I should perhaps define a few words and explain how I expect dialogue on these forums to be conducted around differing beliefs. This is based on some common misconceptions I have noticed that some (not all) Christians hold regarding terms like respect, intelligence, and agree. For these forums, the standard dictionary definitions will apply. If a special meaning is assumed for someone's post, it must be mentioned and defined.

"Respectful" does not equal "agree." "Respectful" means that we treat each other like people worthy of life and fair treatment in this one life that we know we will get. I respect you when I acknowledge your presence and wish you well, and when I speak politely to you. I can disagree with everything you believe without being disrespectful of you as a human being. We might be unable to conduct a meaningful conversation beyond such mundane items as the conditions of the weather and the prices of gas.

"Intelligent" does not equal "agree." "Make sense" does not equal "agree."

Intelligence and making sense depend very heavily on our understanding of reality. If we are convinced that this life is but a waiting room or time of preparation for the "real thing" that comes after death, as I was taught, then reality looks totally different and values are very different. If we think this is the only life we get and that there is nothing beyond the grave, reality is very different from when we expect to face a Great Judgment at death and be consigned either to eternal glory or to eternal torture.

To "agree" means that "I think you're right." I might agree with you regarding the weather we're having today but I might disagree regarding what happens when we die. I can resort to name-calling and mud-slinging, all of which is very disrespectful. Or I can state my position of disagreement and leave it at that. Another thing I can do is explain my reason for disagreeing in a respectful manner without calling you names, putting you down, insulting your intelligence, etc. You have all these options, too. What is not allowed on these forums is the disrespectful behaviour.

If you find it disrespectful when I disagree with you and state my reasons for disagreeing, then these forums are not for you. Of course, you will find the world a very hostile place if you think all the people who disagree with you are being disrespectful of you. People all have a right to their own opinions and beliefs. This includes the Christians. It also includes the atheists. And all other religions and everything in between.

I stumbled across some guidelines for discussing hot topics and disagreements that I think will be applicable for these forums. There are seven levels from very productive to very unproductive. Wikipedia set them up as a diagram in pyramid form. I cannot copy the diagram here but if you click on this link you can see it.

I will copy the labels and descriptions here, beginning with the very productive for Number 1, and ending with the very unproductive for Number 7.

1. REFUTING THE CENTRAL POINT: Explicitly refutes central point.
2. REFUTATION: Finds the mistake and explains why it's mistaken; uses quotes.
3. COUNTERARGUMENT: Contradicts and then backs up contradiction with reasoning and/or supporting evidence.
4. CONTRADICTION: States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence.
5. RESPONDING TO TONE: Criticizes the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument.
6. AD HOMINEM: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.
7. NAME-CALLING: Sounds something like this: You are an ass hat.

Paul Graham wrote an article with the title How To Disagree. He says the internet introduces a new way of communication. In his own words:

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond

He points out that the most productive conversation tends to be when people disagree because the writer has probably already explored the topic fairly well. However, when a person disagrees, new territory is explored.

At the same time, disagreement is tricky business. Gotta keep people happy for the conversation to be productive. He says "Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it." His goal is to provide a guide on how to disagree constructively.

The wikipedia article that goes with the diagram is about settling disputes. It suggests that the best way to settle disputes is to keep discussion about problems in the top three levels of the pyramid diagram. Graham himself suggests Refuting the Central Point is the only place that is truly productive.
Individuals who read Graham's article should be aware of two items:

1. Graham works in the opposite direction from what I do here; he starts with the bad and ends with the good.
2. Graham uses a different numbering system; because he includes 0 his numbers go only to 6. Thus, for him 6=good.

His levels look like this:

DH0. Name-Calling.
DH1. Ad Hominem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
DH3. Contradiction.
DH4. Counterargument.
DH5. Refutation.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.