Atheist code of conduct towards aggressive theists

[Archimedes]

I'm currently reading this thread (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1211) in Biology Dept. which, somewhere around page 10 or so, began to sidetrack in a (usual?) ranting about posting ethics of particular TWeb members. It's an old thread, and I'm sure these things have been discussed elsewhere as well, but the basic issue was whether people like Socrates or JPHolding (I admit that I'm not personally familiar with his conduct) who viciously attack the opposition instead of simply defending their position (though they do that too) are beneficial to Christianity. One of the most compelling defenses of their behaviour was that "wimps for Jesus" had had their chance and as a result people have been turning away from christianity, so drastic measures have to be taken. The main argument against was of course that aggression turns potential converts away from God.

I'm not posting this to start a flame war against either any particular person or persons (I've had enough of that nonsense), but rather a discussion on whether their general attitude towards dialogue is defensible. I'm using the naturalism forum because I'm really not as interested in said aggressors and their supporters' viewpoints as I am in the position us non-theists should have towards this personality type, but at the same time I do like the idea that all sides can at least observe the conversation.

Anyway, here's a bold assertion: I think that aggressive christian posters are perfectly logical and consistent in their conduct, even more so than the nice liberal kind. They do have a point that Christianity has lost its grip on people, and even though freethinkers attribute this to increased freedom and affluence rather than a failure on part of christians, the trend of secularization is still there. I believe they also have a point that liberal christians cause fundamentalists more harm than good, and so it's absolutely necessary for fundies to fight fire with fire. Seeing that they have no choice but to be offensive, I'm not really sure if we should be surprised nor outraged by this kind of behaviour... it's just something that we have to endure.

Thoughts?

What do you think is a proper non-theist attitude towards aggressive theist attitude? (Talking about message boards and verbal abuse here, not suicide bombers...)

(Just for the record, I used to get really ticked off by Socrates, and I suppose I'm still not quite the calm rational thinker I long to be, but hopefully sporadically lurking in forums like TWeb helps me learn some self-control.)

Edit: First time I use the preview option, and still manage to miss a typo in the subject line. I'm a :dunce:.

[voidhawk]

Anyway, here's a bold assertion: I think that aggressive Christian posters are perfectly logical and consistent in their conduct, even more so than the nice liberal kind.

I agree with your reasoning.

Just some of my own thoughts.
It is also consistent if the Christians in question subscribe to a particular interpretation of agape love, a tough love. Also Christianity is an evangelising missionary religion on the command of Jesus, so if you believe you have to accept this as well.
One of the things I find fascinating about presuppositionalism, is the determination to show the terms the debate do not automatically support atheism. That it is as intellectually rigorous to presuppose the correctness of Scripture as it is to doubt it.

Finally Christians are playing for a lot higher stakes than I am. To me this is entertainment, academic or intellectual wrestling, if my arguments are shown to be worthless then I get a bruised ego no physical or spiritual harm is done, but Christians are battling for souls, including yours and mine. If I believed there was a blissful eternity at stake instead of a peaceful oblivion I might get passionate and pungent about it.

My feelings in summary, this is a Christian board, if you didn’t want to meet proselytising which is a fundamental commandment to Christians don’t post here go over to infidels.org. However mistaken you think Christians are they should have your long term, really long term welfare, (in their view point) at heart. Cut them some slack.

[AtheistArchon]

- There are two schools of thought here, I believe.

1. Redouble your efforts and mount a counter-attack consisting of pointing out not only the on-topic discrepancies, but the ad-hominem as well as being fluff.

2. Ignore the poster and let the "debate" end.

- There are fine arguments for both approaches. Considering #1, if you bow out and let the argument end, this is usually seen as 'losing'. The attacker feels he's 'won', and this reinforces his ad-hom attacks. Furthermore, because such posters usually are more interested in verbal attacks than an intellectual argument anyway, it gives them a sense of having "done battle with the devil" and winning. Additionally, remember that there are more people reading your thread than just you and the loudmouth. There are bystanders, and these people MIGHT benefit from seeing the loudmouths dismantled calmly and efficiently.

