After registering here and participating, I shifted over to the associated Debating Christianity site. I fully expected that people would be way out there, but I did foolishly imagine that the rules would be enforced fairly. Instead, it turns out that theists are not actually required to support their claims, and while it's ok for them to spout bigotry against women, gays and atheists, a non-vulgar but blunt response earns an immediate beating by the mods. These mods varied from incompetent to unstable, and there was considerable censorship, especially with regard to the mechanisms by which decisions were made. In response, most people learn to bite their tongues, censoring themselves so that they don't get censored by the mods.

The final straw came when the site-runner bragged that he broke the law (and abused his children) by claiming a religious exemption from MMR immunization, when the real basis was his anti-science bias and adherence to much-refuted autism conspiracy theories. Given that he also believes in a global flood, I suppose I should have expected him to be a nut. I stated that it wasn't his fault that he was incompetent as a doctor, but it was his fault that he was incompetent as a parent, since the latter comes from his refusal to accept the former. Despite threats from mods, I refused to back down from this, and instead repeated my conclusion. I then told a mod outright that I wouldn't censor myself even to avoid a ban, and the response was a long rant about how I don't know what child abuse really is because she was horribly abused. Like I said, unstable mods. I reposted that message, but it was censored, of course. A day later, I was banned.

Obviously, I regret nothing, other than the time I wasted. But I refuse to be a member of this site so long as it's associated with that one. Please remove my membership.

TC

HOLLA!!!!

I'm in!

Just what were you expecting at that site? Mike and Jaime?

If you want to separate yourself from this site because of that site, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO. But that's your prerogative.

I don't know if I've been there or not. If you're still around, could you please post a link?

Its under Principles and Personal Philosophy: Religion

I've never posted at Debating Christianity, and only visited the site because of the link to there when you click on Religion here. I'm actually more interested in what the formal status is for religion debates here at . I seem to recall a strong prohibition against religious debates here (either in the Rules or in the Survival Guide) when I joined, but I can't find such a thing now.

I actually like the idea of making religious arguments off-limits, and have tried to abide by it. But all I can find now are imprecations not to "proselytize" or post "hateful comments related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age." Is religion still off-limits here in proper?

On the Principles and Personal Philosophies page it clearly states "America's Debate does not accept topics of a religious nature. "

You know, most people, when they visit a site like that, usually find what they're looking for.

Christians look for the persecution and "world evil" that they've been told exists.
Athiests go in there looking for proof in something that requires faith, expect nothing, and aren't disappointed either.
Both sides partake in flamewars and insults. Holy crap! This is NOT what Evangelism is about.

I'm by no means perfect. In fact, I'm kind of a screw up in some areas, and I'm human. I'm not better than you.

I definitely think there is plenty of room for improvement on both sides. Christians have to learn that not everyone is going to believe what they believe - and accept that. For someone who is "convicted", that's not an easy pill to swallow because they truly believe that your soul is in danger. Geez, I'm a Christian and I don't follow lock and step of what other Christians believe just because I'm trying to be superChristian or whatever. Sometimes it's like the "underpants gnomes". These people have no idea what step 2 is. They forget that while they want people to be brought to Christ that it has to be done in love, patience, understanding, time, inconvenience, and situations that they don't like.

On the same token, Athiests should recognize that not everything - including science - is a proved element. We only know what we have researched and have access to. I would never discount science, as I wouldn't be alive without it. Theories are not proven fact beyond all shadow of a doubt - although we can imagine that they carry more weight than faith. Fine, but I've gotten through some tough times on faith, and I guess I'll keep that to myself; except to say that there is even scientifically proven merit and benefit in having faith.

It's true that biblical cats thought the world was flat. It was also true that many of today's sciences were started by Christians looking to expand knowledge and help people.

In the short 5 minutes I scanned that website, I found neither Christanity... nor debate. It discredits my faith when people scream "Sinner" when pointing at a gay person, yet 85%+ of Christian men admit to struggling with pronography addictions. So we can criticize guys doing it with each other, but we don't mind demeaning women by being the customer of an industry who exploits them - because we can do it privately and gay people can't? Or won't?

Quite honestly, I think Christians should have been the civil rights leaders, the ones helping the disenfranchised, giving help and assistance to people who need it. My only degree (okay, outside of my Bartending School- heh!) is of a theological nature, and was a 1 year intensitve course after years of study and a lengthy stay in the Middle East. I suppose I could add perspective, challenge disbelievers and impress believers. What's the point? As stated earlier, everyone already knows what they're looking for - a fight - and they get one, and it doesn't take long. What a sad mess.

