Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[John V]

Thank you John V and Ideologue. You've reminded me of another oft-repeated tactic:

The Hurt Feelings Card

Except I haven't expressed hurt feelings...

[Mister Agenda]

No one is trying to "marginalize" anyone.

But that's what you suggested...the creation of a sub forum that apparently lists all the contemptible and repetitive Christian arguments so they can be cornered to post their contemptuous shit over there rather than among the self-evidently laudable Atheist threads.

I'd say it's a shortcut to avoid typing over and over what's been said before over and over again. We're talking about linking to a subforum, not throwing you in a dungeon. How exactly do you think you'll be cornered there?

[John V]

OK, I fixed it. If mods would just pin this thread we're done:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19194.html

[DeistPaladin]

OK, I fixed it. If mods would just pin this thread we're done:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19194.html

What FNM said in response: "Swing and a miss"

[Mister Agenda]

1. Yes, that's limiting debate.

Sigh. It doesn't limit debate to have the ability to provide links to other debates where a matter has been discussed before, it makes it more productive.

2. Some atheists love addressing repetitive arguments.

How do you imagine those atheists are going to be prevented from addressing repetitive arguments?

3. Some atheists are new to all this and can learn more by debating themselves than just by reading old threads. More experienced atheists can simply butt out if they're not interested.

How do you imagine new atheists will be prevented from debating, or helped by being denied access to an easily available resource?

4. Who knows - maybe something new to the world will come out of it. Unlikely, but possible.

You can't tell what's new if you don't know what's old.

[fr0d0]

Actually, he's trying to lay out the things we've already heard so that we can actually come up with new things - atheist and theist alike.

I love how you pull stuff from people's posts that isn't there.

If you agree with me, why are you adding noise?

[thesummerqueen]

Don't project onto me, fr0ds.

[John V]

Sigh. It doesn't limit debate to have the ability to provide links to other debates where a matter has been discussed before, it makes it more productive.

Sigh. The OP said nothing about providing links to make debates more productive. Someone asked for such out of curiosity on page 2, then the idea grew legs on page 5. Considering the tone of those first 5 pages, it's reasonable to think that these threads would be used more as hammers than as debate facilitators. It does not encourage debate to proclaim "We've already refuted that argument at this link..."

[Minimalist]

I don't think trying to marginalize only Christian posts is the way to go, repetitive posts come under a plethora of categories, not just Christianity. Perhaps we should start by unifying all introductions under one thread?

I think Mo has a point, there. The allah posts are just as poorly thought out and repetitive as the xtian posts. Maybe more so. Why discriminate?
Both in essence simply come down to "my book says so."

[Mister Agenda]

It doesn't encourage debate to re-hash the same old stuff over-and-over again, either. It's discouraging the people who have contributed to the forum the most, and making them irritable; unless they're paragons of serenity like me. I try to give newcomers the benefit of the doubt, but I would like to have this resource available, so as not to strain what little eloquence I possess.

I promise not to accompany an initial link to the subforum with a snotty proclamation, and I promise everyone else will say whatever they like, as they always do. It won't be a dramatic change from the way things are done now, I think.