Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the end of this day, I see some interesting commentary. I won't dump on anyone who had their way at my expense, other than to say I've actually asked a lot of polite questions on these forums in my short time here (7 mo.), and have received both barrels, 10 ga, many many times in response. If one expresses an atheist perspective and argument on certain topics here, they will, I guarantee, receive some pretty hostile answers: ("Evolution is BS"; "Scientists are ego-driven frauds!"; "Science ignores the truth and hides it all the time!" And on and on. Hmmm..
To deny that Christians can & do offer up some pretty insulting comebacks is, well.... whatever you'd prefer to call it. Delusional perhaps? Anyone care to deny that happens, regular as clockwork?
But in answering to more of your comments, I do note that only one Christian (thank you, mzj...) was polite and to my points. (Post-edit: also, DN; thanks! See below!)
In particular, S&L has aggressively noted that perhaps my only interest in Evolution is to discredit Xtianity. I'd say, alternately, that if Evo is a fact, hypothetically, what then does that bode for Christianity, given the supposed inerrant values of the bible. I also know that many of you, incl., the mod here, if I'm not mistaken, have noted that they do not necessarily take the bible at its literal word. Fine. But there are many stubborn Christians who do, and I wonder why. Is all.
There's probably enough material here for a good Master's degree in philosophy, about the responses of people to hot topics. To single me out and note, for example, that...
"You also have the privilege to degrade those who believe differently than you do however, that is not license to demand that everyone will agree with you or else... My observation has lead me to conclude that you have been shown far more respect than you and some others have shown people who have responded to your editorials."
... is to suggest that perhaps you haven't looked to critcally at their insulting responses, nor some of your own. Have I ever demanded that everyone agree with me? Perhaps you could show me where that has ever happened. Am I not allowed to counter their insulting arguments with my understandings & (obviously, occasionally sarcastic) statements of the facts as I see them?
To be momentarily a bit combative, is it possible that most Christian debators here do not really want someone on the forum who just might have the technical background to successfully argue their points to the floor? Especially if/when they have no actual technical understanding of the topic they so hotly refute? How does one do that in an obviously competitive debating environment without seeming to be aggressive?
And though I've acceeded on some Christian's points, (some of Campbell 34's come to mind) I've NEVER seen a single Christian post do that. Ever. If so, please show me, but perhaps more than one if possible. Just for statistical validity, you understand.
My intent here, really, was simply to try to understand the responses of many Christians who have bravely ventured into the general R&P forums, or even more gamely wandered into the Atheists forums. I certainly keep my respectful distance from the Christian-only forums, especially when I did wander in there a time or two and, to my considerable surprise, found internal wars going on! Wow!
Are there ANY Christian trolls here? Do THEY post threads only to pounce?
Yes, I've gamely fought back, and do, admittedly, get a bit sarcastic. Perhaps I can out-verbalize some of the debators; I do carry on too long many times, and am duly chastized for it. I like to make myself crystal clear, but as to my four questions, what do I often get in response?
Short, flaming oneliners, usually quite insulting, and often off topic. (perhaps the Christians ignore these when they see them?)
No response to a specific direct question.
No apparent response to very clear and understandable links, particularly the several well-done videos that many others have provided.
An amazing lack of knowledge of the topic, strictly from a technical side of things. The Abiogenesis /Evolution problem is just one example, with appropriate comments on that ongoing debacle by Hazziq above as just one kind example..
Straightforward threads on Evolution are shot down by such erudite comments as "Evolution cannot ever explain how life began, now can it? Evolution is just a theory; scientists even "admit" it!" Right? Nope; wrong on both points, and many of us dutifully respond, and are then blasted for it.
We often get the "No cat ever turned into a dog overnight, so Evolution's all wrong!" type of clarity, so I wondered what possible level of biological science education the posters of that sort of thing might have benefited from.
I mean, is it reasonable to debate something you apparently know nothing about?
So, to that precise point, then I asked for a short explanation of each point, to check out the various ideas, which was provided by a couple of good people.
No, I last did high school in 1965. At that time, science was an option, and only if you intended to go on to University; if so, it was a requirement.
Finally, my "reward"? I simply sat here late last night, reading a couple of my own rather hostile posts, which simply reflect my own arrogance and irritation at those who happily level their own insults. My feelings of professional insult that some blast away at without any concern for their implications or tone, lead to thsoe posts. Some of the responses here, obviously not trusting my intentions, are good cases in point, wouldn't you say, Alpha?
