C/E is the new GA

[Pete Harcoff]

I find it ironic this thread was closed because it was an "apologetics thread".

It seems like 90% of threads around here turn into apologetics threads. C/E doesn't really get discussed here much anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it ironic this thread was closed because it was an "apologetics thread".

It seems like 90% of threads around here turn into apologetics threads. C/E doesn't really get discussed here much anymore.

Did you miss this part?

Please repost your question in the Exploring Christianity forum.

I went there to see if it was reposted; and guess what?

I don't see it.

What do you suppose that means?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Did you miss this part?I went there to see if it was reposted; and guess what?

I don't see it.

What do you suppose that means?

It means you are trying to derail a topic on only the second post. Good job!

 

[MoonLancer]

considering the rules of exploring Christan section of the forums, its not really the right place for such a question. Can you imagine the firestorm if atheist websites started using the same rules this place does. Ug.

atheists are able to argue their points and they don't need to create wonky forum rules to skew the argument in their favor.

No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.

sounds like they are really confident about defending their views. No doubt they are loaded with fallacies and junk logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

considering the rules of exploring Christan section of the forums, its not really the right place for such a question.

Then why was this asked: 1?

Can you imagine the firestorm if atheist websites started using the same rules this place does. Ug.

No, I can't.

Atheist websites are not my cup of tea, no matter what rules they use.

atheists are able to argue their points and they don't need to create wonky forum rules to skew the argument in their favor.

Good for them.

I notice that some people seem to have a real disdain for rules; even to the point of complaining that God placed the Tree of Knowledge off-limits.

sounds like they are really confident about defending their views.

As long as they keep up with science, atheists should be able to display some confidence.

But if they don't keep up, they will get, as Tim LaHaye put it, left behind.

No doubt they are loaded with fallacies and junk logic.

Who?

 

[USincognito]

I find it ironic this thread was closed because it was an "apologetics thread".

It seems like 90% of threads around here turn into apologetics threads. C/E doesn't really get discussed here much anymore.

That's because so many people here can't resist the antics of the village idiots and allow them to be derailed into off topic areas away from C/E.

eta - that thread was off topic for the C/E section.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

considering the rules of exploring Christan section of the forums, its not really the right place for such a question. Can you imagine the firestorm if atheist websites started using the same rules this place does. Ug.

atheists are able to argue their points and they don't need to create wonky forum rules to skew the argument in their favor.
sounds like they are really confident about defending their views. No doubt they are loaded with fallacies and junk logic.

Well that's more or less irrelevant to what I was trying to raise. It seems the lack of GA has resulted in a vacuum which the C/E forum (and maybe some of the other forums) has turned into.

I've noticed a lot of creationists don't really bother to discuss things related to C/E, instead skipping right to the apologetics. AV1611VET is a prime example of this.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's because so many people here can't resist the antics of the village idiots and allow them to be derailed into off topic areas away from C/E.

True. I've probably been guilty of this myself. It's annoying, though, because there was a time when C/E was actually discussed here.

 

[USincognito]

True. I've probably been guilty of this myself. It's annoying, though, because there was a time when C/E was actually discussed here.

Good on topic discussions. A required modicum of intellectual rigor. I really miss those days.

 

[hangback]

True. I've probably been guilty of this myself. It's annoying, though, because there was a time when C/E was actually discussed here.

I have always been led to believe that when it comes to creationism there was nothing to discuss, creationism is a belief that Genesis 1 is the literal truth, how can that belief be discussed? any discussion would just go around in circles.
Discussions can only be had between two people who hold the same belief, anyone else would not understand how or why a person could hold that belief.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I have always been led to believe that when it comes to creationism there was nothing to discuss, creationism is a belief that Genesis 1 is the literal truth, how can a belief be discussed? any discussion would just go around in circles.
Any discussions can only be had between two people who believe the same thing, anyone else just would not understand the belief.

