Entry requirement for creationists

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How about this instead:

If a creationist visitor wishes to post here, it should be automatically allowed. However, since the origin of the universe, of the Earth, and of life are - ultimately - scientific questions, any post invoking the supernatural would summarily deleted.

Since this would effectively ban all creationists, I propose an exception to the above rule: A post (or reply to a post) may contain the phrase or sentiment 'God created the universe' or the equivalent. But the first time the poster, for example, attempts to explain how the animals on the ark were fed by saying, 'Well, God put them into a divinely inspired state of suspended animation' - *poof*.

If they want to explain observed scientific phenomena, then miracles should not be allowed as part of the argument.

Boru

[bennyboy]

How many creationist have you met who have been susceptible to improvement through "superior logic and evidence"?

You can certainly improve your odds by filter the creationists so that when you plant seeds of "superior logic and evidence", you are more likely to do so in brains that have some viable soil, rather than brains that work like lumps of god fearing concrete.

Well, it's an open forum, and people are banned based on their actual behavior. If so many creationists arrive on the scene (e.g. through an organized campaign to annoy) that it's no longer possible for other members to carry on conversations, then something might need to change. But frankly, I've been participating in several threads, and haven't seen a very serious problem with this.

--OR whatever the mods, who are thoughtful and disciplined people, say.


But here's my beef with you right now. This is the philosophy section, and I really don't think your thread belongs here. I suspect you've put it in here because you know this is one of the more active sections on the forums. If so, please don't do that. Dealing with fucktards isn't really a philosophical issue.

[Lek]

In order to make this forum something more than just a place for creationists to spend their worthless time to waste normal people's otherwise potentially productive time, I think a rule needs to be instituted to require creationists to submit proper evidence that he/she has studied evolution, in the form of a Utube video showing he/her accurate descibing contemporay scientific understand of the evidence for evolution, the nature of evolution, and the mechanism of evolution, before being allowed to post any topic related to god, evolution and creation.

I think it would be a good idea to have the atheists fulfill this requirement also. Most of them accept it as fact and don't know diddly about it.

[psychoslice]

but wouldn't they turn around and say the same thing, that is you must be educated in their belief system, and know all about their reasoning of god.

I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child ended up preaching at a church for a bit, then when I got older grew up, I got the hell out.

I'd say there is a huge lack of reasoning as a requirement, even the religious schools (upper class) I was in taught methods of debating atheists.

You have to throw logic, and sound reasoning out the window if you want to believe in Christianity, in fact I know almost no one, or have met no one whom was christian who's parents had not indoctrinated them.

Yea it was sort of like that for me also, I was in the church for 17 years, and yea, I got out of it after asking all the wrong questions, well to them it was wrong. I think its all the emotion that is attached to going to church, hearing about our poor saviour being nailed to the cross over and over, hearing how much of a sinner we all are, I just got sick of hearing this crap every week, but it can have a hypnotic reaction over people.

[Anomalocaris]

Dealing with fucktards isn't really a philosophical issue.

Au contraries, nothing could make one more philosophical than dealing with the creationist flavor of fucktardism.

---

In order to make this forum something more than just a place for creationists to spend their worthless time to waste normal people's otherwise potentially productive time, I think a rule needs to be instituted to require creationists to submit proper evidence that he/she has studied evolution, in the form of a Utube video showing he/her accurate descibing contemporay scientific understand of the evidence for evolution, the nature of evolution, and the mechanism of evolution, before being allowed to post any topic related to god, evolution and creation.

I think it would be a good idea to have the atheists fulfill this requirement also. Most of them accept it as fact and don't know diddly about it.

Don't project.

[bennyboy]

Dealing with fucktards isn't really a philosophical issue.

Au contraries, nothing could make one more philosophical than dealing with the creationist flavor of fucktardism.

Maybe. But your OP and the content of this thread represent a forum administration issue. Why don't you try sending some PMs to mods if a creationisit is bothering you, rather than polluting the philosophy section?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think it would be a good idea to have the atheists fulfill this requirement also. Most of them accept it as fact and don't know diddly about it.

The difference being that atheists do not routinely make blatantly incorrect statements regarding evolution, whereas creationists 'arguments' cannot exist without them.

For what it's worth, the reason most atheists accept evolution as a fact is because it IS a fact. The reasons creationists reject evolution is because they don't understand it.

Boru

[Lek]

I think it would be a good idea to have the atheists fulfill this requirement also. Most of them accept it as fact and don't know diddly about it.

The difference being that atheists do not routinely make blatantly incorrect statements regarding evolution, whereas creationists 'arguments' cannot exist without them.

For what it's worth, the reason most atheists accept evolution as a fact is because it IS a fact. The reasons creationists reject evolution is because they don't understand it.

Boru

I assume that you're saying this because you know everything about the evolutionary process - even more than respected scientists. Though I've studied the same stuff about evolution in school that most of us have, I've read enough to keep an open mind at this time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The difference being that atheists do not routinely make blatantly incorrect statements regarding evolution, whereas creationists 'arguments' cannot exist without them.

For what it's worth, the reason most atheists accept evolution as a fact is because it IS a fact. The reasons creationists reject evolution is because they don't understand it.

Boru

I assume that you're saying this because you know everything about the evolutionary process - even more than respected scientists. Though I've studied the same stuff about evolution in school that most of us have, I've read enough to keep an open mind at this time.

Of course I don't know everything about the evolutionary process - no one does. But the fact that these 'respected scientists' you mention are in overwhelmingly broad agreement about the reality of evolution and how it works is sufficient reason for people to accept it as fact.

What creationists do is to look that the work of - quite literally - tens of thousands of biologists dating back to well before Darwin published and decide, 'Sorry, that isn't good enough. I know more than they all seem to, so I'm free to reject biological evolution.' This is a degree of intellectual perversity that I find hard to fathom.

Do you also keep an open mind as to whether nuclear fission is a fact? If you do, you must know more than 'respected scientists' who collaborated in the destruction of two Japanese cities.

About which other scientific realities is your mind open? Electric currents? Gravity? Orbital mechanics? The propagation of light waves? Evolution is on as firm a footing as any of these, for two reasons: 1) it has been observed; 2) nothing in biology makes sense without it.

There's nowt wrong with keeping an open mind about issues that are in doubt. But if your mind is so open that you think basic biological evolution and all that it entails is anything but a brute fact, then your mind is so open that your brain is in very real danger of falling out.

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah well I think self professed atheists should be required to show that they know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic and don't cry and run away from the word agnostic like little dutch schoolgirls.