Suggested new rule for this forum and sub-forums

[KerrMetric]

Gentlemen...if I may

Once again I'm going to suggest that instead of responding in such an unkind manner ie: liar, load of crap, meadow muffins, horse hocky, horsefeathers etc etc etc etc ....

respond instead with a source link that refutes the posted material/link

thus ELIMINATING the personal aspect of the debate

No

Because quite simply when I call say Duane Gish a liar it is not personal to anyone on this website.

When I call ICR's lame attempt at peer review a farce and they are conning people I am not personally attacking someone at this site.

If you notice I always give a reason for an accusation against these groups often using their own material against them.

What you are asking is really to compromise for the sake of compromise when really this is all a knee jerk to one poster.

A poster I might add who went report button crazy when I accused these groups and the ONLY reason he proposed the rule was because the Mods did not consider it worthy of deletion.

This is all a backdoor attempt to get his way.

No.

 

[Gwenyfur]

ok ok...

it was just a suggestion

 

[KerrMetric]

ok ok...

it was just a suggestion

Not being mean at you.

This is just a laptoppop created storm in a teacup because his reporting frenzy was not successful so he's trying a backdoor method to get his way.

It's so nice the archived reports show the name of the reporter allowing us to see where the real forum problems lay.

 

[theIdi0t]

To assume someone is evil because they don't agree with you or because they don't throw out their worldview because of some minor point someone tries to make, etc. is just plain wrong.

Well, the problem Pop is that no one is calling them "evil" because of their world-view, or because they disagree with us. Others accuse them of being con-men because of how they are presenting evidence, and how they are using terms erroneously to deceive readers, such as "peer-reviewed".

Accusing AiG or similar sources of being corrupted, is no different than calling the media bias, or the government corrupt, it is the nature of their entity that allows them to be criticized the way they are, even though they are not "here" to defend themselves. I can accuse George Bush of using evangelical christians, should someone then tell me I can't say that because George bush is not here to defend himself?

But as others have said, if you are going to accuse AiG and similar sources of such things, then you are required to provide support, and we can see if it is a fair accusation or not. But you can't afford AiG, the Media, the Government some special liberty to not be criticized because they are not here to defend themselves, as we would for each other.

 

[KerrMetric]

Well, the problem Pop is that no one is calling them "evil" because of their world-view, or because they disagree with us. Others accuse them of being con-men because of how they are presenting evidence, and how they are using terms erroneously to deceive readers, such as "peer-reviewed".

Accusing AiG or similar sources of being corrupted, is no different than calling the media bias, or the government corrupt, it is the nature of their entity that allows them to be criticized the way they are, even though they are not "here" to defend themselves. I can accuse George Bush of using evangelical christians, should someone then tell me I can't say that because George bush is not here to defend himself?

But as others have said, if you are going to accuse AiG and similar sources of such things, then you are required to provide support, and we can see if it is a fair accusation or not. But you can't afford AiG, the Media, the Government some special liberty to not be criticized because they are not here to defend themselves, as we would for each other.

Exactly.

 

[laptoppop]

Well, the problem Pop is that no one is calling them "evil" because of their world-view, or because they disagree with us. Others accuse them of being con-men because of how they are presenting evidence, and how they are using terms erroneously to deceive readers, such as "peer-reviewed".

I strongly disagree. It turns out there are lots of variations on peer review methodologies, including "open" reviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review (read the section on dynamic or open reviews)

Accusing AiG or similar sources of being corrupted, is no different than calling the media bias, or the government corrupt, it is the nature of their entity that allows them to be criticized the way they are, even though they are not "here" to defend themselves. I can accuse George Bush of using evangelical christians, should someone then tell me I can't say that because George bush is not here to defend himself?

There is an added element of them being brothers and sisters in Christ.

But as others have said, if you are going to accuse AiG and similar sources of such things, then you are required to provide support, and we can see if it is a fair accusation or not.

But that's my prime point. If all we have is one side we cannot "see if it is a fair accusation".

But you can't afford AiG, the Media, the Government some special liberty to not be criticized because they are not here to defend themselves, as we would for each other.

This is not the right forum to talk about the government or the media.

In terms of a Christian organization, I believe that attacking it in public without them having a chance to defend themselves is wrong. In the case of YEC organizations, I believe the bias of the people calling them names is a huge part of why it happens.

 

[KerrMetric]

There is an added element of them being brothers and sisters in Christ.

How do we actually know that? So is George Bush to hear him talk. Or Hillary Clinton. All these people claim faith.

And when they lie - the botherhood card is waived.

 

[KerrMetric]

I
In terms of a Christian organization, I believe that attacking it in public without them having a chance to defend themselves is wrong. In the case of YEC organizations, I believe the bias of the people calling them names is a huge part of why it happens.

They are not a Christian organisation. They are organisations that are made up of Christians.

The University of Alabama football team is probably (or at least likely) 100% Christian BUT they are not a Christian organisation.

 

[USincognito]

There is an added element of them being brothers and sisters in Christ.

So that gives a con man like Peter Popoff or a fraud like Benny Hinn or someone whose views would be considered heretical like John Shelby Spong a pass on being called a con man, faurd or heretic?

Is no fellow Christian to be criticized for anything then, or would you just reserve judgement for Spong because you disagree with him?

 

[laptoppop]

I am just suggesting that we might want to be a bit more careful about using name calling on brothers and sisters. It adds nothing to the discussions, and just creates hard feelings. I'd much rather discuss the evidence than deal with the name calling.