Well, there are some that claim that creationism is scientific (i.e. ICR, AiG, etc) who attempt to use science to prove it. Those types of things usually got discussed here in the past.

The last poster who would get into the sciences was Mark Kennedy, but he seemed to bow out from such discussions as of late for various reasons (being deployed a big one, I imagine).

As for other creationsits, maybe they've just given up after having their arguments refuted?

 

[hangback]

Well, there are some that claim that creationism is scientific (i.e. ICR, AiG, etc) who attempt to use science to prove it. Those types of things usually got discussed here in the past.

Science deals in facts, if religions could call on facts they would not be called faiths, ID and the creation museum are just ways of making money.

 

[sbvera13]

I find it ironic this thread was closed because it was an "apologetics thread".

Someone (preferably the OP) should contact that moderator and explain that because creationism's primary (*cough* only *cough*) support is the bible, discussing the bible is relevant to C+E. Since one of the arguments we hear in favor of creation so often is "Gods Word vs Man's Word", I think discussing who wrote the bible would be directly relevenat.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well that's more or less irrelevant to what I was trying to raise. It seems the lack of GA has resulted in a vacuum which the C/E forum (and maybe some of the other forums) has turned into.

I've noticed a lot of creationists don't really bother to discuss things related to C/E, instead skipping right to the apologetics. AV1611VET is a prime example of this.

I think the main reason for this is creationism is a form of apologetics. It ether attacks science or makes excuses but never provides any facts or evidence for its case.

 

[TheManeki]

Pete, I wonder if part of the issue is that the majority of creationist talking points have little to no science content whatsoever.

We have a few creationists who like to season their statements with a dash of metaphysics and pseudoscience, but it seems the most common objections use apologetics to defend a bowdlerized interpretation of the Bible. I think these objections, even if they could be considered off-topic, should still be addressed alongside the science. Even if that does make for an annoying game of wack-a-mole.

 

[USincognito]

Pete, I wonder if part of the issue is that the majority of creationist talking points have little to no science content whatsoever.

We have a few creationists who like to season their statements with a dash of metaphysics and pseudoscience, but it seems the most common objections use apologetics to defend a bowdlerized interpretation of the Bible.

The solution to that issue is to ignore their nonsense and demand they get back to the science. If all they have is PRATTs so be it. More productive dialogue will come from PRATT refutation than 10 or 15 people responding to the village idiots off topic antics.

 

[TheManeki]

The solution to that issue is to ignore their nonsense and demand they get back to the science. If all they have is PRATTs so be it. More productive dialogue will come from PRATT refutation than 10 or 15 people responding to the village idiots off topic antics.

That seems a little counterproductive. Creationist apologists tend to distrust any science that runs afoul of their beliefs, so it seems unlikely that they would bother to learn it on their own. However, if they stick around as they apologize for their beliefs, they might actually learn something.

Additionally, they might get the wrong idea that nobody wants to debate them because their arguments are irrefutable, as opposed to off-topic. Now if we could get some heavy moderation in here to remove off-topic posts, then it would make it very clear what is and what is not appropriate. But what are the chances that would happen?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Can someone tell me what GA stands for. General Assembly? Go Away? Get the Atheists?

 

[TheManeki]

Can someone tell me what GA stands for. General Assembly? Go Away? Get the Atheists?

GA is shorthand for "General Apologetics," a CF forum which was shut down a little while ago. I'm not sure why, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can someone tell me what GA stands for. General Assembly? Go Away? Get the Atheists?

General Apologetics

It used to be the sub-forum of choice here for those who wanted to roll up their sleeves and get down to business in debating.

But it was becoming, in my opinion, more and more like Blasphemy Central --- if you know what I mean.

If I remember correctly, Administration stepped in and temporarily closed it to allow us to cool down and see what it would be like w/o it.

When they reopened it, it was just as nasty as ever, if not moreso.

Admin graciously closed it.