I try to add an objection here and there when some of you guys really start hammering on Christians. Though, I do understand that some of it is venting, and some of it is aimed at ridiculous claims "our leaders" make (our leaders being whatever guy who made the outrageous claim of the week that got published), but I do know that some of it is well deserved. But let's remember that lumping people together is a pathetic way to stereotype, and that there are some of us trying to make a better world, help improve conditions, give to charity, even getting involved in conservation, who get out and help others simply because we're taught to minister to others - not beat them over the head withour 66 chapters.

That said, it's insulting to call my faith a bunch of fairy tales. It may not be what you believe, and I won't ask you to join if you don't want to.. - in fact, if my logic and lifestyle aren't appealing to you, then my words shouldn't serve as my only claim I'm a person of faith. But do ya think we could tone down the "fairy tale" rhetoric there and perhaps allow tolerance to go two ways here?

/if that's the reason we don't debate religion here, I have a renewed understanding
//does not want to import some of those flamebait fishers. Of either side. For real.

If a forum is recommended on AD, it should reflect the high standards and purpose of AD. Unfortunately, it appears as if that forum doesn't accomplish that at all. The link should be removed and not put back up until someone else creates a forum that operates on a higher standard like this one(i.e.-evidence, civility, and respect)

Not automatically. But we are what we do . You are better than some people, and worse than others, but it's because of what you do (mass murder or great charitable work, at opposite ends) rather than what you think, believe or say (e.g. justifying mass murder, ignoring it, or condemning it while doing nothing to stop it; condemning great charitable work, ignoring it, or praising it while doing nothing to contribute to it - all these options are equally useless.).



No argument here.



Please understand the differences between scientific and common usage for terms like "fact" and "theory". Evolution is regarded in science as fact. Man, animals, plants, etc were not created in one go, they evolved from other forms into those they now have. Natural selection is the scientific theory that tries to explain it. Gravitation is a fact - Newton and Einstein's theories try to explain it.

By the way, they are only scientific theories because they derive from empirical data (from something you can find or measure in the natural world), are reproducible (anybody faced with the same raw data could, using scientific method, arrive at the same conclusions) and are falsifiable (the proponents of the theory have to be able to imagine circumstances in which their theory could be disproven).

These three criteria are the ones by which scientists argue that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, by the way. It certainly uses empirical data, but is based on the belief in some kind of Creator, which is not based on anything empirical (more often on religious texts). If you gave someone else the same empirical data, without mentioning any no-empirical (but important) data that is integral to the theory (that there is a Creator), you might not get the same theory as an outcome. And because faith is an unspoken part of the reason for coming up with a theory like ID, evidence that would disprove ID is usually rejected because it would also undermine that faith.

I think ID is quite a respectable theory, especially when it gets diluted to the point where someone believes that a Creator set up the rules of the physical universe, knowing all the possible and likely outcomes, but not necessarily knowing exactly which ones would happen. I think that's quite a nice way to think about a possible Creator, especially one that claims we are like it in some way (made in His image?). If you or I were omniscient and omnipotent, it would be fun for about 5 minutes, but after that the only thing with the power to surprise would be a system that randomly followed rules that you set up, but then found it's own route. Massively oversimplified, I can make a clockwork toy, I can make a table for it to move on, I can then wind it up and set it up, and I can have a pretty good idea of which direction(s) it will go in, at what speeds, and for how long. But I can never really know with 100% confidence which of all the possible end points it might arrive at will be it's actual end point. A Creator like that - which could make or do anything, but which could very quickly lose the power of surprise by doing do - I can see a reason why a creator like that might set off a Big Bang then let everything else run according to the pre-set rules. I can even see a reason why such a Creator might set off an infinite number of Big Bangs, each with randomly generated rules, just to see which ones would work, which ones would collapse, and so on.

In other words, a Creator who is himself (or herself, or itself) an experimental scientist. But nobody I know within organised religion seems to put putting that theory forward.

HOWEVER, since that isn't happening ,and all we have is ID... ID just isn't a scientific theory, and therefore shouldn't be taught or even referred to in science class.

"Creation science" is even less of a science, because it selectively takes empirical evidence and tries to fit it to a non-scientific, religious theory, merely because there are people who are desperate to cling to the idea that some parts of their favourite religious text are literally true. Few of them insist it all is, not lest because every religious text yet written contains outright contradictions.



Actually, rather few medieval scholars thought the world was flat. Most thought it was a globe or at the very least a curved surface (why else could you travel to the horizon only to find more Earth?). Even among ancient and classical civilisations, few accepted the world a flat. "Flat earthers" is a more contemporary insult.

