Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:25 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, WookieeB (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
-messenjah of one2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 226 of 305 (401281)
05-19-2007 12:42 AM


NOT MESSENJAH OF ONE
Way to attribute posts to my name that I did not write. I assume there is no way to ammend this.

-messenjah of one is not lovesnature


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 227 of 305 (401472)
05-20-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Buzsaw
05-18-2007 10:56 PM


Re: Questioning AdminPD's Action
As I understand it, the thread is about logical arguments.

Opening Post
Therefore, logical arguments and logic itself simply do not have the power or purview to prove the existence of god or anything about god.

Not just what you consider reasonable:

Imo, it's logical that since his book predicts so many events of world history as accurately as it has shown, this is evidence of his existence. This is corroborated by other factors relative to experience as people of faith et al.

The thread is not about discussing/providing evidence for or against the existence of God.

You still have an old thread open on Bible Prophecies and there are others still open.

If I missed your point concerning logical arguments, please show me what I missed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2007 10:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2007 6:53 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 305 (401528)
05-20-2007 1:57 PM


Request for Moderator attention
I've been dealing with a spittle-flecked torrent of personal abuse from Nuggin in the Bigfoot thread for having the naked temerity not to accept the existence of Bigfood on faith, as Nuggin does, but his most recent fusillade is a little beyond the pale.

After these enduring these remarks:

quote:
Crashfrog is the winning winner in win town! Hurray!

Clearly this will go no further. You can't prove what you claim, you fail to acknowledge that you even made the claims.

It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old.

So, I'll have to do the adult thing. I hereby award you 6 gold stars and declare you the winning winner in win town.

Happy? Can you take your fingers out of your ears now.


and

quote:
Crash, I've given you a total of 7 gold stars and declared you the "winningest winner of win town".

What more do you want?

Extra credit? A scratch and sniff sticker? 5 more minutes at recess?

I get the impression that you are willing to keep posting here until you get all the stickers you can get.

So let me put your mind at ease.

You are very smart, Crash. And a good boy. And even though you the girls in class think you have cooties, it's just because they don't understand you.

Hopefully that clicks whatever it is that needs to be clicked back into place.


he responds to my point:

crashfrog writes:

What about your invention of the facts? Remember when you responded to the claim that there are no primates known to live in the wilderness of the PacNW by reminding us of the Native American tribes of the NW?

Yeah, great - except that those people were fishers who lived coastally, not in the mountain wildernesses. At any time that they did inhabit those areas it was on an itinerant basis.

by asserting:

Nuggin writes:

Crash, you are now asking that I prove that Native Americans are humans. That's not just retarded, it's frankly racist and insulting.

The idea that I've just said something racist is clearly ridiculous, and Nuggin is doing nothing but attempting to completely misrepresent me as a racist because it's clear he has no response to my basic points.

He's become personally abusive and defensive, and it's been going on for two days now. I think a little moderator attention would be appreciated.


Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 305 (401572)
05-20-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by AdminPD
05-20-2007 6:13 AM


Re: Questioning AdminPD's Action
AdminPD writes:

As I understand it, the thread is about logical arguments.
Opening Post
Therefore, logical arguments and logic itself simply do not have the power or purview to prove the existence of god or anything about god.

1. I am arguing logics pertaining to the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecies that have been shown to have been fulfilled relative to the likelihood of the existence of God.

2. Since nothing supernatural is considered to be scientific, arguments for the existence of God appear to be regarded as logically based by most counterparts with whom I debate relative to the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

wikipedia writes:

In philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage.

AdminPD writes:

Not just what you consider reasonable: .....

AdminPDThe thread is not about discussing/providing evidence for or against the existence of God.

Again, what we consider evidence is not accepted as scientific. Logically if a book alleged to be inspired by God fortells future events, one could argue on the basis of logic and reason that the book is credible and that God exists, whether the argument is scientific or not.

Imo, you're raising the bar too high for an even handed debate here since sound logic should have some underlying evidentual basis for credibility.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by AdminPD, posted 05-20-2007 6:13 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2007 11:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 305 (401628)
05-20-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Buzsaw
05-20-2007 6:53 PM


No Biggy, AdminPD
AdminPD, since it's likely somewhat of a tough call to make, I can live with your decision if you still don't agree with me. I don't want to make a big issue out of something that's not all that much of a deal. You do a fine job of taking care of things here which we all appreciate. :cool: Perhaps I should have let it pass.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2007 6:53 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 305 (402815)
05-30-2007 3:05 AM


When a christian insults atheists by suggesting that the idea of atheists with morals is silly, why aren't they called on it? Why is it that no admin gets upset in the slightest until an atheist decides to return the insult in kind?