My "reward", if you'd consider it so, was a heartfelt on-line apology to those whose life's beliefs I've insulted, perhaps carelessly, coupled with my own interest in understanding where your minds might have come from. But at this point, I'll only extend that to those Christians who responded politely. Not so many right now.....
Perhaps that's a fruitless, pointless endeavour here. It only engenders more insults. Perhaps, given the volatility of the subject, there's never going to be calm discourse on these topics. To the point about past polite answers, that must have been before my time.
And, apparently, the attention span of many is not conducive to my admittedly overly long posts. I'll try to get into the habit of responding in kind, though I did try that recently, and got hammered for not explaining myself, for not backing up my affirmations, and for "arrogantly" offering up quippy answers. I'm confused. Because I also get a fair number of positive DMs and reps.....
Maybe we need a Twitter-type forum; limited to, say, 250 characters per message?
There. I hope I've addressed all your points, without being too insulting. But you never know. Perhaps it's too late. And, of course, this response was far too long. How could I have said it shorter?
Last edited by rifleman; 04-21-2009 at 06:19 PM..
Reason: clarifications
Your use of Evolution to discredit Christianity is actually a disgrace to credible scientists and respectable authorities. I’m sorry, but not surprised, that you are unable to engage in beneficial discussions on the topic with Christians.
I realize you weren't addressing your thoughts to me but I'd like to respond. The evolution versus creationism debate is actually addressing the most prominent area of disagreement between Christians and atheists and there's nothing disgraceful about engaging in it. Rifleman obviously knows what he's talking about and can get into the nuts and bolts of this debate and present information that is authoratative and based on evidence. I honestly just think that Christians who believe in creationism are just upset because it's obvious that they're losing this debate and can't present any sound evidence to support their point of view.
Let me ask you, what exactly is a beneficial discussion? Would it be one in which both sides are somehow right? The fact of the matter is that life either evolved or it didn't and there's no in between. Also, is your entire faith based on only a literal translation of Genesis and would a revision of your thinking that included evolution undermine your faith to such an extent that it would be unacceptable? Consider a few points. Modern Christians have come to accept a great many scientific principles that could have caused their execution a few centuries ago. The promotion of the idea that the earth revolved around the sun caused a number of individuals to either be imprisoned or executed but now everyone accepts it as a fact. Isn't it possible that evolution is just another one of those realities that many Christians just can't accept today but all of them will in another century?
Though it's not of any real $$$ value, please read my explanatory apologetic post above; my positive comments certainly also apply to you as well as mzj. If I've insulted you in the past, please accept my apologies.
I'm off to see if I can short-answer a few hostile Xtian posts elsewhere, but politely!
A few questions for the Christian responders in these open R&P forums:
1. Why do you generally not directly answer the politely posed questions we atheists ask in our open debates?
I tend to, but I'm new here and don't post too much in this section, I mostly post under the city and state sections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Next: We generally read the links you provide as evidence for your side of the argument. How do I know this? Because we often then cut and paste key debatable phrases or paragraphs out of them and discuss them further. Even if we mock them, at least we’ve obviously read them.
2. Why do you generally not read or comment on the links we provide?
I generally do read them but I also will not read them if I don't think there is any point to it, meaning that if the argument is one where someone is trying to disprove creationism to me, for example, I don't really care enough to defend creationism or understand evolution. To me, it doesn't matter so much which is right or wrong. I don't see how Creationism (as opposed to Creation "science") necessarily contradicts evolution, anyway.
Another thing, as you admitted that atheists do tend to mock, I think that many Christians get turned off by that and don't want to invest time in taking up someone's challenge to read a link in seriousness if he or she feels that the atheist will just turn around and mock any opinions with which he or she comes away from reading it. So, for example, an atheist mocks a Christian for not knowing science, and then challenges that same Christian to read this link and that link and get back to him - what incentive is there? To either come back and admit being wrong and be mocked for that, or to come back with an opinion in which you don't admit being wrong and be mocked further, anyway? Why give serious effort to doing what someone who mocks you wants you to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
3. Would any confirmed Christian here be willing to provide short one or two paragraph summary explanations of:
Evolution,
DNA/RNA,
the basics of dating methods and/or;
Abiogenesis versus Evolution.
Anyone? Anyone? There will be a substantial surprise positive reward. I promise. No nasty responses, at least not from me, and I'd encourage my atheist brothers, however low we are ethically and morally, to refrain from attack-mode answers on this thread.
