New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[otseng]

I have my own opinions regarding this, but I'd be curious to hear what others think first.

[McCulloch]

If metaphysical frameworks, by their very nature, cannot be proven or disproven, then they have no place in debate except as premises, axioms and assumptions. And given that the debaters here do have differing metaphysical frameworks, when such a framework is referenced, it should be made explicit that it is being used as an assumption.

On the other hand, if a debater attempts to further his argument by relying on a metaphysical framework, not explicitly made as an assumption in that particular debate, any debater is fully within his rights to call him on it.

[EduChris]

If metaphysical frameworks, by their very nature, cannot be proven or disproven, then they have no place in debate except as premises, axioms and assumptions. And given that the debaters here do have differing metaphysical frameworks, when such a framework is referenced, it should be made explicit that it is being used as an assumption.

On the other hand, if a debater attempts to further his argument by relying on a metaphysical framework, not explicitly made as an assumption in that particular debate, any debater is fully within his rights to call him on it.

In almost every case with the particular offender in question (and Zzyzx before him) the metaphysical assumption is stated up front in the OP's debate question. For example, a thread assumes that God exists, for the sake of argument, and then wants to know how it is that such a God could then do this or that. The debate question in the OP wants to know details--and perhaps the internal coherence--of a particular tradition within a particular metaphysical framework. And yet the question can never truly be debated because of all the bullying and badgering of the person who refuses to grant the premise of the OP.

If a person is unwilling grant the premise of the OP, for sake of argument, then the person ought not participate in that thread. But instead we have one individual, with more time on his hands than anyone else, messing up every single thread because he is unwilling to debate the question as it is framed in the OP.

[Thatguy]

See this post for an example.

I'm new enough here that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying what new rules should be. I'm learning the rules that are. So the following is offered just as a relative newcomer's understanding of the existing rules, which may be way off.

It is my understanding that in the theology/dogma subsection it is understood that all conversations are to assume that the basic Christian worldview is true and the conversation is from that perspective. If people want to assume for conversational purposes that their worldview is correct, they can post a topic there. The Christianity/Apologetics section is for discussions from a wide variety of worldviews and assuming Christianity to be true for purposes of the discussion is, at the very least, not assumed.

In the example above, I, as a newcomer, would not assume that it's a given for the sake of the conversation that the Bible is true and, therefore, Satan really exists. If the conversation were in the Dogma section, I'd expect that assumption to automatically apply. When I look at the original post from the Satan discussion above, I don't see it begin with an acknowledgment that Satan can't be proven or that it's being assumed and that the conversation is taking place assuming that the Bible is an accurate source of information about Satan.

So from my perspective, it may be annoying to Christians to have to adress over and over the question of whether God or Satan are real before moving on to questions about the particular attributes of these proposed entitites. But that's why there's a dogma room. To have an apologetics room and assume that the answers to the fundamental questions are given can rob the discussion of its purpose for non-believers. If the believer wants to have a discussion there in which the believer is assuming that the Bible is true, recognizing that the worldview the poster is launching the discussion within can't be proven, I'd expect the burden is on the original poster to make that explicit.

As for considering a user abusive for repeatedly raising issues which are both important to him and central to debates about religion, I don't see it. People may be driven away by the inconvenience of having users on a debate site disagree with their fundamental views, but I would think that the fault there lies with them and not with their challenger. If I could answer the challenger's points I'd do so, even if it meant working out a standard, rote answer and posting it each time. If I didn't feel like doing so, I'd simply not respond to his challenges. There's no need to talk to everybody.

[ttruscott]

If a person is unwilling grant the premise of the OP, for sake of argument, then the person ought not participate in that thread. But instead we have one individual, with more time on his hands than anyone else, messing up every single thread because he is unwilling to debate the question as it is framed in the OP.

Accept the premise of the OP or do not reply.... but then how to we express our opposition to the premise?


