GAE's relevance to convincing YECs

Continuing the discussion from Diabolical Arguments:

@John_Harshman

Im not sure your priorities are consistent with GAE. Here is a test:

Would you be able to recommend to a YEC that he could keep his belief in Original Sin if he revised his theology to include an evolved population of pre-Adamites into which de novo Adam & Eve were assumilated.

There is nothing in that sentence that requires you to personally adhere to the poition. Your recommendation would merely reflect the reality that the GAE stance is less out of sync with science.

That doesn’t sound like a recommendation. Nor does it seem anything like an atheist (and again I wonder what your consistent capitalization of the term signifies) test for anything, much less open-mindedness. Your frequent incoherence makes it hard to respond to you.

But this might help to advance your agenda, whatever it is: had you been paying any attention to what I’ve been saying, you would know that I have tried to get many creationists to accept common descent by altering their views to divinely guided evolution. In general, I am quite willing to push the less bad position in preference to the worse position.

I just hope this doesn’t further feed your bizarre and pugnacious paranoia.

2 Likes

George, most atheists don’t really care what YEC’s think. Secular Americans don’t want YEC’s making policy in the United States. Christian Nationalist YECs are trying to impose their religion on America even though America is more and more secular each day.

1 Like
  1. Given that promotion of GAE is not part of this site’s mission, why should John’s priorities be consistent with it?

  2. You would seem to be implicitly assuming that GAE is “inconsistent” with “keeping the science honest”.

This question would seem to include two unsubstantiated implicit assumptions:

  1. that the average YEC ‘person in the pew’, as opposed to the average YEC theologian, has an obsessive interest in the doctrine of Original Sin. I’ve yet to see evidence of this; and

  2. that the ‘recommendation’ of an atheist evolutionist would hold any weight with a YEC.

‘Recommending’ a position that you don’t “personally adhere to” would seem to be dishonest, as well as patronising.

I would conclude by stating that I find this thread’s title both inaccurate and insulting. There is nothing here that directly “tests” either “atheism” (many, more liberal, Christians might also not “personally adhere to” the GAE) or “openmindedness”. It would be more accurately titled:

The George test of obsessively demanding that people talk about the GAE

@moderators – I would recommending correcting the title, unless you want me to do so myself.

1 Like

@swamidass & @admins :

With what work does PS.org distinguish itself ? There are dozens of sites where atheists argue with ID folks.

How many sites have been founded on GAE?

AND … how many sites ignore GAE having been founded on it? Same number!

@Tim notes that the above quote of what he said has absolutely nothing to do with @gbrooks9’s little diatribe ‘replying’ to it and so:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He also notes that there is absolutely nothing stopping @gbrooks9 himself from discussing GAE.

1 Like

Put Intelligent Design in its own room, and ill accept that offer.

:point_up_2: :laughing:

As I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly George:

Discourse software doesn’t do rooms!

You are asking for something that quite simply doesn’t exist!

Additionally, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from setting all ID-related topics to ‘Mute’: “You are ignoring all notifications on this topic.” In which case, the topic won’t even show up in your list of topics.

@Tim

Sigh.
Concrete thinking at its worst?

From now on ill call the room a category.

@Tim

The problem is how to focus the minds of the masses. Your recommendation is hilarious.

So, in other words, your desire to discuss GAE is rather conditional. You need someone else to restructure the forum before you are willing to ‘accept the offer’ of speaking of what ever it is you want to speak of. You are unhappy with its current structure, but happy enough to not go or found someplace better. Your unhappiness instead manifests in pretending like there is a class of content you care more about or another you care less about, but not in contributing meaningfully to any of it, and utilizing none of the tools you have to tailor your experience to your liking. Instead you elect to whine like a toddler who wasn’t gifted quite enough chocolate this easter season, about things not being some other way.

Is it? Whose problem is that, in your opinion? Whose responsibility is it, in your opinion, to solve it, and why? And who gets to judge the effectiveness of any given solution?

1 Like

Ah, as expected, when you say “concrete thinking” you mean thinking that isn’t incoherently muddled.

These ‘categories’ DO NOT act like ‘rooms’ George. You cannot use them to “segregate” ID, except to the extent that a large proportion of the topics are already segregated – hence why I previously said:

That won’t start making ‘categories’ miraculously start acting like ‘rooms’ George.

Many topics, including this one, are ‘Side Conversations’ which are not seen by the masses anyway (assuming we’re defining “the masses” as non-members). :roll_eyes:

Are you demanding that all topics on ID be created as Side Conversations, and that all topics that divert into ID be recategorised as such?

  1. Then you probably should have said so, rather than babbling on endlessly about ‘rooms’, ‘side-porches’, etc, etc.

  2. It is unlikely that moderators will consider your demand to be workable.

1 Like

Implicit opinion that the masses can’t focus their own minds noted.

@admins @swamidass @Gisteron

Joshua conceived of GAE. It is his to squander. Will his body guards of Atheists support him doing the right thing?

Or are they really so petty as to insist on having primacy on a website born to give oxygen to a hybrid theology?

Do they have the soul-less capacity to suffocate a completely novel metaphysics - - “because it ain’t science?!

Your message, despite quoting mine and pinging me explicitly, is in no way a response to any part of mine. You called my attention only to waste it.

1 Like

@Gisteron

It is the only response. If you want to be set to IGNORE, let me know.

It was not a response, no. As for where you set me, that I have no opinions about whatsoever. Much like with forum threads, you are free to select what you wish to chat about and with whom, and, if anything, I would encourage you to do that, instead of endlessly complaining about the default user experience everybody else seems to be content with, including the demographics on whose behalf you are complaining (who incidentally never voted to make you their representative, anyhow).

1 Like

@Gisteron

It wouldnt be much of an election, would it. If you havent noticed, there is almost zero participation by pro-evolution Christians here - - just mostly those saying “I used to be more active here, but …”

Even when @swamidass himself posts, it is usually not to acknowledge Yahweh as master “Guide of Evolution”.