I don't know enough about any of those subjects to provide what you ask for, and I don't see the relevance of those things to my Christian faith, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Finally, just out of curiosity, I’d like to know (informal poll because I don’t yet know how to set up one of those loverly C-D forum polls)…
4. The typical college curricula that Christians undertook if they attended college or University, or if they took Science classes in high school, or not. By choice. And the atheists can answer this question as well, just for comparison.
A short comment, such as: “I’m a confirmed Christian, and I never took any University Science or biology classes”, or “ditto", but I took Advanced Genetics and Evolution Theory, but am still a confirmed Christian”; or “I’m a flaming atheist and took a biology /physics / geology minor or major”.
This is NOT an attempt to trap anyone. My questions might initially appear to be of the "Are you still beating your wife?" sort of troll-baiting type, but I'm sincerelyinterested in understanding what I see as a reliable pattern in the typical Christian responses on our various threads.
It would be both fun, illuminating and interesting to know this, don’t you think?
I'm a devout "born-again" Christian and I attended Rutgers University. I started out as an accounting major with a minor in poli-sci, dumped poli-sci for computer science, then switched from accounting to English as my major, then had to choose between philosophy and economics for my minor as I fell short in computer classes and took too many philosophy classes (out of interest) and too many economics classes (from when I wanted to major in accounting). I chose to make philosophy my minor which made economics my second major, but in reality I believe I had enough credits to make philosophy my second major, had I wanted to (I figured economics would be more "marketable" for job hunting).
Not a very science-inclined person, but I am a very logic oriented person, hence my interests in accounting, computer science, and philosophy.
I find it interesting that many atheists presume that those not involved in the study of science lack certain levels of education in logic and reasoning, particularly when one considers that the very logic used in all of science and math is a subset of Philosophy. Science and math limit logic to the natural world and that which is somehow observed. Philosophy accepts that there is logic to those things not yet observed which are metaphysical or even physical and undiscovered yet.
Though it's not of any real $$$ value, please read my explanatory apologetic post above; my positive comments certainly also apply to you as well as mzj. If I've insulted you in the past, please accept my apologies.
I'm off to see if I can short-answer a few hostile Xtian posts elsewhere, but politely!
Oh I never really thought there would be a prize. Just being humorous.
Whew, rifleman, that was a lot to take in and you really didn't address any of our responses about the topic at hand. But let me try and explain:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Some of the responses here, obviously not trusting my intentions, are good cases in point, wouldn't you say, Alpha?
Not really, no. First, you even were good enough to admit in your OP, and I quote, "My questions might initially appear to be of the "Are you still beating your wife?" sort of troll-baiting type" so you certainly see the way your posts read even though you go on to clarify for us that you are sincerely interested (hence my participation).
But see, even in this response you gave us, you say "To be momentarily a bit combative, is it possible that most Christian debators here do not really want someone on the forum who just might have the technical background to successfully argue their points to the floor? Especially if/when they have no actual technical understanding of the topic they so hotly refute?" That's not conducive to a healthy discussion. Does everything here have to be debate? Can't we just talk ?
As far as your comments regarding Christians trolls and Christian one-liner slams, I don't really visit the A&A forum too much and rarely, very rarely EVER moderate over there (extreme cases excepted, a recent Christian troll was spamming, just ask sanspeur), so I can't really speak to that. I can tell you that if it's the posters I'm thinking of, they have been personally attacked and insulted and ridiculed so much, I can understand (although I cannot justify) their propensity to lash out, as un-Christ-like as that may be.
I, for one, would love to have a very good discussion with you on the issues and topic you have started here, but I don't want to do that if I'm going to be talked down to like I'm a 4th grader and you're my teacher. I won't subject myself to that.
I have, and think they will attest to the fact, entered into A LOT of evolution, creationism, etc debates with the likes of MontanaGuy, GCSTroop, and sanspeur, and while most of them I am sure feel about my belief system the same way you do, they verbalize it in a way that isn't offensive or belittling.
They probably think I (and those like me) are as stupid and uninformed as you do, but they keep it to themselves and (generally speaking) our conversations are more like two friends talking than opposing factions warring in yet another skirmish in a never ending war.
My intent in my response in this thread was not to offend or make you feel like I was attacking(and I mean that) and I would never have even made the opening comments had you not raised the issue in the OP that you acknowledged the way your posts read.