- Considering #2, it's often just not worth getting 20-pages deep into an argument with someone whose primary goal is to argue, and not to debate. You WILL NOT ever sway any of these people. They aren't here to consider being swayed, they're here to vent anger at "anti-Christians" and so on. Unless you have the spare time on your hands that it takes to beat your head against a brick wall, or want to interject some humor, or feel that bystanders will benefit from the loudmouth making a buffoon of themselves, it's often best just to drop it.

- With Socrates, I've largely taken the 2nd approach, even though I chime in now and then whenever I happen to see his motto. You know, the one that applies to any argument in any forum? =)

[Barron]

07-21-2003 @ 11:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155053#post155053)
Archimedes:

I'm currently reading this thread (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1211) in Biology Dept. which, somewhere around page 10 or so, began to sidetrack in a (usual?) ranting about posting ethics of particular TWeb members. It's an old thread, and I'm sure these things have been discussed elsewhere as well, but the basic issue was whether people like Socrates or JPHolding (I admit that I'm not personally familiar with his conduct) who viciously attack the opposition instead of simply defending their position (though they do that too) are beneficial to Christianity. One of the most compelling defenses of their behaviour was that "wimps for Jesus" had had their chance and as a result people have been turning away from christianity, so drastic measures have to be taken. The main argument against was of course that aggression turns potential converts away from God.

Personally I think the turning away from churches is much more complex, and I think that the activist apologists are pretty guilty in it as well. For example when activists teach their kids that they have to choose between "Jesus and evolution" they are setting those kids up for a crisis of faith. Or that the objective evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. Or that the inerrancy of the bible is more than a position of faith. Or any of the other modern "rationalistic faith" ideas.

I think trying to rationalize faith does more harm to faith than Darwin, Murray-O'Hair and all the rest put together. This removes faith from the deeply personal, emotional (and ritual) context that it should exist in and tries to place it on the plane of rational, even scientific inquiry. And, IMNSHO, faith does not compete well there. But the activists seem to have bought into the Enlightenment idea that only rational things have value or meaning. Clearly I disagree with that, and even as a non-believer it saddens me that some believers follow that line of thinking.

Anyway, here's a bold assertion: I think that aggressive christian posters are perfectly logical and consistent in their conduct, even more so than the nice liberal kind.

Well more set in their ways and committed to their own certainty, that's for sure. Also they are a lot less willing to listen to other people's ideas.

What do you think is a proper non-theist attitude towards aggressive theist attitude? (Talking about message boards and verbal abuse here, not suicide bombers...)

Depends on the situation. If someone wants to just rant I say just let them and don't bother ourselves. If there is some political point at issue (and I consider creationism a political matter) then I think that we should counter their arguments as though we are speaknig to the observer, not the individual. Clearly the hard core types are not going to change (and probably not even listen), so it's pointless to correct them. But if an uninvolved reader learns something, that's a general good thing. OTOH, trying to aggressively attack people's faith is never going to do much good. In those cases I say let the obnoxious atheists and the obnoxious theists go at it, and ignore them both.

Barron (well known marshmallow)

[Apathist]

Archimedes
I think that aggressive christian posters are perfectly logical and consistent in their conduct, even more so than the nice liberal kind.
God needs his followers to behave like rude immature jerks?

I would assume not. Which means we are talking about personalities, not theology.

Their attitude colors their opinions in a negative way. It becomes very easy to ignore their posts, and to consider their views as worthy of their idiocy. They look weak and pathetic - both the person and the position. They make Christianity look bad. They hurt their cause.

Sometimes even a jerk can be right, of course, but we can learn about whatever from someone who doesn't verbally stink up the place.

[BeHereNow]

The Bible, and more importantly Jesus, teaches humility and love repeatedly. To denigrate people and assault their character means casting aside both humility and love. Given that, I never could understand why a Christian would be rude to someone when they're explaining their beliefs.

