(June 30, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay, Cato.

Believe what you want. You've been shown the correct interpretations. If it consoles you somehow to think that God is a moral monster, then enjoy those thoughts.

When you have to finesse the point, you shouldn't expect to mount a convincing argument. "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

If your god threatened to have David's sin punished by rape, either your god condones the rape of innocent parties in that instance, or your god was bluffing -- i.e. lying. Which one is it?

You worship a little turd, a moral midget.

(June 29, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Would you prefer we ignored you?  Because that's the response I'm getting there.   Not that I mean I think I'm on ignore lists but simply that the people who've responded are atheists not catholics.

Also I haven't started any threads advocating atheism.

You don't scream obscenities at me, Jenny.

You're proof that it IS possible to behave in a mature manner even in an atheist forum.

Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

As to obscenities, I tend to reserve them for hammers I just hit my thumb with rather than people, although in extremity I do use them on people. Coming out of my cute little mouth (and I do wish I were elegant and beautiful rather than cute) it tends to have great impact.  But that impact would be lost if I swore like a sailor all the time.

However, I fail to see the real difference between calling people twisted and calling them a mother fucker.  The sentiment is the same.

(July 1, 2015 at 12:14 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: You don't scream obscenities at me, Jenny.

You're proof that it IS possible to behave in a mature manner even in an atheist forum.

Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

If I could ignore some people here, I would...the software won't let me. I guess some folks think their opinions are worth more than others.

You've only posted seven times, and the Philosophy subforum is not where you'll get the best action. Try Apolgetics or Non-Catholic Religions.

Quote:As to obscenities, I tend to reserve them for hammers I just hit my thumb with rather than people, although in extremity I do use them on people. Coming out of my cute little mouth (and I do wish I were elegant and beautiful rather than cute) it tends to have great impact.  But that impact would be lost if I swore like a sailor all the time.

Cute is good. I married cute.

Quote:However, I fail to see the real difference between calling people twisted and calling them a mother fucker.  The sentiment is the same.

Thinking can be untwisted by study and logic. How does one undo the other?

(June 30, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

Why are you ignoring the fact that even if you were right about Cato's presuppositions, you still have your own to account for? You quite adamantly presuppose that god exists at the beginning of every argument. Still a failed tu quoque.

(June 28, 2015 at 11:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 28, 2015 at 10:56 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You just love to hoard quotes to spin twist and misrepresent in a lame attempt to make others look bad don't you.

I would pity you if your actions weren't as reprehensible as they are sad.

You can't accuse me of misrepresentation when I provided a link to every single post. Feel free to go back and read them in the proper context if you wish.

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

Checkmate asshole. My previous post... I provided EVIDENCE of your twisting AND misrepresentation.

BOOM.

(June 28, 2015 at 11:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You can't accuse me of misrepresentation when I provided a link to every single post. Feel free to go back and read them in the proper context if you wish.

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

Emphasis mine. Is this an implicit admission that these quotes have not been presented in their proper context? That is called quote mining and is one of the most dishonest practices of all. If you really think that simply because you've pulled words someone actually said that they mean the same thing without the context, you fail to grasp the very basics of communication.

For the love of Pete, stop digging and think, please!

(July 1, 2015 at 5:58 am)robvalue Wrote:

(June 28, 2015 at 11:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You can't accuse me of misrepresentation when I provided a link to every single post. Feel free to go back and read them in the proper context if you wish.

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

Emphasis mine. Is this an implicit admission that these quotes have not been presented in their proper context?

Of course it is. You don't actually expect any sort of well thought out effort from huggies do you?

(July 1, 2015 at 12:30 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 12:14 am)Jenny A Wrote: Yes, but CA ignores me.  Would you rather we ignore you Randy?  I'd rather CA member swore at me and replied rather than simply talked around me.

If I could ignore some people here, I would...the software won't let me. I guess some folks think their opinions are worth more than others.

Just to clarify this false statement made by the poster above, the software allows for people to put everyone but the staff on ignore (which is what I presume the poster was referring to).

This is for good reasons, namely so that we know that if, as an example, we verbally warn or speedbump a thread, every poster can see it. If people can ignore it, then the message isn't getting through, which makes it pointless. It also works the other way around. We are unable to ignore people, because our job as volunteer staff who volunteer their time and money of their own volition, is to ensure that we maintain a standard. We can't do that if we put people on ignore.

If the person above is unable to put someone on ignore who is not staff, please bring it to the staff's attention so that we can look into it as this is obviously a fault with the software. If otherwise, please reacquaint yourself with the rules until you feel able to contribute.

Thanks.