At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision Discussion Thread (2) - Please Vote in Poll Thread

[KomissarSteve]

Theorizing in a vacuum clearly only generates ignorant falsehoods.

Yeah, but it kinda looks like that's precisely what you're doing when you can't back up your statements with evidence...

And they only appear to have them when you say so. Like when people oppose what you think.

*shrugs* Hey, show me an example of where they clearly have sinister intentions and I'll gladly reconsider.

Yes, I do. You come in here with suspicion based on absence of information,

I don't know why you say that; I'm not the one who's making claims without backing them up with solid fact.

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah, but it kinda looks like that's precisely what you're doing when you can't back up your statements with evidence...

I've cited evidence, bub, and I do have more. You're the one with the attacks based on self-declared absence of data.

But hey, good try. If people weren't actually critically checking your debate tactic they might've missed that.

*shrugs* Hey, show me an example of where they clearly have sinister intentions and I'll gladly reconsider.

yeah, like last time. A true believer. "There's no evidence!" "Oh, there is? I need more evidence or there's no evidence!"

I don't know why you say that; I'm not the one who's making claims without backing them up with solid fact.

Gee, someone must be puppetting your account:

The Gospel is already lost to these forums if so many members care so much more about CF being ideologically pure than they do about fulfilling the Great Commission and leading by example.

Back it up by citing care for ideological purity. C'mon, solid fact as you say.

 

[JDIBe]

But how does the presence of that atheist make it not possible for the two believers to quote Scripture to one another? If there is a rule against disrespecting others' beliefs, and it's enforced, then surely the atheist won't post to ridicule quoting Scripture unless he or she genuinely has problems - and that's why God invented the ban option.

Because a forum is not like a private conversation. It's more like a "cocktail party". If two or three people are discussing an issue, then there is absolutely nothing to stop someone else from coming in and saying, "well what about..." and everyone else having to "reinvent the wheel" again. And in an open forum, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so.

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where extreme diversity of opinions isn't useful or enlightening. I'm just saying there are situations where it really isn't.

Maybe each forum could have a "front porch" where visitors could come and discuss. The main forum could be reserved for members.

Banning works two ways, you know. If you try to convince an athiest that his beliefs are wrong, are you "disrespecting his belief"?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Because a forum is not like a private conversation. It's more like a "cocktail party". If two or three people are discussing an issue, then there is absolutely nothing to stop someone else from coming in and saying, "well what about..." and everyone else having to "reinvent the wheel" again. And in an open forum, they would be perfectly within their rights to do so.

So what's wrong with keeping all forums open besides one for new Christians? Because I can assure you, keep the non-Christians, ban the non-Christians - you're still going to get people disagreeing on just about every issue beyond God's existence and Jesus being the Messiah.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I've cited evidence, bub, and I do have more.

When it's anecdotal evidence, I don't exactly have much of an opportunity to check to see if you're telling the truth/portraying the situation quite accurately.

But hey, good try. If people weren't actually critically checking your debate tactic they might've missed that.

Hey, come on, now - I don't think nastiness is really called for.

yeah, like last time. A true believer. "There's no evidence!" "Oh, there is? I need more evidence or there's no evidence!"

That...doesn't seem all that sinister to me, but whatever...

Gee, someone must be puppetting your account:

Back it up by citing care for ideological purity. C'mon, solid fact as you say.

It's pretty ubiquitous throughout this thread. There are a LOT of posts like these.

 

[heymikey80]

I've cited evidence, bub, and I do have more. You're the one with the attacks based on self-declared absence of data.

When it's anecdotal evidence, I don't exactly have much of an opportunity to check to see if you're telling the truth/portraying the situation quite accurately.

Ah, now the argument changes. Now it's anecdotal data. Any old anecdote, and you'll prefer your own view over someone else's.

No solid foundation for an ethical decision? I mean, I'm sure you can pass off statistical data, too. So no event nor statistic will really convince you.

Anything? Or is there no method whereby you'd be convinced otherwise? Is your view of this forum really "Everyone doing what's right in his own eyes"?

Hey, come on, now - I don't think nastiness is really called for.

Simple: don't say things that provoke a commensurate response:

Yeah, but it kinda looks like that's precisely what you're doing when you can't back up your statements with evidence...