I used to go to church 3 times a week, and I was part of a youth group that went out to witness to kids in the area. One of the most important things our elders stressed to us was to not be rude or make fun of what the other kids said. A lot of times, they were goth or punk kids, and they'd try their best to freak us out and make us mad, cuss at us or whatever, but we would patiently listen to what they said and then ask if they wanted to know what we thought. They made fun of us, but in the end we got LOTS of converts using this method.

Had we ran up into the local parks and hang-outs challenging them to debate and prove us wrong, etc., and then started calling them names, we would've failed miserably.

I think you see the analogy I'm making. Anyone, Christian or not, should understand that you need to be patient and humble when trying to teach someone what you believe. When you start mouthing off, you expose character flaws that turn away your target listener.

And remember that it's not just the Christians who can be sarcastic and obnoxious. I've seen numerous others who are in the same boat. Your goal is to make the point you want to make, and do it concisely and effectively (read: no cut-downs).

1337z0rz

[Captain Ochre]

It's all about rhetorical style, people.

Socrates is from Australia, where insult is more culturally accepted as an integral part of rhetoric.
Those of us on the other side of the globe tend toward a less colorful style of rhetoric--but it was not always so.
Some of the major figures in church history wrote papers which say extremely unflattering things about the opponent. That's just part of the culture of communication.


About the issue of ad hominem (broached by AtheistArchon, iirc): Remember to distinguish between the fallacy of ad hominem and simple insult.
If you whine about simple insult (which isn't a fallacy), then you're actually employing a similar style of rhetoric, except that your approach may well be fallacious (if X's argument were good, then he wouldn't have to use insult.

There's nothing wrong with a good-natured insult, imo. If someone insults me well, I'm likely to congratulate them, and I appreciate those who are tolerant of the more flambuoyantly aggressive styles employed by Socrates and (to a somewhat lesser degree) J. P. Holding.

Sorry, Capt. Ochre, but this forum is for Atheists only.

[Ben Reid]

... for being assertive, however, if you are reading a certain tone into a post can quickly lead to thinking of someone as rude or arrogant, when that was not their frame of mind at the time. Personally, I think Socrates and Holding often take it too far, but at the same time they also receive their fair serve and provocations, not that two wrongs equal a right, just that it should be taken into account when criticising their approach. And for those that tend to give them due respect they tend to reciprocate (witness the conversations between Holding and CitizenKyle from Infidels.)

From a theist perspective, I usually cut the non-theist the slack for the amount of non-verbal communication that is lost over the internet. Those who constantly misrepresent me though or start showing overt sarcasm or aggression I tend to simply ignore -- I feel kinda' sorry for these people in a way, because overt aggression is usually a compensation for some other part of their life -- at least, that has been my experience.

I do agree that Chrisitians should hold themselves to a high standard. We are meant to strive for Christ's example , which was primarily one of love, patience, kindness and compassion, and yes, controlled assertiveness when required (e.g. the temple scene). We should aim to be gentle as doves but wise as serpents. We are to have the heart of a child but the mind of an adult.

And I have no problems with non-theists holding us accountable for that ... AS LONG as it is for the right reasons (e.g. because they genuinely care, or wish to be held to the same standards) and not simply for rhetoric or a "you're a hypocrite" attack.

This forum is for nontheists only. Therefore, you are not allowed to post here. You are also not allowed to post back-to-back unless specifically addressing different posts. I will let this post stnad, however.

[Ben Reid]

Good to see you here! I've decided -- probably somewhat foolishly -- to rejoin the world of internet forums for at least a little while.

For others reading this, let it be known that barron is one of the finest examples of a how to conduct yourself on an online forum that you will find. I sometimes wish he would either stop being so respectful and courteious, or -- gasp – convert to Christianity, if nothing else but to make our job of stereotyping atheists that much easier.

