Certain tactics

Dantalion · Post by **Dantalion** » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:31 am

I would just like to say, that in my humble opinion, 'the community' here must look into this matter.
In general, certain people and certain tactics just serve to anger people, discredit genuine believers and make a mockery of the debate forum.

This isn't a 'theists vs atheists' thing, it's about intellectual honesty, respect for the principles of 'the debate'.
This is of course not for me to point out, but every rational person here can see there are users that SO often break the same rules (in this case, 5, 7, 9 and sometimes even 13) I find it baffling they're not acted upon.

playhavock · Post by **playhavock** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:48 am

otseng wrote: Here's a starter on guidelines on preaching. Feel free to add or modify it.

6. Do not claim that you alone know the truth and everyone else is in error. Do not claim that only your interpretation of scripture is the only correct one.

But I am right all the time and never ever song.
Errr wrong! Wrong! I said it bright the first pine! ACK!
*melts*
Great rules I'm for them.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:24 am

I modified the rules.

18. Abide by the guidelines on preaching. Repeated violations of the guidelines can result in a warning.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:55 pm

otseng wrote: I modified the rules.

18. Abide by the guidelines on preaching. Repeated violations of the guidelines can result in a warning.

I think this will be very helpful.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:38 am

We also need to address the issue of calling something false. Several times I've had some skeptics calling evidence that supports the Bible and/or extraordinary things as being false or being NOTHING. Even the rules of this forum, s basic dictionary, and non-scientific fields consider unscientific evidence as evidence. Logic rules don't even classify unproven things as false. Just as long as the debater specifies the type of evidence and the certainty behind it, if asked, then we should be able to use evidence without knee jerk skeptic dismissal.

Post by **otseng** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:42 pm

Angel wrote: We also need to address the issue of calling something false. Several times I've had some skeptics calling evidence that supports the Bible and/or extraordinary things as being false or being NOTHING. Even the rules of this forum, s basic dictionary, and non-scientific fields consider unscientific evidence as evidence. Logic rules don't even classify unproven things as false. Just as long as the debater specifies the type of evidence and the certainty behind it, if asked, then we should be able to use evidence without knee jerk skeptic dismissal.

Typically, this should be handled by debate, rather than by moderation. I do not think the mod team should have to decide if an argument is or is not adequately supported. If you think that you've adequately supported your case and your opponent does not think so, then you simply move on.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:31 pm

I shouldve specified im not referring how or what the evidence is being used for but rather what counts as evidence just for evidence sake. A lot of time is wasted in debates when I have to explain that scientific evidence is not the only evidence when that's already explained by your rules and by definition. For instance, the reason it's false or not evidence is basedn the type of evidence and not what the evidence is being used for. Sorry for any typos..I'm on my friends cellphone.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:27 pm

If you you agree that non-scientific evidence can be evidence, as your rules suggest, then why should we allow people to call non-scientific based evidence, false? Pages and pages of debate can be saved if this rule was enforced. I'm only talking about enforcing it when it comes to preventing people from calling non-scientific evidence FALSE or being NOTHING just because it's unscientific.

Post by **otseng** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:56 pm

There is no rule that only scientific evidence are allowed. If that is someone else's standard, there is no obligation for you to abide by it.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:10 pm

otseng wrote: There is no rule that only scientific evidence are allowed. If that is someone else's standard, there is no obligation for you to abide by it.

So eventhough your rules say that non-scientific evidence is evidence, people can still say that it is not evidence and get away with it.

Post by **otseng** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:14 pm

Angel wrote: So eventhough you your rules say that the Bible is not evidence of truth in certain sub forums

There is no rule that says that. The C&A subforum has this for a guideline:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

It does not say that the Bible "is not evidence of truth." It only says that it cannot be used as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

However, it is true that in the S&R subforum, the guidelines state:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."