The Evolution of evcforum.net

Au contraire,Rob. I find you and The Literalist do a public service by forcing members to explain the full ramifications of their posts. Each 'i' dotted and 't' crossed, which makes us more thorough in our explanations. Not so much a devil`s advocate, more a devil`s pedant.BTW, how`s EvC--the Musical coming along?

Regardless of how many creationists we turn away, regardless of how many (or few) converts we make, the fact remains that we have a low success rate with our arguments. If we can`t impress low numbers, how then can we find a formula for mass conversions in the real world?

Creationists come here with a statement. We go to great lengths explaining an alternative explanation. Creationists leave unconvinced. Not conversion to evolution or atheism. I`d be satisfied with a development of critical thinking.

Hi,Gene (no pun). .I doubt you can get mutual respect with a mindset that regards non-believers as infidels at best and evil at worst. Now if we can only 'convert' the mindset to a more rational basis for dialogue.

Score : Robin - won. Faith (the poster, not the belief)-lost

Speaking as an atheistic fundie------One key text JW`s like to show you when starting indoctrination is Isa 1:18 -'Come and let us reason together, saith the Lord'---. Now while that quickly disappears as the lessons proceed with them, I still think it a good basis for dialogue. Until you grasp that there will be no reasoning with lock-step creationists, and they really only want to show you what good Christians they are. Now I`m a great one for mutual respect, but it has to be earned, not given to all with an opinion. And when my views are dismissed without a cursory discussion, then there is no way I will give 'mutual respect'.And especially when I have travelled the long road from religion to atheism and beyond. The world is full of whacko ideas and the more you pander to them, the more they stay entrenched. If there is no rational basis to believe suggestions put to me, why should I agree with them? If views fly in the face of evidence I have been accumulating for years, should I dismiss the facts as false? If people want to blind themselves to what has been repeatedly proven, should I accept their world-view as equal to mine?
Sample:
Ath:The world wasn`t formed as described in Genesis
Creo: Lies
Ath: There is no evidence we can find for the Exodus
Creo: Lies
Ath: We can`t find evidence of the Flood
Creo: Lies
Ath:The Bible doesn`t exist in the original form
Creo: Lies
ATh: No loving God would persist in killing off millions with disease
Creo: Lies
I know that is a tad black and white, but that`s the kind of person we have to show mutual respect? Apologetics of all kinds should press for it to be an Olympic event as the spectacular back-flips,side-somersaults and forward three and a half in the pike position are wonders to behold.
Religion has provided many benefits as well as many excesses, but should a limited understanding of how the world works be given equal ranking with observations proven over and over again? To hear creationists debating by posts in the scores on how a Scripture should be interpreted, leads me to believe that they have no greater grip on reality than bacteria believing they rule the world (in fact, bacteria might have the edge). Covering the PRATT files for the 1001st time isn`t going to change either the atheist/evo conclusions, or the world-view of a proselytiser straight from the AIG/CR fool factory. The only benefits I can see from the dialogue at EvC are that those on the Evo side polish their presentations in various ways, and the creationists might go away with a seed of knowledge planted in what may become fertile ground.

Right on cue, our national daily had an article on the decay of respecthttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...15%255E28737,00.htmlA couple of quotes In our little oasis of sanity we call EvC, I hope after spirited battles that we remain friends.