Personally I think the turning away from churches is much more complex, and I think that the activist apologists are pretty guilty in it as well. For example when activists teach their kids that they have to choose between "Jesus and evolution" they are setting those kids up for a crisis of faith. Or that the objective evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. Or that the inerrancy of the bible is more than a position of faith. Or any of the other modern "rationalistic faith" ideas.

I see what you're saying, but I think there is also a genuine dichotomy perceived by some Christian parents between evolution/errancy and Christianity. And they are just doing what they think is right by telling their children that the two ideas oppose each other.

Personally, I think evolution of the type taught by Darwin IS incompatible with Christianity. Darwinism entertains no notions of telos, goal or direction. It allows no room for Divine influence. (Aside: It always seems strange to me that a lot of theistic evolutionists will allow for the fact that God intervenes in the world today in many physical ways yet did not (or was not allowed to) intervene in any way when it came to evolution. Why the arbitrary restriction of where God intervenes?)

To me, Darwinism restricts God's intervention to a single point in time: starting off the whole evolutionary process. It does not allow for a God that is actively involved in the cosmos, a God that had a goal in mind for life: the “creation” of a species that could sense the numinous and engage in an intimately personal relationship with the Divine. It lends itself to a view of reality that does not allow for free will -- it is no surprise that people like E.O. Wilson and Steven Pinker largely reject free will based on biological reductionism inherent in Darwinism.

Anyway, this is a separate thread I guess, but don’t underestimate the “concessions” one must make to accepted undirected evolution. There is a great thread exploring this on Metacrocks forum (the discussion was between Metacrock and URBILD) and I really think Meta struggled to reconcile Darwinism with theism. I can dig up a reference if you would like.

As for rationalistic faith: I think it’s not so much a flawed idea as a wrongly applied idea. And it depends on what you mean by rationalistic. Do you mean logical? Based on objective evidence?

Religious belief should draw upon logic and evidence in support of some of its ideas, no doubt. It should recognize its limitations when it comes to the spiritual, the epistemic value of the heart and the ineffable sense of the holy – the experience of God. These things, as far as I am concerned, still fall under the umbrella of reason because you are using your cognitive faculties and senses to form an accurate picture of the universe.

I don’t believe you can separate out reason from faith, reason from personal experiences. A deeply personal experience that leads to wildly illogical and irrational views of the universe should really lead one to question the truth-value of the experience. Likewise, rational arguments that lead to conclusions that directly contradict our most immediate experiences (e.g. that we are conscious, have free will, etc) should also be looked at skeptically.

I believe that eliminating false dichotomies and realising true ones is a key part of answering epistemological and metaphysical questions . This is none more evident than in the science vs religion, reason vs faith discussions.

[HRG_new]

Today @ 01:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160447#post160447)
Ben Reid:

Good to see you here! I've decided -- probably somewhat foolishly -- to rejoin the world of internet forums for at least a little while.

For others reading this, let it be known that barron is one of the finest examples of a how to conduct yourself on an online forum that you will find. I sometimes wish he would either stop being so respectful and courteious, or -- gasp – convert to Christianity, if nothing else but to make our job of stereotyping atheists that much easier.

For others reading this, let it be known that Ben Reid too is one of the finest examples to follow. My wish about him mirrors - mutatis mutandis - his wish about barron :)


I see what you're saying, but I think there is also a genuine dichotomy perceived by some Christian parents between evolution/errancy and Christianity. And they are just doing what they think is right by telling their children that the two ideas oppose each other.

Personally, I think evolution of the type taught by Darwin IS incompatible with Christianity. Darwinism entertains no notions of telos, goal or direction. It allows no room for Divine influence.


Nor do electrodynamics or inorganic chemistry, solid state physics or meteorology.

And it should come to no one's surprise that they all don't. They are scientific theories, after all - naturalistic explanations of a wide range of observations. They are talking scientific, not theological truth.


(Aside: It always seems strange to me that a lot of theistic evolutionists will allow for the fact that God intervenes in the world today in many physical ways yet did not (or was not allowed to) intervene in any way when it came to evolution. Why the arbitrary restriction of where God intervenes?)