Which I actually did. You're saying someone who's starting out "I'm not debating!" isn't aware that he's posting into a non-debate forum -- and then he proceeds to debate!

He's transparently obvious here. You're the one resisting the evidence.

yeah, like last time. A true believer. "There's no evidence!" "Oh, there is? I need more evidence or there's no evidence!"

That...doesn't seem all that sinister to me, but whatever...

Ah, defying your opponent to meet higher and higher benchmarks -- which mean nothing to you. That's not sinister. That's just making fun of your opponent. Which is why I challenge you to state truth instead of assuming absence of data is data about absence.

Arguing with someone who has no argument, who just thinks what he thinks and concludes the motives of his opposition from his own thoughts -- that is like living in a dreamworld. That's why I call on you to define your criteria for reality and decisions. If you have none, then it makes no sense why you'd ever debate anything, anywhere, anytime. Because with no way to be convinced otherwise -- you're not thinking critically.

Which is really inconsistent. Those who are siding with you complain ad infinitum that Christians always think this way. And here y'are making decisions based on your thinking this way.

Back it up by citing care for ideological purity. C'mon, solid fact as you say.

It's pretty ubiquitous throughout this thread. There are a LOT of posts like these.

I guess by implying an ideology into genez and then defining "purity" in some way you could get there from a post like genez'. But that's pretty-much your attribution of motive.

I thought I remembered some comment like, "I don't make a habit of ascribing sinister motives to people who don't appear to have them."

The appearance of sinister motives in genez remains for you to demonstrate, as the ascription is not based in explicit fact.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Ah, now the argument changes.

Not really; I still don't see any reason to believe what you're saying, and I still need to see some evidence if you expect me to believe you. That's really all there is to it; you're the one making the positive assertion (ie: that non-Christians here have sinister motives, especially the one in the post you cited). I don't believe you. I don't think any rational mind here would believe you without proof. So either post your evidence, or expect me and others to dismiss your assertion.

 

[Trish1947]

Not really; I still don't see any reason to believe what you're saying, and I still need to see some evidence if you expect me to believe you. That's really all there is to it; you're the one making the positive assertion (ie: that non-Christians here have sinister motives, especially the one in the post you cited). I don't believe you. I don't think any rational mind here would believe you without proof. So either post your evidence, or expect me and others to dismiss your assertion.

I don't know why you would be afforded the extra proof, from a Christian, when nobody else had to believe anybody else and produce evidence. Your not asked to believe us. God is the One that's asking us to ask Him when we diligently seek Him and want to know. All do their own asking, seeking, and finding. So laying this as a Christians responiblity to prove anything as evidence to you is incorrect. We have been asked to preach the Gospel, it's up to you how far you want to seek it's truth and from Whom.

 

[heymikey80]

And for that:

Hey, There's nothing wrong with being an atheist. You don't need god or any other religous figure to make you happy. Don't worry about religion. It is not at all important

Another post cleaned out of New Christians forum.

 

[heymikey80]

Not really; I still don't see any reason to believe what you're saying, and I still need to see some evidence if you expect me to believe you. That's really all there is to it; you're the one making the positive assertion (ie: that non-Christians here have sinister motives, especially the one in the post you cited). I don't believe you. I don't think any rational mind here would believe you without proof. So either post your evidence, or expect me and others to dismiss your assertion.

I don't think any rational mind who knows the first thing about linguistic connotation can avoid the fact.

It's clear the poster knew the rules of posting to that forum. He intentionally tried to dissuade people from thinking he was debating the matter. There's no other reason for him to state, "I'm not debating".

Therefore it's clear the poster was posting to the wrong forum, and he knew it.

You can twiddle around with your "putting the best face on it" strategy all you want. It doesn't make sense of your statements. You're implying motives against Christians, and not implying motives against non-Christians. It's inconsistent.

And that's not going to argue in favor of your view.

 

[Skripper]

Pistols at twenty paces?

 

[Skripper]

How about we just all kill each other? Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[KomissarSteve]

It's clear the poster knew the rules of posting to that forum.

I don't think that's clear at all.

He intentionally tried to dissuade people from thinking he was debating the matter. There's no other reason for him to state, "I'm not debating".

