(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.

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.

I am from the south. There are people who can make the phrases, I will pray for you and bless your heart be very negative. I would rather be cussed than to have someone use passive aggressive type, cowardly, back handed insults at me.

(June 30, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: A presupposition is a thing which is implied or understood without being expressed at the beginning of a line of argument.

And from what did you draw this implication? If it's just that he didn't automatically agree with you on every point then you have a problem, because then you're either assuming that your arguments are inherently convincing, one hundred percent of the time, so that the only possible way a person could disagree is unfair bias, or you're just plucking the least flattering possible reason someone could disagree with you and flinging it at them for no reason. If your claim is "you just have a presupposition against my beliefs!" then you need more than "you wouldn't believe me!" as a reason. Unless you're actually saying there's no other possible reason not to believe you, in which case it's you that has the presupposition, not him.

Quote:Have you ever read his profile? He's not only an atheist but he self-describes as an anti-theist.

IOW, not only does he not believe in God but he is opposed to anyone who does.

Which still doesn't denote a presupposition, just a recognition of the harm that religion causes. There's nothing in being against religion, religious people, anything, that prevents him from accepting the factual accuracy of arguments for god; you can believe in a god and still be against him and his posse, after all.

Quote:That's taking things to a whole other level.

Beyond that, do you read his posts? He's not hesitant to share his beliefs.

So are you. Does that mean you have a presupposition too? Is that the only reason one might share their beliefs?

Quote:I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

None of those things even hint at the existence of a presupposition.

(July 1, 2015 at 6:50 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: What I think the post quoted reveals, where he cites supposed 'flip flopping' of members, is that he is literally so obsessed with one up-manship that he has to keep a running tab of times where he believes he's won a point (with whom? No idea). What a strange, bizarre, tragic person.

Thank you Panda. This routine of his is doing nothing more than entertaining the minds of the newbies here because they haven't yet been indoctrinated by his smear-shaming techniques. He has done this to me on at least three separate occasions now, with the same quotes, mind you. And he wants everyone here to believe that those quotes are somehow related to one another - even though (and this is KEY) - they were about two totally different subjects using two totally different scenarios.

What a dolt. Oh well. Moving on.

Nobody is duped by it, Judi, so don't worry about it ^_^

(July 1, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Nobody is duped by it, Judi, so don't worry about it ^_^

Moreover, if you want to give some digs back to him, just ask him if he's had any luck summoning UFOs, or quote mine some choice things he wrote in that train wreck of a thread several months ago.

(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? 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!

Didn't notice that I provided a link to every single one? Go read it for yourself.

If you still believe any are taken out of context, name it and I'd be happy to go into in detail.

(July 1, 2015 at 4:22 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(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.

It's funny you should ask, dude.

I've been reading about the differences between presuppositional apologetics and evidential apologetics, but I have decided what I want to be when I grow up.

(July 1, 2015 at 6:56 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

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

Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

My objection is that staffers should have two accounts: one mod and one regular user (and your identity should be anonymous, btw)

If you want to tee off on someone as a regular user, then others could ignore you.

You would only switch to your mod account when taking action as needed.

As it is, there are more atheist mods in this Christianity forum than there are Christians to take action against.

Cthulhu Dreaming has suggested that I use the Suggestions forum to propose ideas like this, and I may do so. This post is just for discussion...in a "discussion forum".

(June 29, 2015 at 10:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Easy Guns Wrote: Didn't he already post it and tell you exactly where it was?

Here, I'll give it to you.

Exodus 21

20- Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21- but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Look, I asked a very simple question.

Esquilax made the statement that there is a passage that states a slave "can be beaten" .

(March 4, 2014 at 9:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

*emphasis mine*
The scripture you posted does not state that slaves "can be beaten" only what happens if they are beaten...

Try again.

(June 29, 2015 at 10:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I already know what Huggy's going to do.  He's going to find a translation that uses a different word: "servant," maybe, or "bondmen," and insist that these aren't slaves-- cuz, you know, a purchased "servant" who has to work for free is totally not a slave.  Am I wrong, Huggy?

Seems you we're wrong.

Okay, so if you beat your slave, and he doesn't die, you will not be punished.  In what goofy semantics does that not mean you can beat your slave?

I want you to quote the Bible passage that says something like, "Thou shall not beat thy slave, because that's dickish, unnecessary, and cruel, and because the slave is a person, too, and therefore protected by the all-encompassing love of your Lord God."

Okay, I'm waiting.

(July 1, 2015 at 12:16 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 6:50 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: What I think the post quoted reveals, where he cites supposed 'flip flopping' of members, is that he is literally so obsessed with one up-manship that he has to keep a running tab of times where he believes he's won a point (with whom? No idea). What a strange, bizarre, tragic person.

Thank you Panda. This routine of his is doing nothing more than entertaining the minds of the newbies here because they haven't yet been indoctrinated by his smear-shaming techniques. He has done this to me on at least three separate occasions now, with the same quotes, mind you. And he wants everyone here to believe that those quotes are somehow related to one another - even though (and this is KEY) - they were about two totally different subjects using two totally different scenarios.

What a dolt. Oh well. Moving on.

Wait
Both scenarios were were along the subject of "morality".
I'll post them in their full context.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32260-po...#pid905650

(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to say you don't have morals, you were just privileged to be brought up in a society governed by law and order. If for some reason an apocalypse happened and it's everyman for himself, do you hold onto what you deem moral? After all, when it comes to survival, who's to say what's moral? Is it immoral for a lion to kill a gazelle? why then would you consider it immoral to kill to ensure your own survival?

isn't that just survival of the fittest?

If you believe we evolved from the animals, then it was always intended for the weak to be rooted out.

Which means if you think you'll remain moral during an apocalypse, then you'll be among it's first victims.

Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.

As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.

I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.

All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.

I there is an apocalypse, I hope it's a zombie one. I have a membership to Sam's club. That would be the first place I'd run. 1 - it's a concrete building. 2 - they have survival gear, water and rations and 3 - you can't get in without a membership.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-p...#pid906588

(March 24, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Claiming people serve God because they are afraid of Hell is like saying people don't commit murder because they are afraid of the death penalty.

That depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about a loving god, one who keeps the peace, puts an end to suffering, sickness and starvation, then no, I suppose he shouldn't be feared. But if you are talking about the god of your bible, you know, the one who performed mass genocide, constantly threatens his "people" that in order to get to the pearly white gates, they must obey him, otherwise they suffer eternal damnation in hell. That's the one I'm talking about.

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

*emphasis mine*
Let's see....In one instance she wouldn't hurt a fly and in the next instance she's ready to go on a killing spree..

As you can see, Judi takes whatever position that convenient for her argument.
how is that NOT a flip-flop? Explain.

This should be good.....

*EDIT*
I Didn't notice your earlier post.


So you're saying you were just speaking figuratively about killing people? Why worry about prison then?

(July 1, 2015 at 5:25 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

Btw, I never took a break, no idea where you got that from.