Actually, the theory of evolution by mutation + selection etc. leaves more possibilities for divine influence than physics or chemistry. God can have introduced a particular mutation or nudged an asteroid to kill off the competitors of mammals.

To me, Darwinism restricts God's intervention to a single point in time: starting off the whole evolutionary process.

Beg to differ. Evolution is not deterministic. As Gould said, if we could rewind time to 600 million years BC, it is almost certain that evolution would have taken a different course. Being an agnostic, he obviously did not take into account divine nudges to keep it on course towards a divinely desired goal:).

But a theistic evolutionist can interpret the history of life on Earth in those terms.

Regards,
HRG.

[Barron]

Note to moderators, WHY YOU DELETE BEN'S POST?! You bad! Me like Ben's post! Ben's post good! Now me must reply in to him via HRG post. Me sad
:bawl:

Good to see you here! I've decided -- probably somewhat foolishly -- to rejoin the world of internet forums for at least a little while.

Ditto! Your lack of self discipline is our gain :-)

For others reading this, let it be known that barron is one of the finest examples of a how to conduct yourself on an online forum that you will find. I sometimes wish he would either stop being so respectful and courteious, or -- gasp ?convert to Christianity, if nothing else but to make our job of stereotyping atheists that much easier.

Actually I think I'd end up a "freelance monotheist" if I did "get religion". But I wouldn't hold my breath were I you. Unfortunately I have noticed that the more obnoxious atheists get much more responses then us well behaved one. I think it's because their behaviour and reactions just reinforce pre-existing theist stereotypes of atheists ("See!?! They hate God and religion and belivers and a..!!!").

Yesterday @ 12:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160553#post160553)
HRG_new:

For others reading this, let it be known that Ben Reid too is one of the finest examples to follow. My wish about him mirrors - mutatis mutandis - his wish about barron :)

Don't listen to the nice, Viennese cat worshipper! I like you just the way you are. Besides, this way there are less "nice atheists" for me to compete with :-)

Ben:I see what you're saying, but I think there is also a genuine dichotomy perceived by some Christian parents between evolution/errancy and Christianity. And they are just doing what they think is right by telling their children that the two ideas oppose each other.

I agree. These nice folks see a very real threat to their faith in evolution (and other modern sciences too, but they usually concentrate on evolution). And since their faith matters deeply to them, this is no small thing. But I think you also realize that the threat is as much "perceived" as it is "genuine". Their fears CANNOT be disregarded and I think that anti-creationists do their cause a great disservice when they treat those fears as silly or ignorant. However I think you'll agree with me (and if you don't you can't reply in the forum anyway:smug: ) that sincere faith can coexist with evolution and modernity in general. But it won't as long as BOTH SIDES come at this as a choice between views.

Personally, I think evolution of the type taught by Darwin IS incompatible with Christianity. Darwinism entertains no notions of telos, goal or direction. It allows no room for Divine influence.

Don't fault science for bad teaching thereof. Telos, goal and direction are things that humans bring to the science. The raw science (as HRG notes) is neutral on the subject. I think it would be great if science teachers could explain to their students not just what science says, but also what it doesn't. It doesn't imply atheism, but it is neutral towards theism. This distinction is too often overlooked and manipulated by people on either side. Of course with the establishment clause, this would be really hard to do clearly in the US, but one could discuss metaphysics a little I guess.

(Aside: It always seems strange to me that a lot of theistic evolutionists will allow for the fact that God intervenes in the world today in many physical ways yet did not (or was not allowed to) intervene in any way when it came to evolution. Why the arbitrary restriction of where God intervenes?)

