(July 3, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Randy, this ain't gonna happen. Drop it.

You didn't post that in red, but I think I understand. Consider it dropped.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I can't recall whether I saw that or not. That thread is not one I'm really monitoring.

However, some apologists ARE presuppositionalists. Others are classicists while still others are evidentialists. I'm leaning toward the last group.

But, you already believe in god, that's one. And two, most of not all arguments for god's existence are based on the presupposition that he exists.

And I haven't seen much evidence from you, mr. evidentialist -_-

Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...

(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: But, you already believe in god, that's one. And two, most of not all arguments for god's existence are based on the presupposition that he exists.

And I haven't seen much evidence from you, mr. evidentialist -_-

Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...

The approach doesn't matter, if you where a true evidential apologist you would be arguing gods existence based on evidence that a believer and a non believer both agree on, so all presupposition is removed. What your doing is presenting stuff that you think is "evidence" for a god you already presuppose exists.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: But, you already believe in god, that's one. And two, most of not all arguments for god's existence are based on the presupposition that he exists.

And I haven't seen much evidence from you, mr. evidentialist -_-

Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...

With no evidence, just rehashing the claims of scripture.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...

.....and giving ZERO evidence.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And are you beginning to see what a huge pain in the arse that would be, having to keep logging in and out of different accounts simply to maintain the forum? It's bad enough doing that on a mobile as it is. Then of course we have the fun of creating new "mod accounts" whenever we recruit new staff and then banning them later on. I'm going to say this plainly - you can imagine it in red ink if you prefer: this is the way things are done here; you don't like it, I'm sure nobody's going to stand between you and the door.

In your browser, you have two windows open.

In the first window, you are logged in as a regular user. Cuss at me all you want.

In the second window, you are logged in as a mod. Correct me all you want.

Easy peasy.

Doesn't work. Cookies are shared for all windows and tabs of the browser.
Unless we were to keep two different browsers open, one for each account... but that would be hell for some of us.

I find no need for such mechanism, just so a few users could not see what I post as a normal user. It's far easier for those few users to use their bio-ignore function.

(July 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh...I've started three threads using an evidential approach...

No one said you didn't try using the approach.

(July 3, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Well, I'd vote for you, Stim, and if you wrote a book I'd read it, so....

I've updated my avatar in honour of my new dual identity:

Awesome!! Love it

It suits you well, Christopher Lincoln.....Abraham Hitchens?!

I'll stick to Stim

(July 3, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.

R'amen brother!