I read many of your posts in A&A and I can just tell you that if the tactic that you use over there is something that you think will lead to serious discussions and (at least on my side of the fence) a sort of friendly disagreement, for my sake, you're mistaken.
I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and your input, but I've spent too many months(years) here on City-Data to subject myself to belittling conversation. Others I have seen engage you, and I realize that the decision as to what is and what isn't acceptable over there is the decision of the moderators of that forum, and really be insulted by your posts, as well written as they are ....it's just something I'm not interested in.
You're a bright guy. Truly, an asset to the forums, and I apologize if my post to you was 'over the top', I didn't mean for it to be but sometimes I don't have the discernment to see how my words might be received.
I hope this sincere response is received in the spirit it is intended.
To be momentarily a bit combative, is it possible that most Christian debators here do not really want someone on the forum who just might have the technical background to successfully argue their points to the floor? Especially if/when they have no actual technical understanding of the topic they so hotly refute? How does one do that in an obviously competitive debating environment without seeming to be aggressive?
I have nothing against rifleman. I can be a sarcastic bugger myself. I am sure he detests several of my responses I have thrown at him all these days.
But this perfectly sums up the attitude here.
You guys "must" drop your central tenet that Christian believers are less technically qualified/less intellectual than you
Christians are not idiots.
Christianity is not the benchmark for personal intelligence or wisdom.
I'll even stand atop Mt.Everest and scream to announce this one.
And though I've acceeded on some Christian's points, (some of Campbell 34's come to mind) I've NEVER seen a single Christian post do that.Ever. If so, please show me, but perhaps more than one if possible. Just for statistical validity, you understand.
Rifleman,
I suggest that people have short selective memories when we are laser focused and agenda driven rather than pursuing an open-minded approach to sincere discussion.
We started out with a disagreement on the definition of species but we progressed with that difference of opinion. I continued to follow the discussion while I researched the study you cited. I was fascinated with the longevity of the study and the mass of data surrounding it. In deed on page 5 post #48, which was my second comment on that thread, I stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
This has been an interesting study! I appreciate you bring this up for discussion rifleman, even though I don’ have as much time as I would like to respond.
Dr. Lenski and his team have done some outstanding work in providing the results of this lengthy research. I’m certain that this will indeed be a landmark research project.
As I have researched this subject I found that E. Coli already has enzymes that can use and digest citrate. So citrate is not foreign to E. Coli nor is it lethal to the E. Coli bacterium.
What is missing in E. Coli is the enzyme “citrate permease” which can transfer citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior to then be digested. So the change that occurred within the lab E. Coli population was adapt in such a fashion that would allow the citrate into the cell.
I believe that this would be considered adaptation because citrate is not exotic to the E. Coli bacterium which would require evolving to a higher order cell to tolerate the citrate. Indeed it is quite possibly a degradative adaptation which actually breaks genes rather than builds or improves them. A microbiologist would be more qualified to determine that than I. Changes in cells is not uncommon, for example we see it in antibiotic resistant bacterium on an ever increasing basis. Malaria and the HIV virus are other examples of adaptation in microorganisms.
It is fairly well understood that random mutation is more likely to break genes than build them without affecting the survival of the organism.
The breaking down of genes during random mutations is important to consider because a process which breaks genes so easily is contrary to building up complex coherent systems of many proteins, which fill and instruct the cell. This suggests real limits to the number of random mutations that could happen among higher mammals.
Unfortunately, your response to those comments was less than cordial and drifted from the study of science to an attack on religion. An astute reader will identify that there is no mention of Christianity, faith or the Bible in any of my responses. One must assume that my screen name combined with the fact that I had a differing opinion than yours was all that was necessary for you to turn the focus away from science to religion and specifically Christianity.
I responded to your anti-Christian rant as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
rifleman,
I’m disappointed, as I’m sure others are also. This discussion started out okay and had the potential for the honest exchange of ideas. Unfortunately your manner in which you have conducted the discussion has compromised its potential value. You’re clearly not the open-minded intellectual that you claim to be and expect of others. It is obvious that the agenda behind you discussion has little to do with Evolution or science, those are simply the veil to obscure the actual agenda.
I invite folks to go back and review the thread. I believe that an unbiased – open-minded reading of that thread will clearly show that people who disagreed with you, not just myself, were cordial and gave you credit for your knowledge on the topic while attempting to engage in a sincere discussion even after being berated for their religious faith. The evidence of the public record speaks for itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kind Apologys To Some.
