Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?

Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

Hi everyone,

I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.

I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.

The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/

[js1138]

Those would be your two choices. That they deal primarily with functional, operational science does not enter your sphere of consideration.

Then you admit not understanding their posts. Better for them, anyway.

[TigersEye]

I don’t look down on arrogance. Pomposity like yours is its own reward. Enjoy it. ; )

[js1138]

Could we stop with the machismo jabs?

If you don't like having people point out your ignorance, don't ping them to the thread by calling them ambitious but foolish.

I fail to see why science threads couldn't be protected from people who don't understand the concepts and are only interested in starting ridiculing science or starting flame wars.

I could show up on prayer and devotional threads with sneering remarks, but I was taught not to crap in other people's living rooms. I often wonder what kind of mothers some FReepers have.

[js1138]

Effectively, you are showing that crevo threads are to you what prayer threads are for someone else...

You miss the point entirely. The issue is not whether evolution needs protection from religion, but whether all arguments -- religious, political and scientific -- deserve not to be invaded by people who know nothing about the basis of the discussion, and who present themselves solely for the purpose of flinging feces.

[js1138]

So non-living matter to living matter isn’t change?

The word change covers a lot of territory. When your mother diapers you it's change, but it isn't evolution.

[tacticalogic]

You also know well enough that many evolution threads have turned against creationists who weren't even there. As in, a discussion begins, and some of the first things said are slurs against creationists who have not even come to the thread. Is this the lofty scientific discussion you seek immunity and protection for? And why do you seek it here, when you have created a haven for yourselves at Darwin Central?

Do you think the rules of civil debate conform to a different standard in the Religion threads than they do outside that forum?

[js1138]

Last time I looked I was still a FReeper in good standing, coming up on my tenth anniversary.

The discussion of protected caucuses was started by the religion mod. I simply asked if science could have a caucus, since much of the anti-science crowd calls science a religion.

In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic. I know there is no chance of science being treated with respect at FR.

I don’t know how you were raised, but if those with whom you interact find your behavior offensive, it is delusional for you to see yourself as polite and respectful.

In all the time you participated in science threads, you never conceded a point when you were wrong. Feel free to show me wrong on this.

You conjured up a debate, invited hundreds of people to watch and participate, declared that you were too busy to respond to the first issue in a timely manner, and declared yourself the winner. Interestingly, the person who debated you was rather quickly and conveniently banned from the forum. All of which speaks to the lack of respect FR has for science, that you are still here, and knowledgeable person cannot defend himself.

[TigersEye]

I did answer it.

[js1138]

Evolution is premised on the idea that non-living matter somehow became living matter

Evolution is an ongoing process. It goes on as we speak, exactly as it has for millennia. The same processes that can be observed today in the laboratory are the processes described by Darwin (although we have a lot more details after 150 years).

No one decided evolution shouldn't cover it's beginning, but Newton was able to describe the orbits of planets without "covering" their beginning. Using Newton's mechanics we can project their positions backwards in time. Planetarium shows do this all the time. Call it historical astronomy.

Not knowing how life started is not an impediment to understanding how it behaves now. Your argument is so ill-conceived that it is the equivalent of shitting on my carpet. You call yourself polite; I consider you a vandal.

[tacticalogic]

Evidently they do, based on past positions of the Religion Moderator. But I don’t think they differ significantly.

Then what's the issue? If there's no significant difference, why would the same debate moderated in the Religion forum be substantially different in terms of civility?