The latter part is true. Genetics was first studied by a German monk, Mendel. It is also true that many more of today's sciences were started by ancient Greeks and Romans, saved from early Christian ignorance by Muslim scholars, and only re-entered the Christian world against much hostility from organised Christianity (e.g. Galileo).



True, those religious people (such people are found in all relgions, and among atheists) that are being genuinely helpful as you describe are generally not the noisy ones telling every how they should or shouldn't live. But they belong to the same religions most of the time; Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions, unlike almost all others (except Scientology), so are bound to get stick from people who don't want religious interference in their lives. Thanks for the help, but I'll believe what I want.



I describe myself as a "functional atheist" i.e. I'm an agnostic who doesn't believe there is enough evidence to justify any kind of theism. Unless I'm trying to be annoying , I wouldn't described religions as fairy tales. I think for the most part they a combination of aetiology, fable and parable, together with some societal rules that were entirely appropriate for the time of writing. (e.g. rules on male circumcision, common to Judaism and Islam, which have practical applications of minimising sand irritation in deserts) but which may or may not have outlived their usefulness now.

As such they are fascinating for social history and useful for moral lessons. In other words, there is some kind of "truth in them". But truth is not the same as fact.



It is the reason, pretty much. If memory serves, the rule on religious debate was not there from the outset, but was introduced when the type of people you mention started throwing insults and - critically - ignoring or refusing moderation. It was more trouble than it was worth, frankly.




I tend to agree, though if such a site doesn't exist (which I can easily believe - no news/politics website is as well moderated as this one) and has no links to religious debate sites (because none matches our high standards), we run the risk that pressure from members to debate religion right here will grow.

Even as things are occasionally gets problems with members attempting to debate in a flame-war style, and that problem would only get worse with religious debate allowed too. The only solution I could foresee would be a spin-off forum with a new staff (the existing staff, particularly Mike and Jaime but not limited to them, are on record as not being interesting in hosting religious debates on themselves), yet one still somehow committed to the rules of .

To coin a religious phrase, hell is more likely to freeze over.

Maybe recommended is too strong a word. Maybe AD expects that each person make their own judgment on the sites and stay or leave them based on that rather than some “blessing” by AD.

Neb, have you visited the site yourself or are you simply going off of what TC reports? For the old-timers here you will remember otseng as a thoughtful, unassuming, and even-tempered poster. This has not changed. TC, for all of his intellectual insight, simply feels scorned and seeks to "hurt" otseng in any way he can. Why is it that whenever someone is booted off of a site they argue it was unjust? Sounds like spilt milk to me...

Reality check- how do you debate anyone in a logical manner when you are debating fairy tales someone chooses to believe in? You simply can't debate in a logical manner an illogical belief system.

I am supposed to believe in a jewish zombie that I must send mind messages via ESP and give my allegiance to this same jewish zombie or I will be tortured forever.

Kinda hard to argue that stuff in a logical manner I am thinking.

You can't debate belief, really. You can debate facts, empirical data etc. But you can't reasonably debate Jeebus.

It has been some time since I participated at Debating Christianity (I scarcely have time to debate here much any more), but I agree that otseng, who started the site, is very level-headed and fair. In fact, as I recall, AbsLikeJesus was one of the site's original moderators - and he was an avowed secularist, highly critical of fundamentalism of any description. Perhaps the moderating staff has become a bit more partisan in the intervening years or there's simply not the time or the staff to moderate the forum properly. If that's the case, it might be worth removing the link. For the record, though, Debating Christianity is not "associated" with America's Debate. It's just that one of our members founded it as an alternative to AD for debating religious issues.

I noticed otseng contributing here earlier today. Perhaps he can weigh in...

Also, Thought Criminal, we don't "remove memberships" here. You are obviously free to stop participating at any time (and free to start up again at any time as well). We do honor requests to be banned from the site - but that is irreversible.

Ban me.

TC

Julian,

First of all, thanks for the conversation. Some well thought out responses here that maybe we can email via the board with whoever wants to participate. Just because there's not a thread doesn't mean that private email is prohibiting us from continuing the discussion.

This will be my last post because already I'm thinking we're toe-ing the line of the rules. Ironically, my faith requires that I follow the rules.

Give unto Mike and Jaime that which is due Mike and Jaime...

Well, many references in Isiah and Psalms use the term, as well as translated versions quoting Jesus. I'm sure 2000 years ago, scientists back then obviously believed this also since it was an accepted description based on the empirical data that THEY had back then.

