The Pathway Machine

[Purple Rabbit]

We keep disagreeing on the free speech matter Adrian (which is OK by me). Can the refutation of arguments be validated objectively? Do some posting on a theist forum and you'll know. And decency is a rather soft criterion. All those left here must be really decent girls and boys then? Have we responded decent each time? By whose definition?

What I meant was, we listen to argument from theists about various thing to do with creation science. I have no problems listening to them, as it is well within their freedom of speech to say such things. We likewise have the right to correct them with the actual science that has been observed, tested, etc. If they continue to make the same statements about creation science without trying to refute our corrections, then they cannot expect to continue with the debate unless they admit their views are wrong. Debates do not function if one side simply keeps insisting a point and does nothing to counter the points raised by the other. If a person cannot refute the points, they have lost the debate, and should acknowledge it.

Two great examples of this are CoxRox and Daystar. Whilst Daystar simply ignored all attempts to explain Evolution to him and show evidence, and repeatedly called us "religious" for believing in a theory he knew nothing about, CoxRox listened to our points, admitted she didn't know much about the subject, and bought several books on the subject.

She hasn't said anything on whether she believes Evolution, but she has made attempts to critically analyze her beliefs. Likewise, I think most of us did the same analysis when Daystar brought up his "Hell" posts, and I think most of us have changed the opinion of what the Bible actually says about certain things.

Intellectual honesty is all we are asking for. Being able to say that you were wrong or didn't properly understand allows for proper debates, otherwise things break down. We're not going to ban people for being idiots, or for being uneducated, but we are going to ban people who constantly (note the bolding) refuse the acknowledge anything they have said that was plainly wrong.

Yeah, yeah, you already made your point clear. In my words: to you decent behaviour is ultimately recognizable in surrender to your reasoning. As for me, you miss out on the emotional impact of defeat, the right to disagree and the difference between winning a debate as a mission and debating as a path to awareness. Let's leave it at that because otherwise someone might feel compelled to bow for rationalized feelings once again.