- This topic is empty.
- Posts
So I'm away for some time, and someone comes up with the brilliant idea to rename the largest section that “non-believers” can post in to “Non-Believers vs. Believers”.
So now its all about a contest between those who believe in something that has no evidence to support it with those who don't?
I find the title rather insulting. But its par for the course.
Can you come up with a better and more suitable title?
I will implement it if it is better.Think about what is going on in that section. There are a lot of challenges from those who do not believe in God and the gospel and those that do. So for now, I think it is descriptive, but I am open to better ideas.
This section also keeps its contained topics away from the Believers Place which before the implementation of the non-believers group, most debates ended up debating the existence of God or the validity of the scriptures. So the section is just catering for something that is naturally taking place and it can be expanded too.
This way all get to have their say in an appropriate place and because of that, there should be less conflicts or changing the subject as well as more quality discussion on each topic.
I don't have an issue with the “non-believers” part. Its the “vs” part that I think is wrong. Are you going to change the various Believers sections to “Baptists vs Catholics”, etc.?
That seems funny because every post in there is “versus”.
When you argue, debate, or compete with a group of people, then “versus” is what happens.
I don't see anything but “versus” in that section. I do not see agreement between the skeptics and believers at all.What do you suggest?
Well, “General” — which it was at one point — was sufficient IMHO. I understand what you were trying to convey, but I personally think that labeling the section as “vs Believers” means that section is meant to be confrontational. Perhaps it is more often than not, but labeling it as such is a negative thing, I think.
I cannot speak for Stu (or any other skeptic/non-believer), but I do not post on here to show you where I am right and you are wrong. I simply challenge you to show why you believe what you do and if it is really feasible for others to do so.
Thanks for your input, but your contributions have been way more than general as the original title suggested. IMO they have been confrontational and even mocking in spirit at times.
I don't really have a problem with that as men should be able to express what their heart desires. But I think the current title is apt for what it is. It may appear negative, but if it is descriptive of the underlying content, then that just shows that the confrontations are perhaps mainly negative and hence the title suits the content.
A site like this will always attract those that disagree with faith and God, and I think rather than kick people out, it is better to give them a platform where they can spout of, rant, rave, dicsuss, and talk. It is better than getting rid of such people or letting them participate in the Believers Place for example.
That is my 2 cents worth anyway.
Why not just called it “Skeptics Place” then? Otherwise, you should rename “Believer's Place” to “Believers vs Believers”. I say this because I have seen many posts in that section that have been every bit as heated and confrontational as those found in the section that Stu and I can post in.
Hey guys, thanks for the category change as well. I think “Skeptics” is likely the best description of us. Kudos!
Skeptics require evidence before they will become believers in anything. Does that mean t8 should be allowed to post in the Skeptics' Place?
Stuart
I have my evidence, otherwise I wouldn't believe. No believer needs to have blind faith. There is evidence when you have faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You could say that about a lot of thigns in life. If you didn't believe that you could achieve success in life, then you probably won't see it.
I have seen miracles and other things that most wouldn't believe if I told them. I don't need a test tube to work out things that are not of the physical realm because that is completely unreasonable. Of course belief in God doesn't go against the data either.
But there is too much imagination in areas like Evolution for my liking. I like to see proof and no proof is given. The reason why it is a theory. So I am a skeptic in that area, but not in the area of faith in God.
Once it was the other way around for me. I believed in Evolution by faith and refused to believe in the existence of God. I know which way round is better because I have been on both sides of the fence.
That is right. I find a lot of what people say in support that there is no God or that scripture is nothing but a book of legends and fables to be quite dubious. A lot of the supposed support itself for such arguments also boils down to belief and a type of faith.
Don't worry about supplying any evidence t8. We are happy to take just whatever you recon as the basis for natural history.
Stuart
The evidence I have is for me and I doubt you would listen anyway. So know point in wasting my time Stu.
You mind is already made up. A testimony is not going to even make you consider. That is my guess.You are a bit closer to understanding the skeptical position. Indeed testimonies and the laughable “evidence of things unseen” have no value whatever. You may also have noted that I have never expected you to accept my 'testimony'. The Royal Society has the motto Nullius in verba: On the word of no one.
You should embrace this epistemological approach: it is the reason you enjoy, for example, the highest standards of food safety in the world.
What you believe is irrelevant to whether you 'have made your mind up' or not, because you do not make claims that can be tested anyway. Claiming there is a god that does all sorts of magic but can only believed on a personal level is not convincing to me. It may be convincing to some humans who are a bit credulous and susceptible to memes that disable the person's critical faculties, as it has clearly done in your case if you are serious that your mind is made up. My mind is made up too, but what I believe stands or falls on what is observed in the real world. It will change in the face of unambiguous evidence to the contrary. So when you actually have some evidence that contradicts Darwin or standard model big bang cosmology I will certainly listen.
As it happens you have nothing but what you recon, based on your determined belief in the mythology of just another religion, one of thousands that have diverted humans with their earnest egocentric fantasy stories over many millennia.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