Well, much of that practical application lost relevancy back then, Christians believe, since the NT. "Gentiles" were uncircumsized, for example, and while that was more of a spiritual custom, obviously affected social norm trendsetting more than health. Obviously because all the gentiles didn't just fall over dead because of their penises...

Ehhh... yes and no. There is an incredible amount of history that we know from several sources that supports events when chronologically outlined in the Bible, that the Bible HAS established historical information used by secular sources. 19 different non-religious scholars, Josephus included, have very similar accounts of the history as it is written. No one historical account is ever complete, but let's not pack the Bible into a neat little package of fables and anecdotal musings. There is certainly enough agreement from non-religious history buffs and anti-godders who would love to discredit the historical outline if they could.

Does that, ipso facto, mean that everything ELSE is true? Not necessarily. Christians believe it's the inspired work of God. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the end-all answer-to-every-question possible. We were given brains to reason and think, too. Naturally there are some inconsistencies - the four gospels themselves were written at four different times in four different areas of the world - by four different perspectives. Try to find four eyewitnesses after a car accident at the same place an hour later and see what you end up with.

See, I find that intriguing. I wondered the same thing. The big bang came from SOME sort of energy. That is.. if I was to believe that nothing became something, which has never been scientifically replicated either.

Of course, the rub is that most Christians, the minute they suggest that "maybe that COULD happen"... the scientific community would then point with an "A-HA!!" and rub it back in the faces of people of faith that they ADMITTED that the creation of the world in "Seven Days" was "a load of bullcrap". It certainly didn't help that Darwin was just as intolerant to the idea of there being a God, much less his years-later protoge bulldog Richard Dawkins who would suggest that teaching their kids lessons from the Bible is tantamount to child abuse. I suppose that's our payback for Galileo.

Actually, Hall of Fame Chicago Cubs broadcaster Jack Brickhouse is often attributed to that. Close enough to a religious figure to THIS Cubs fan.

And later popularized by Don Henley when asked when the Eagles would ever tour again.... not so much a religious figure.

CruisingRam:

See what I mean? I can't believe I just don't throw away my faith and believe in a 100% god-free scientific evolution lock, stock and barrel. Someone's waiting for me to suddenly admit that my values system is a crappy sham, and up until now, I'd have to admit that I was a stupid non-thinking idiot to even give any credence to a differing opinion.

An equal and opposite sentiment is surely experienced on the other side when dealing with some of us religious types, no doubt.

If I didn't like you so much CruisingRam, I'd kick dirt on your shoes for that.

This discussion.
Me.
Out.


Not so fast. Whose gonna pay for these drinks? I thought you said you were gonna chip.. in... and.. awww damnit.

/grabs dishrag and dons apron
//starts scrubbing plates

I have no idea why a simple goodbye has a dozen responses and I have no interest in debating you or anyone else. Nonetheless, let's not pretend that my departure was anything but my choice. They gave me multiple opportunities to censor myself and I refused them all, going so far as to send messages to moderators telling them that I would not back down. In particular, I will not bite my tongue as he brags about abusing his children. I'm gone from DC and I'm on the way out of AD, so you can try to spin this anyway you want once I'm out of the picture. However, you're just lying, and it's not the sort of lie that likely to fool anyone but yourself.

TC

Good for you standing up against wrong. And congratulations on writing your seventieth post here. Sorry you have to go. Good luck to you.

My point, though harsh remains- how do you debate a belief system? Answer- you can't. You can't do logic and faith at the same time, in a debate.

I am sure, at some point, you have made some joke and statement about other's mythology- what makes christianity any more valid of a belief in the Greek or Roman gods? What about hinduism, or mormonism, or scientology? How do you debate the merits and beliefs of one vs the other? There is no logical common ground.

So you will ALWAYS have a break down in the debate, at some point.

Because spiritual debates are beliefs, not facts.

For what it is worth I never found the patience to actually post of that board. Lurk, but that is about it. TC there are alot of links to other sites, other blogs, and no one rarely gives them a seconds thought. Have you considered you may have over reacted? This site does make efforts to retain new members, moreso than most sites. This may explain why this thread has some hits. Perhaps a break?

Once that door is closed it stays closed. Farewell my friend.

Fine, don't ban me. I'll just go and leave the door open, in case I should suddenly feel the desperate need to bang my head against a political brick wall instead of a religious one. Either way, I'm not interesting in sitting around here and bitching about how poorly run DC is. Bye.

TC

A ban request is a ban granted.

Topic Closed.