Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report discussion problems here: No.2
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 204 of 468 (538287)
12-05-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
12-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: 2nd Polite Request
Using an ellipsis to let the reader know that part of a quoted sentence has been omitted is a valid use.
Readers can go back to the original post for the rest of the quote if they desire.
Not using the ellipsis would be incorrect and potentially misleading.
I think the "Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?" thread has run its course and I'll be closing the thread.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM Straggler has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 208 of 468 (538597)
12-08-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by RAZD
12-07-2009 9:27 PM


Take It Elsewhere
RAZD and Straggler,
Your continued issue with debating styles is off topic for this thread. Please take the discussion elsewhere.
Perhaps you could exchange email addresses or take advantage of the private messaging facility that should be released soon. Maybe Nerf pistols at 30 paces!
Thanks for your cooperation.
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2009 9:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(2)
Message 282 of 468 (548709)
03-01-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Pauline
02-28-2010 5:14 PM


That's Enough Dr.'s
That's enough Dr.'s.
Dr. Sing,
It is irrelevant whether you have heard the analogy before. Since variations of the the same topics get discussed over and over, we do run into similar analogies. That is no excuse to attack participants personally. Hence the warning to argue the position and not the person. Please restrain yourself in future posts.
Dr. S and Dr. A,
You have both voiced your opinion and I suggest the issue is done. Do not continue this line of discussion here.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 5:14 PM Pauline has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 314 of 468 (553235)
04-02-2010 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by dwise1
04-01-2010 11:51 PM


Reporting Discussion Problems Only
Since this thread is for reporting Discussion Problems, I suggest that any more advice for Faith be posted in the Percy allowed me back thread.
P.S. The debating dance. I like the dance analogy. I love dancing. If a man can lead, I can follow. In square dancing a gentleman got upset because I didn't follow through with a spin. I was off balance and would have fallen on my face. So instead of a fiasco, no one knew there was an issue, except the gentleman with the bad attitude. He was insulted. Didn't dance with him again. In square dancing you don't want the square to break down.
Again good analogy.
Don't anyone respond to my dance comments please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 04-01-2010 11:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 336 of 468 (559197)
05-07-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 9:24 AM


Hard Question Simple Source
quote:
However, this particular thread was set up for atheists to explain why they're atheists, and to ask the hard questions they'd like Christians to answer.
I don't see in the OP that the thread was set up for atheists to explain why they're atheists.
The originator figured atheists could provide good questions for an apologetics class, but not to explain why they are atheists.
An easy example would be about God killing Babies in the Old testament. I'm sure the bunch of atheists on here can easily give the number1 reason they don't believe in the christian God.
One of the requirements of the OP:
A single condition would be that the questions don't require tons of outside research to answer. More stuff that is directly linked to Bible references and stuff like that.
quote:
And one major reason, perhaps the major reason, why atheists are atheists is that, eschewing the special pleading of theists, they apply the same methodology to the God question as they do to every other question; and one of the hard questions they want to ask Christians is why there's no real evidence for God comparable to the evidence for electricity and giraffes and rice pudding.
Questions about the Bible or Christianity. They want questions where they can pull the answers from the Bible.
I can see asking why they believe, but not to prove that their god exists.
I consider demands for scientific proof that a god exists to be beyond the scope and spirit of this topic as I understand it even if moved to a science forum.
Start a new thread if you want to discuss scientific proof of God's existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 9:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 427 of 468 (574276)
08-15-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Buzsaw
08-14-2010 3:52 PM


Re: What's The Difference??
quote:
Perhaps Admin (abe: Purpledawn) could explain why member Buzsaw's message in the Circular Thinking Thread should be tagged as off topic when member Purpledawn's was not tagged as off topic.
Both member Purpledawn and member Buzsaw's messages pertained to evidence. My message was a response to PaulK who implicated believers as the only members who's MO was circular thinking, allegedly producing no evidence.
The difference is that PurpleDawn (me) is addressing the self authentication issue and the evidence required by the originator for self authentication concerning ultimate authorities.
Your post seems to be addressing the general body of evidence that Christians provide for their belief. That isn't what the discussion is about. It is about Pauline's argument concerning circular reasoning.
Since I don't see that your post deals with circular reasoning at all or any of the issues presented by Pauline, it was tagged off topic to prevent the potential for topic drift.
Read the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2010 3:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2010 10:12 PM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 432 of 468 (575237)
08-19-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 6:56 AM


Follow Moderator Requests
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior and follow the Forum Guidelines.
Rule #1 is to follow moderator requests. Since you've joined this board, you seem to have difficulty providing evidence or reasoned argumentation for your position. Moderators are trying to help you understand what you need to be a productive member.
If you'll notice, I did post a reminder to the other members under my comment to you.
I know they will adjust their approach per my request. You haven't learned to adjust your approach when requested. That's why you get a personal message. If you have provided evidence in the thread already, then refer opponents back to that post.
You are not the first to receive an Administrative Message and won't be the last. I will continue to post these types of messages as long as you continue on your current path.
In that thread, at that point, you are not providing evidence to support your claims. You've only caused your opponents to mirror your approach, which doesn't move the discussion forward.
Please follow moderator requests and adjust accordingly.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 6:56 AM archaeologist has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 433 of 468 (575239)
08-19-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Huntard
08-19-2010 7:14 AM


quote:
They are simply responding in kind. If you can clearly see that the way they are responding to you is not productive, perhaps you should think about changing your own posting style. Because that's exactly the impression we are getting from you.
In case you haven't noticed, that mirror tactic doesn't work. I suggest you adjust and stop using it.
Be an example and not a mirror.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 7:14 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 7:39 AM AdminPD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 468 of 468 (580119)
09-07-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Meldinoor
09-07-2010 5:30 PM


Re: Off topic???
Participants are responsible for not responding to off topic posts or off topic portions of posts.
Just because a message or previous message is not marked as off topic doesn't mean it wasn't off topic. It just means that at the time I checked the thread the discussion had moved beyond the off topic post and the post didn't derail the discussion.
When someone picks up the ball, I then tagged the current post to prevent further derailing.
The thread is an opportunity for those who might think the Exodus story depicts an actual historical account to present their best arguments in support of that position. Inconsistencies or errors in the text don't necessarily support whether the event described was historical or not.
The issue with the bricks not even close to being relevant. If a participant feels that an inconsistency or error is proof the event didn't happen, they need to make the argument, not just show the error and assume it's obvious.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Meldinoor, posted 09-07-2010 5:30 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024