fault.I've noticed a few people lately, have singled him out as the bad guy, which is entirely unwarranted. No offense to his rivals, but we don't call him Omni-frog for nothing, and I'm one who's for keeping the green banner in our area, as an envoronmentally friendly species. I assume you mean by the tooth-fairy example, as that being something to equate God with? Like the invisible pink unicorn? Evidentially that's true, it's nothing to be offended about. I'm a believer and this doesn't offend me because I know what it means.If it's used to ridicule a belief, then it could be also held in the light that that is the atheistic persons belief, that belief is silly, and thus something they ridicule, as their belief, thus you should respect their right to ridicule.

Why don't you get off your highhorse, Crashfrog? Your beliefs are just as inviolable as everybody else's. Please . . . total nonsense.

The Biblical and belief arguements are, I think, sidelines for a few here. They like to argue so they indulge in those threads when the science forums are quiet.Most of us (me for sure) don't worry much about what individuals personal beliefs are. What we are all against the the idea that there is any such thing as "scientific creationism" that should have any place whatsoever in schools. This is what this site is primarily about.I would suspect that the majority of the literalists think that there is some scientific support for their beliefs. They charge in with material from AIG and ICR and when that material is laughed at start to degenerate into rudeness much faster than most of the opposition.The believers here, as Jar, points out are much more concerned about the non-science aspects of the literalists position. It is also bad theology and bad for the view that the world holds of Christianity. The sooner everyone treats the literalists with the derision they deserve and gets the separation between them and more thoughtfull, sophisticated Christians clear the happy most Christians will be.

That may be true but you'd better figure out just what those "beliefs" are. They might be surprisingly few in number. I've tried for myself to figure out what my list of beliefs are -those things which I take as true without any evidence - and the list isn't very long.Heck, I even have one that is probably against the evidence available: most people are basically nice. You'll have to explain why you think that and what the difference is.
We are, after all, talking about people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, was covered in a total flood only 4500 years ago and other ideas just as much 'nonsense'.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-04-2005 09:28 AM

i think this about sums it up...

quote:

---

Rudeness, references to tooth fairies and pink unicorns have been present at the site since I arrived here years ago.

---

one. this board is of certain age. this age means that many people have passed in and out of the numbers. so. you have to continuously train new people.something i have noticed is that younger people (by even a year or so under my generation), those who don't remember the 80's it seems, have respect only for how they feel about things. they don't care for evidence or even truth, only for their imagined world of pink bubbles.this is a recent backlash against the establishment as perpetrated by aging hippies and the crack-fed children of hippies. (i like hippies, but when they get old they forget their meaningful ideals and know only their feelings.) it is something that is new andgrowing in our society and fed by the fire of the neocon revolution started in the late 80's by the televangelists. (omg tarantula eyes...)when i was in a high school chemistry class discussing abortion with these godawful freshmen and dared to suggest that the churches had been in support of legalizng abortion in order to regulate the methods and cleanliness to prevent the murder of women who trusted unethical 'physicians' their only response was "not my church!" when they didn't even bother to stop to think maybe that's a decent question worth looking up.they view everything as a personal attack and don't even stop to think if it might be true or not. you are calling them liars and they don't like it.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 11-04-2005 10:11 AM

---

And why you think you take a Ho to a Ho-tel
Ho-tell everybody, even the mayor
Reach up in the sky for the Ho-zone layer
Now C'mon playa wants a Ho always
And Ho's neva close, they open like hallways