 

[theIdi0t]

In terms of a Christian organization, I believe that attacking it in public without them having a chance to defend themselves is wrong.

I have a suggestion Pop, since the issue is "not giving them a chance to defend themselves" why not just email them a link to thread where we are discussing them, and tell them they are free to participate and provide a rebuttal?

That provides them "a chance" to defend themselves don't you think?

 

[USincognito]

I am just suggesting that we might want to be a bit more careful about using name calling on brothers and sisters. It adds nothing to the discussions, and just creates hard feelings. I'd much rather discuss the evidence than deal with the name calling.

If this response was to me, it didn't answer my question. Do con men, frauds and heretics get passes from being called con men, frauds or heretics just because they're Christian or not?

eta - And what about tax cheat Kent Hovind? Does he get a pass from being called a tax cheat just because he's a Christian?

 

[Dannager]

I am just suggesting that we might want to be a bit more careful about using name calling on brothers and sisters. It adds nothing to the discussions, and just creates hard feelings.

A suggestion, if I may.

If you are worried that being called a liar might create hard feelings, don't lie.

It's not that difficult. Just don't say anything that isn't true. And if you do choose to lie for the sake of your position, you deserve to have it exposed. It's difficult for me to imagine what life would be like if no one was willing to point someone out as a liar.

I'd much rather discuss the evidence than deal with the name calling.

Evidence is usually provided. But when that same claim comes up time after time, despite being refuted hundreds of times, it becomes lying very quickly. And continuing to refute it every single time is ridiculous. Explaining that the source is lying is much more efficient, and permanently damning its credibility saves us the trouble of having to deal with it constantly in the future (oh! if only posters were so kind as to discard lying sources!).

 

[Assyrian]

There is an added element of them being brothers and sisters in Christ.

Isn't there something about judgment beginning with the household of God? Why should Hovind and Gish be given a free pass? And shouldn't we warn our brothers and sisters here about people who are deceiving them?

 

[notto]

I am just suggesting that we might want to be a bit more careful about using name calling on brothers and sisters.

No. That is not what you are suggesting.
You are suggesting that it be disallowed even if justified.

You seem to be suggesting that these things are said without justification and are done without careful consideration of the words.

This is not true.

When we say that AIG are liars, it is because they are.

When we say that ICR con people, it is because they do.

It is an evidenced and carefully considered accusation.

And it is completely appropriate for these forum where people use them as a trusted source.

 

[USincognito]

I've been avoiding coming out and saying this but alluding to it is just to coy for me at this point.

This rule suggestion is little more than, what I - and I alone speak for myself - consider the intellectual cowardice that resulted in the advent of the Creationist subforum. YECs consider any critique or criticism of their positions or public advocates insults, slander and attacks for no reason more than they don't want to confront the critiques and criticism and would rather everyone just line up behind Duane Gish, Ken Ham and Walt Brown and say Amen!

It's intellectual cowardice at its worst.

 

[laptoppop]

I've been avoiding coming out and saying this but alluding to it is just to coy for me at this point.

This rule suggestion is little more than, what I - and I alone speak for myself - consider the intellectual cowardice that resulted in the advent of the Creationist subforum. YECs consider any critique or criticism of their positions or public advocates insults, slander and attacks for no reason more than they don't want to confront the critiques and criticism and would rather everyone just line up behind Duane Gish, Ken Ham and Walt Brown and say Amen!

It's intellectual cowardice at its worst.

There is a huge difference between critique and criticism and calling people names, and accusing them of lying and defrauding people.

 

[theIdi0t]

There is a huge difference between critique and criticism and calling people names, and accusing them of lying and defrauding people.

So you oppose someone saying Kent Hovind "defrauded" the IRS?

I had a cousin whose mother was about to purchase miracle water from Peter Popoff, and he confronted her and told her he was a charlatan. The reason why most TEs bring this to the attention of other believers is because it is important that they are confronted with reality, and walking around on egg shells just permits more purchases of miracle water.

If you are about to walk off a cliff, I'm not going to whisper to you, I'm going to grab you and throw you to the floor, and I'd appreciate it if you return the favor.

 

[laptoppop]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

 

[notto]

So should I start a thread about the lies, distortions, frauds, etc. done by evolutionists? How exactly would that help the discussions around here?

If you can point to an 'evolutionist' organization that is still using lies, distortions, frauds and claiming that they are still valid evidence, then go right ahead.

I for one would welcome it.

How would it help the discussion? It would show that we should not trust the organization outright and maybe we should think twice about using any PRATT's that have already been addressed.

It would put into context the fact that they need to lie, distort, and use frauds to make their case which doesn't say much about their case.

It would demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty of the organization and those that defend them as seekers of truth.

Go for it.

Find an 'evolutionist' organization, demonstrate the lie they are perpetuating, and open up the discussion.

Find an 'evolutionist' organization, demonstrate the fraud they are perpetuating, and open up the discussion.

Just be sure that the information you use to demonstrate this isn't from an organization that is known to lie, distort, and perpetuate fraud.

For instance, if you plan on using information from AIG or ICR to comment on a topic such as radiological dating, you best be sure the materials where actually written by somebody who is familiar with the subject and make sure that they themselves didn't misrepresent the evidence or outright state that they will ignore any evidence contrary to their religious views.

Again, I would welcome it.