Re: Keep list on topic

Susan Brassfield (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:32:55 -0600

>In a message dated 12/10/99 3:57:25 AM Dateline Standard Time,
>Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu writes:
>
>>what is the nature of the list other than to discussion evolution--the
>>actual name of the list--and the details of evolution and intelligent
>>design? And which threads, exactly, aren't discussing those ideas?
>
>I'll say this just once. This is not just another list to discuss evolution.
>It is a list which attempts to provide an environment where Christians
>can discuss these issues without having to get into flame wars about
>the evils of religion, the irrationality of Christian faith, or the existence
>of God.

If someone posts a response in that vein, and you don't wish to discuss it.
Delete their post without reply.

>There are plenty of internet sites for those types of debates.
>Now, in my opinion, some of your posts do indeed contain bait that
>makes it look like you are trolling for such debates (not that I
>think you do this consciously). For example, you just tried to resurrect
>the old myth of a warfare between science and religion. You also just
>posted this:
>
>"I don't believe in the actual existence of any of the gods, even my beloved
>Kuan Yin. Therefore I don't oppose the gods (it would be a bit like opposing
>the Tooth Fairy). What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance."
>
>Maybe you don't realize it, many Christians find in downright offensive and
>arrogant to equate God with the Tooth Fairy.

that isn't exactly what I was doing.

>They also find such
>comparisons to be quite flawed, but refrain from replying for fear of turning
>this list into a huge debate about whether God is in the same class
>as the Tooth Fairy (thus making this list into another alt.atheism).

1. it is not my job to shepherd the fears of other people
2. I'm not interested in debating the existence of gods--as I said. That's
why I never post to alt.atheism. If someone disagrees with some detail of
my post they are free to ignore it.

>Finally, you might want to reread John's post, "Atheism and this list."
>And don't forget Chris' attempt to psychoanalyze Glenn to account
>for the fact that he was a Christian.

I don't remember ever seeing a post "Atheism and this list." I'm pretty
busy these days, I may have deleted it without meaning to. I thought Glenn
handled Chris's psychoanalysis pretty well and it only took an exchange or
two. AND such a post did not prevent other conversations from taking place.

>>ID and evolution must stand or fall on their merits.
>>It is my belief that ID has no scientific merit.
>
>I know this is your belief, but I'm not so sure (see my recent postings
>on proof-reading).

this list would be boring into the negative numbers :-) if we all agreed.
It's a *debate* list. That means if you say something I disagree with I
will try to point out the flaws in your argument. You are pefectly free to
do that with *my* arguments.

>>I have no wish to convert anyone to atheism. For me it is a simple, bald
>>act of life and the "god/no god" debate bores me. I *do* object to
>religionists >promulgating ignorance. It's bad religion and bad Christianity.
>That topic
>>should be of some interest to all of the theists on this list and, as near
>>as I can tell, wholly consistent with the list guidelines.
>
>This brush is too broad. After all, you clearly think belief in God is
>ignorance,

You may have gotten that impression, but I don't think it. I'm pretty sure
I haven't said it. Usually if I'm thinking something, I'm saying it. I
don't like the anti-evolutionist tactic of spreading misinformation about
evolution. Doesn't it bother you that misinformation and ignorance are
thought by some Christians to be foundational to theism? I mean, the
Kansas School Board recommended suppressing information not just evolution
and the Big Bang, but about plate techtonics, because they know the
implication it has for the age of the earth.

>Look at it this way, Susan. This is a list intended primarily for Christians
>to discuss evolution and origins in relation to their faith. It is even
>hosted and maintained by a Christian college. You admit you are
>a "a flat out Bertrand Russel-style atheist" and Russell was someone who
>was very nasty to Christianity. Perhaps you should consider that
>some of this hostility spills over in your arguments against
>anti-evolutionists.

If Christians on this list began a series of lively discussions about
evolution and origins in relation to their faith, I would never object. I
might or might not take part, but never would I object.

>Just be more careful and respectful. Is that too much to ask?

No, it's not. I'll try to be more careful.

Susan

P.S. The feelings and harsh words that passed between Bertrand Russell and
the Christian Church were warmly mutual.

----------

For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/