Replies

I think it's acceptable to agree to a policy of no personal abuse or ad hominems. I'm not going to pretend to be blameless, but I think they're usually written in haste and repented at leisure, and they damage the writer as much as the recipient. Unilateral disarmament in this respect is fine.

I would agree that posts that claim either than 'naturalism leads to (insert pet evil here)' or 'Christianity leads to (insert pet evil here)' might be ended by mutual agreement. I started contributing a few of the second a couple of months ago, largely to emphasize the point of the indefensibility of the first. I have no interest in continuing them. If I wanted to engage in flame wars about Christianity, I'd be on the religion forum.

Well said. I concur completely.

I would agree that posts that claim either than 'naturalism leads to (insert pet evil here)' or 'Christianity leads to (insert pet evil here)' might be ended by mutual agreement.

I think unilateral disarmament is called for her also.

Look, those of us who accept a naturalistic approach to truth finding are never going to agree to accept miracles as an explanation for everyday phenomena. That's a given. But there are debate tactics that are equivalent to shooting one's own foot, and attacking the character of opponents is one of those tactics. My foot is pretty sore. I think I'll stop for a while.

This is not an agreement. It is just a promise to myself. Like going on a diet. ;^)