It's just like what happened a few months ago in that thread about Ted Haggard. Gays were insultingly compared to animals, but when I returned the insult I got suspended. The person who made the original insult was never even reprimanded.

I realize that it's been this way for a long time here and that it will probably continue to be this way. I just think it ought to be pointed out once in a while.

{Re: In regards to "stop sign" at www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=80&m=111#111 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=80&m=111#111">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=80&m=111#111 - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link message.


W.W.E.D.?
Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 AM berberry has responded
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 05-30-2007 10:16 AM berberry has responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 232 of 305 (402820)
05-30-2007 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by berberry
05-30-2007 3:05 AM


Maybe you need to disguise your one-liner by also including some on-topic content around it.

:)Adminnemooseus:)

ps: I'm serious. What you posted really stands out as being bad (IMO).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by berberry, posted 05-30-2007 3:05 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by berberry, posted 05-30-2007 9:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 305 (402832)
05-30-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Adminnemooseus
05-30-2007 4:43 AM


Adminnemooseus writes me:

quote:
Maybe you need to disguise your one-liner by also including some on-topic content around it.

I see what you mean. It's so much more on-topic to insult atheists in a thread about the god of the bible.

quote:
What you posted really stands out as being bad (IMO).

Yeah, it was late and I was tired. I didn't give it a lot of deep thought.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16247
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 234 of 305 (402845)
05-30-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by berberry
05-30-2007 3:05 AM


My apologies, berberry, if you misconstrued my comment. It was in no way intended to suggest that atheists do not have morals or that their morals are in any way inferior to Christian morals.

I was commenting on absolute morals only - which is why I explicitly said "absolute morality".


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by berberry, posted 05-30-2007 3:05 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by berberry, posted 05-30-2007 10:51 AM ringo has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 305 (402851)
05-30-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ringo
05-30-2007 10:16 AM


Well good, I'm sincerely happy to hear you say that. Maybe I've just heard this crap about how morals can only come from Jesus or God or whatever one too many times. I'm sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

And for the record, there are indeed some moral issues that I see as absolute. Sometimes ignorance can be a mitigating circumstance, but no circumstance can ever remove the immorality of, for instance, killing an innocent child. Good people can do bad things, of course, but some bad things are always bad things no matter how good the person who did them might otherwise be.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 05-30-2007 10:16 AM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Taz, posted 05-30-2007 11:57 AM berberry has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1372 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 236 of 305 (402862)
05-30-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by berberry
05-30-2007 10:51 AM


berberry writes:

Sometimes ignorance can be a mitigating circumstance, but no circumstance can ever remove the immorality of, for instance, killing an innocent child.


I suggest you just give up on this one. Obviously, some people don't see anything wrong with killing innocent people in certain contexts. And also obviously, we can't really say anything more than "why is it a bad thing? Because it's obviously a bad thing..."

Just do what I do and sit tight waiting for them to die of old age ;)



We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by berberry, posted 05-30-2007 10:51 AM berberry has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 237 of 305 (403399)
06-02-2007 12:42 PM


*** Re: Dr Schwartz ***
Could the mods make sure that people on the relevant threads (the Comparison Chart", and the "Dr Schwartz Missing Links" thread) know that I've already emailed Dr Schwartz. I doubt he'd be pleased if we all had the same idea: and I have already gotten a reply.

I can't put this on the "Dr Schwartz" thread because it's not open yet. But the OP gives his address ...

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 238 of 305 (404889)
06-10-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2007 12:42 PM


Re: *** Re: Dr Schwartz ***
can you post it now?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 12:42 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 239 of 305 (404891)
06-10-2007 11:57 AM


great debates 2 against 1?
It seems to me that if participants are agreeable that more than one per side could work, such as two creationists versus on evolutionist.

The reason I ask is that it appears MurkyWaters has lost interest, his last post was 03*26*2007 09:51 PM (Message 70) and he complained about it being or becoming "a colossal waste of time" and his last posts have been repetitive with no attempt to move forward in a positive direction.

I also would like to see if there is a creationist that would like to join this great debate, either to assist MurkyWaters or replace him.

Thanks.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by AdminPD, posted 06-10-2007 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 240 of 305 (404934)
06-10-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by RAZD
06-10-2007 11:57 AM


Re: great debates 2 against 1?
Not a problem. If participants are agreeable, invite another to join the debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 11:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 6:25 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019