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 doesnât 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 Iâve 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 doesnât further feed your bizarre and pugnacious paranoia.
George, most atheists donât really care what YECâs think. Secular Americans donât want YECâs 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.
Given that promotion of GAE is not part of this siteâs mission, why should Johnâs priorities be consistent with it?
You would seem to be implicitly assuming that GAE is âinconsistentâ with âkeeping the science honestâ.
This question would seem to include two unsubstantiated implicit assumptions:
that the average YEC âperson in the pewâ, as opposed to the average YEC theologian, has an obsessive interest in the doctrine of Original Sin. Iâve yet to see evidence of this; and
that the ârecommendationâ of an atheist evolutionist would hold any weight with a YEC.
âRecommendingâ a position that you donât âpersonally adhere toâ would seem to be dishonest, as well as patronising.
I would conclude by stating that I find this threadâs title both inaccurate and insulting. There is nothing here that directly âtestsâ either âatheismâ (many, more liberal, Christians might also not âpersonally adhere toâ the GAE) or âopenmindednessâ. It would be more accurately titled:
The George test of obsessively demanding that people talk about the GAE
@moderators â I would recommending correcting the title, unless you want me to do so myself.
You are asking for something that quite simply doesnât exist!
Additionally, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from setting all ID-related topics to âMuteâ: âYou are ignoring all notifications on this topic.â In which case, the topic wonât even show up in your list of topics.
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 âaccept the offerâ 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 wasnât 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?
These âcategoriesâ DO NOT act like âroomsâ George. You cannot use them to âsegregateâ ID, except to the extent that a large proportion of the topics are already segregated â hence why I previously said:
That wonât start making âcategoriesâ miraculously start acting like âroomsâ George.
Many topics, including this one, are âSide Conversationsâ which are not seen by the masses anyway (assuming weâre defining âthe massesâ as non-members).
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?
Then you probably should have said so, rather than babbling on endlessly about âroomsâ, âside-porchesâ, etc, etc.
It is unlikely that moderators will consider your demand to be workable.
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).
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 âI used to be more active here, but âŚâ
Even when @swamidass himself posts, it is usually not to acknowledge Yahweh as master âGuide of Evolutionâ.
