Stat of the art combination rock crusher and sorter.

Ah, analog.

No, no - if Huggy wants quoting to be considered plagiarism, that gives even more weight to the decision to remove his signature under Forum Guideline 4: Do not plagiarise. That suits me.

On the other hand, it could be that he thinks I'm Lincoln if I'm the one accused of plagiarising his special book. First Christopher Hitchens, now Abraham Lincoln. I didn't realise they thought my oratory is that good.

Maybe you could just confine him to his own thread, so he can argue about who said what to who, instead of derailing every thread with his nonsense.

Well, I'd vote for you, Stim, and if you wrote a book I'd read it, so....

(July 2, 2015 at 2:23 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 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".

When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

The advantage in posting as a "regular user" would be that you could argue all you want with another member without that other person knowing that you are a mod. And if that person thought that you, as a regular user, were being abusive or disrespectful, he or she could ignore you. Mods should be neutral...simply applying the rules equally to theist and atheist alike. Unfortunately this is not the way things work here. Atheists can break the trolling rule (you know, the one that says that deliberately provocative posts will not be tolerated), and mods are among the worst offenders of this rule.

For example, I would quickly ignore three or four mods immediately if I could - not because I do not want to obey the rules, but because they use foul language, troll, and generally try to disrupt the threads. Sad, but true. Unfortunately, I have to put up with their non-mod crap because I cannot ignore them. So, I just skim the avatars and breeze past those I'm not really interested in chatting with.

This is a really simple fix...but one that will not be implemented because no one gets the fact that the current system is anything but impartial.

(July 2, 2015 at 3:59 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.

Doesn't address my point.

Most, if not all arguments for the existence of god presuppose his existence. So do you. Accusing-falsely, might I add-someone else of having presuppositions is very hypocritical of you.

Just admit to it.

Cato has to be a presuppositional atheist because he cannot by definition be an evidential atheist.

(July 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 3:59 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Doesn't address my point.

Most, if not all arguments for the existence of god presuppose his existence. So do you. Accusing-falsely, might I add-someone else of having presuppositions is very hypocritical of you.

Just admit to it.

Cato has to be a presuppositional atheist because he cannot by definition be an evidential atheist.

I'm pretty sure he has evidence that he doesn't believe in god.

(July 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Cato has to be a presuppositional atheist because he cannot by definition be an evidential atheist.

And you're a tu quoquing presupposing theist who is ignoring my point. I explained in detail why theists are guilty of presuppositions in the 'thoughts on atheism and apologetics' thread, but I guess you ignored that too.