Sure there is - he didn't intend to debate, but when people challenged his convictions, he felt compelled to defend himself. I think that's a lot more likely of an explanation than some sinister agenda to subvert a Christian forum.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I don't know why you would be afforded the extra proof, from a Christian, when nobody else had to believe anybody else and produce evidence.

Well, hey, keep in mind, the only reason I'm asking him to provide me with evidence of his assertions is because what he's claiming seems...relatively radical, to say the least. I think it's at the very least counterintuitive to claim that the non-Christians here have some sort of agenda of subverting the Christian principles of this site, and if someone is going to claim that another member, much less an entire group of members, is motivated by nefarious aims, I don't think it's all that unfair of me to ask, "Well...how, exactly, do you know?"

I mean, even before I started posting in this thread, people were bringing up the possibility that people might be voting to ostracize the non-Christians on CF out of xenophobia, and a fear of having to defend their beliefs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I really think that heymikey's claims that the forum non-Christians have some sort of sinister agenda here lends credence to those earlier suspicions of xenophobia.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Pistols at twenty paces?

I challenge mikey to a wiffle-bat duel!!!

 

[heymikey80]

Sure there is - he didn't intend to debate, but when people challenged his convictions, he felt compelled to defend himself. I think that's a lot more likely of an explanation than some sinister agenda to subvert a Christian forum.

You just crammed the reason for him to post at all.

Lessee, he's not looking for new Christians, yet he's posting there. He's not looking for Christians at all, yet he's posting to ChristianForums. He's not debating, yet he's contradicting everything that a Christian would be presenting.

Either he's surprised by the obvious, or he intentionally posted directly into the wrong forum. I don't put anyone as that surprised. Certainly every single one of my atheistic friends would've happily informed him how bad we Christians were about judging him.

His familiarity with Christian concepts also argues volumes against the level of innocence you attribute to him.

It doesn't hold water, Komissar. But it's interesting to see your denial.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

Isn't there supposed to be a decision made today?

 

[Skripper]

I challenge mikey to a wiffle-bat duel!!!

I hear he's better at T-ball.

 

[KomissarSteve]

You just crammed the reason for him to post at all.

Lessee, he's not looking for new Christians, yet he's posting there. He's not looking for Christians at all, yet he's posting to ChristianForums. He's not debating, yet he's contradicting everything that a Christian would be presenting.

So he wanted to make a statement. Big deal. That's the way young people are nowadays. I agree it was inappropriate, and he probably should have known better, but it's a pretty major leap in logic to go from there to assuming that he must be doing it to lure new Christians away.

It doesn't hold water, Komissar. But it's interesting to see your denial.

Goodness - if this is the way you treat fellow Christians, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that outreach isn't very high on your list of priorities.

Now come on - surely we can agree that it's much more likely that, while the poster you've cited was probably trying to get a bit of a rise out of people and start a controversy, it's assuming a little too much to attribute such malicious motives to him - much less to all non-Christians at CF!

 

[heymikey80]

So he wanted to make a statement. Big deal. That's the way young people are nowadays. I agree it was inappropriate, and he probably should have known better, but it's a pretty major leap in logic to go from there to assuming that he must be doing it to lure new Christians away.

The effect is to pull new Christians into deep water. And it's not unique, as you know.

Goodness - if this is the way you treat fellow Christians, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that outreach isn't very high on your list of priorities.

What? You dislike your view being considered a denial? Such unwarranted sensitivity given that you've said much the same to me. What else would I say it is?

You know nothing about my views, and yet you proffered another attack on my motives. Great job Steve. Your critique is returned in kind. Back to you. Same issue.

Now come on - surely we can agree that it's much more likely that, while the poster you've cited was probably trying to get a bit of a rise out of people and start a controversy, it's assuming a little too much to attribute such malicious motives to him - much less to all non-Christians at CF!

You mistake the point. If you can't handle these actions, then you can't control them. And if you're dealing with the 1 out of 99 ... who's really getting lost by this action?

And yes, shepherding involves more than just chasing down wayward sheep. There's a flock to keep as well as predators to protect against. Chasing down a sheep does no good if there's no flock to come home to -- or if the flock's left vulnerable.