"Intervene" may be too harsh a term. I think that theistic evolutionists would say more that they perceive God's "guiding hand" throughout natural history. Just as a theistic astronomer would see God's "guiding hand" in the heavens. Heck, I imagine a theistic chemist would see God's hand there as well. Saying that God has to "intervene" seems to bespeak a lack on planning on the Divine's behalf. I'm not gonna suggest that :grin:

To me, Darwinism restricts God's intervention to a single point in time: starting off the whole evolutionary process

Again, I echo HRG (not an unusual thing for me to say). IMHO it is the creationists that make that restriction. As I've pointed out before, if the only place God's action is visible is at the Big Bang or the moment of abiogenesis, that restricts God. This seems to fall into the trap of thinking of God's acts as discrete events rather than an unfolding history. All evolution says is that we can use methodologically naturalistic methods to explain the development of life, not that ONLY naturalism is allowed. Don't fall for the creationist bait-and-switch of "methodological => metaphysical naturalism".

Barron (follow up in bio if you want to go further)

Barron

[Ben Reid]

... guidelines.

Thanks for the replies HRG and Barron. I'll start something up on Bio over the next few days because I think it's an interesting topic: the potential incompabitibility of theism and undirected Evolution.

Moderators: Sorry for not reading the guidelines closer! I'll now do 20 pushups for punishment. 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ...

[Archimedes]

07-27-2003 @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160404#post160404)
Apathist:

God needs his followers to behave like rude immature jerks?

I would assume not. Which means we are talking about personalities, not theology.
Actually, I was thinking of the political and ideological goals that necessitate the aggression. If it takes a few disparaging words to promote Christianity, it would seem like the duty of every christian to behave in this manner, especially if it's not forbidden by their interpretation of the Bible.

Their attitude colors their opinions in a negative way. It becomes very easy to ignore their posts, and to consider their views as worthy of their idiocy. They look weak and pathetic - both the person and the position. They make Christianity look bad. They hurt their cause.
Do they really? What prompted me to start this thread was an observation that the people in question do not think that they are hurting christianity in any way, on the contrary they defend their mode of argumentation both in biblical and practical terms. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that many christians who fully support an aggressive debating style against non-christians, so it's questionable whether they "look weak and pathetic" at all. Who are we, a bunch of non-Christians, to decide whether they make christianity look bad or hurt their own cause?

[Rose Raven]

They're killing their own religion, and they don't even know it. That would be kind of funny if so many people were not hurt in the process.

[Archimedes]

Who exactly is "hurt" by message board rants, I ask?

[dizzle]

Sorry guys, but I have an issue with this thread. Please read this section of the guidelines:

This area is not to be used to unfairly substantively rebut/discuss/criticize specific other members who cannot respond or defend.

And...

It also is not be used as a platform to simply stack arguments against theism with the intent that they cannot be responded to here, but interactions between different nontheist viewpoints is highly encouraged. Arguments simply directed towards rebutting or disproving theism should be posted in Apologetics 301.



It is unavoidably going into these areas and cannot be coutenanced. I am sure you can understand this as has been said here in this thread over and over, this is a Christian owned forum. The opening of this section was a move on are part to give some peace and quiet to you guys for certain limited discussions, but you can understand I hope how the above is just not what it was intended for.

I know the thread starter and participants have good intentions, and I am not suggesting anything nefarious, just that this is not the place for this discussoin.

Thanks.

[Warcraft3]

...that theists arent allowed to post here.

:teeth:

Hey, good discussion guys. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the many fine atheists and agnostics we have here at TWEB. I do enjoy hearing your perspective, even if you are infidels.:smile:

Okay,TWEB mods.....Ill go back to lurking now:shy:



Russ

[Barron]

Today @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162835#post162835)
Dee Dee Warren:

Sorry guys, but I have an issue with this thread. Please read this section of the guidelines:

This area is not to be used to unfairly substantively rebut/discuss/criticize specific other members who cannot respond or defend.

And...

It also is not be used as a platform to simply stack arguments against theism with the intent that they cannot be responded to here, but interactions between different nontheist viewpoints is highly encouraged. Arguments simply directed towards rebutting or disproving theism should be posted in Apologetics 301.