So, not, accept the premise, but do not demand that all discussion ends until the premise is proven.

peace, Ted

[EduChris]

If metaphysical frameworks, by their very nature, cannot be proven or disproven, then they have no place in debate except as premises, axioms and assumptions...

Religions in general, and Christian in particular, operate from within a broadly theistic metaphysical framework. Therefore, any debate involving the religion itself must assume (explicitly or implicitly) a broadly theistic framework. The "Argue for and against Christianity" apologetics subforum is the place to debate the particulars of the Christian religion--it's internal coherence and consistency--not the metaphysical framework. If someone wants to debate about metaphysical frameworks, then the philosophy section is best for that.

Essentially, Joey's incessant demands are his way of shutting down the discussion by dictating to everyone else that the theistic metaphysical framework must be empirically demonstrated "true" before any discussion of the particulars of the Christian religion can take place. But this is an inherently hypocritical demand, since no metaphysical framework--theistic or non-theistic--can be empirically demonstrated true or false.

[EduChris]

...Accept the premise of the OP or do not reply.... but then how to we express our opposition to the premise?

So, not, accept the premise, but do not demand that all discussion ends until the premise is proven...

Certainly it should be permissable to explain why one finds the premise to be incorrect--either because of some misunderstanding of the tradition, or some other logical inconsistency, or perhaps positive evidence against the premise. But it should not be permissable for one very determined individual to just shut down the discussion for everyone by continually demanding "proof" for one metaphysical framework (when no such "proof" or evidence is offered for any competing metaphysical framework).

[EduChris]

...If I could answer the challenger's points I'd do so, even if it meant working out a standard, rote answer and posting it each time. If I didn't feel like doing so, I'd simply not respond to his challenges...

Joey has been given answers multiple times by multiple people, and yet he refuses to accept the answers and engages in stalking behavior, even requesting publicly that I remove him from my Ignore list.

In other words, we have a problem with one particular individual here. We do not have a forum-wide problem. Joey keeps saying that his obsessive and disruptive behavior is not strictly against the rules; therefore, I am simply saying that we make up a rule just for him (which of course would serve to prevent similar occurence if another obsessive person with inordinate amounts of free time should come here and attempt the same sort of behavior).

[EduChris]

...assuming Christianity to be true for purposes of the discussion is, at the very least, not assumed...

I am not suggesting that we simply "assume Christianity to be true," for purpose of discussion. Rather, I am suggesting that there can be no discussion of Christianity at all unless we set aside--temporarily, for the purpose of discussing the particulars of the religion--the larger metaphysical questions. Many if not most of the threads in the Apologetics forum do precisely this--in effect they say, "Okay, suppose this Christian God exists: now explain to me why..." And then Joey blitzes in and stops the discussion right out of the gate by ignoring the actual question in the OP and demanding to have "proof" of the theistic metaphysical framework.

...I, as a newcomer, would not assume that it's a given for the sake of the conversation that the Bible is true and, therefore, Satan really exists...

Various aspects of the Bible can be debated and discussed. What we cannot do is postpone all discussion of the Bible unless and until the theistic metaphysical framework has first been somehow "proven true" to the satisfaction of everyone. Joey does not have the right to dictate to everyone that all discussions must go through him and his incessant demands for "proof" of that which virtually every educated person admits cannot be proven, one way or the other.

...it may be annoying to Christians to have to adress over and over the question of whether God or Satan are real before moving on to questions about the particular attributes of these proposed entitites...

If we were to apply Joey's methodology consistently, we would need to force the nontheists to refrain from posting a single word unless and until they have proven to everyone's satisfaction that this universe really did just "poof" into existence as a result of some admixture of chance & necessity alone. Is that really what you want?

...People may be driven away by the inconvenience of having users on a debate site disagree with their fundamental views...

Joey's methods prevent any rational discussion at all. Numerous good people have left this forum because of Joey's bullying, hypocritical behavior. It's time to put a stop to it, so that discussion of religion can proceed. If Joey really wants to prove or disprove a metaphysical framework, he has the philosophy section available to him.