General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

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

As I understand it, the thread is about logical arguments. Not just what you consider reasonable: 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.

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: by asserting: 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.

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.Reason - Wikipedia 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

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. Perhaps I should have let it pass.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

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 http://EvC Forum: The God of the Bible is Evil -->EvC Forum: The God of the Bible is Evil - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link message.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Maybe you need to disguise your one-liner by also including some on-topic content around it.Adminnemooseusps: I'm serious. What you posted really stands out as being bad (IMO).

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.?

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

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.?

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!

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.

can you post it now?

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.

Not a problem. If participants are agreeable, invite another to join the debate.