Dee Dee,

I'm new here so I'm still learning the ropes. I'm not really sure where the line was crossed, and since I'd hate to bumble across said line, can you draw it a little more clearly? I think the idea of this forum here is really good as it will allow believers a sort of zoo trip to see atheists chatting among themselves. And part of that will be discussions of how we do or should behave on these boards. I think it's good for people to see how we think. If we carp and whine about "certain posters" all the time it makes us look like doofuses (and rightfully so). And if we post our brilliant refutations of Christianity we'll look silly for not exposing those ideas to scrutiny as well. Although I do agree that both of those uses would be annoying and petty enough to merit the yanking of this forum.

Anyway, my main problem is knowing what is and isn't allowed here. Can you point to a post in this thread that drew your attention (even privately) so I can learn the ropes more easily?

Thanks!

Barron

[dizzle]

Barron, it was not one specific post but really the whole subject matter. It is bound to deal with evaluations of specific posters here, and with proper behaviour of theists, and just criticisms of theism in general, which was not what this area was for. Specific posters have a right to defend themselves,and I am sure that you understand that a Christian-owned forum cannot provide a forum for unopposed criticisms/evaluations of theism. Such things are perfectly acceptable in open forum, just not in this restricted area. Perhaps, and I do not usually say something like this, such a discussion belongs more on a nontheist centered board such as II. Otherwise, you can of course feel free to have it in Apologetics.

[BeHereNow]

Dee Dee Warren:

It is bound to deal with evaluations of specific posters here, and with proper behaviour of theists, and just criticisms of theism in general, which was not what this area was for.

I agree evaluations of specific people shouldn't be done, but I think the point of the thread is not geared for that. We know that agressive theists post here, the thread is about how to best react in that situation.

I and a couple others pointed out that it isn't just the theists who can be aggressive. Most posts so far address how to react, not who to blame.

Hopefully other responses on here will follow suit, yes?

= Positive love =

[dizzle]

Actually guys theists are not to be the subject here at all. That was my point. Yes, it is fine line, and the conversation can be had, just not in a restricted forum such as this.

[Barron]

Today @ 05:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163504#post163504)
Dee Dee Warren:

Actually guys theists are not to be the subject here at all. That was my point. Yes, it is fine line, and the conversation can be had, just not in a restricted forum such as this.

But we're on a theists' board. It seems kind of counter productive to say we can discuss anything but theists. If we are only going to discuss atheism... Well there's not much to say really. Naturalism, OTOH, at least is a little interesting, but it's most interesting in contrast to the non-naturalistic alternatives.

Barron

[Rose Raven]

Dee Dee, I think that the purpose of this thread was to discuss ways of responding to bigots in a way that is more likely to smooth things over than allow for further problems with such members. We need to discuss how we're going to keep the peace with people who blow up at the mere idea of an atheist on a board designed to discuss theology.

[dizzle]

Okay this is the final post here, I am closing this thread, and the above post is one good example why.

Let me explain again the philopshy of why we opened this forum, which any fairminded individual will concede is unusual for a Christian-owned forum. We recognize we have a large constituency of nontheists, most of whom have been very respectful and productive members of this forum. We also realize that things can get heated and that there may be times when the nontheists have an inhouse issue they wish to discuss without hearing from an "outsider." That is the same purpose we having in Christianity 201. However, my forum guidelines were clear here. It is not to target other members of this forum (like the lovely bigot comment above) or to criticize/evaluate theism. We have provided an outlet for that in Apologetics. This is not a perfect system, but was one we did with sincere motives to provide an outlet for our nontheists members for certian limited discussions. We always knew this would not be a terribly busy area, for as Barron said, theists are interesting to talk with and talk about, but it was just a small little meeting place for the times it was appropriate and opened as a good will gesture from the owners of this forum.

I left this thread open so we could dialog and come to a meeting of the minds and mutual understanding. I will now close it but invite anyone to PM me with further questions and comments if any. After all, I am not supposed to be posting here :teeth:

[Jaltus]

Due to her spamming this thread, DDW has been banned.

:ban: