The Other Michael

Hi Folks,

I've noticed there is a tendency at times for a discussion to start on the board and then go quickly downhill when the theistic side of the discussion engages in some serious waffling, changing definitions in mid-stream etc. Pinning them down is similar to the difficulties Martin Luther had nailing the feces to the church door!

Why do you put up with that?????

If there is going to be an actual discussion between two or more sides, then let the pro side define their terms (what do you mean by God, Jesus, revelation, etc etc etc) and then since they are advocating something make them shoulder the burden of proof.

As soon as you let them get away with using undefined terms, shift the burden of proof to the con side etc there's pretty much no sense in continuing the discussion (and some of these seem to go on and on and on and on and . . . .).

But if all you are looking for is a bit of mental masturbation (and I've got nothing against some intellectual autoeroticism) where you're going after a ranter then it probably doesn't matter since there won't be any sense coming out of the posts anyway (and certainly no one is going to be convinced of anything).

I guess what I'm trying to get at is if someone is going to post in a forum other than one devoted to ranting, then make them toe the line. Get them to make a clear statement of what they are trying to propose as a topic, and then have them define things so that anyone can have a chance of figuring out just what they are really trying to talk about.

And if they won't, it seems that the topic should then be moved into a rants forum and everyone can stock up on virtual rotton fruit to toss at them.

Or maybe I'm just missing something about the way things are currently structured.

That's my hopefully constructive criticism for the day.

cheers,
Michael