The Human Brain: Hardwired to Sin

[Minimalist]

You could lock them, boss.

That would solve the problem.

[Jackalope]

You could lock them, boss.

That would solve the problem.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is too interested in locking every old thread. What a pain in the ass. In any case, that comment was not directed at you.

[Ryantology]

So, it's not a design issue that the single, anomalous actions of two people were able to completely change the makeup of the human brain?

I'd say that's not good design at work.

[Tonus]

If you wish to converse further on this subject, or others, then do PM me. I realise by stating that I am a Christian, I am open to all sorts of slander or whatever. I only hope that we can have some mature and decent discussion. There are already too many theists and atheists engaged in immature and unreasonable petty arguments.

"I don't want to judge anybody, except to point out that I'm better than 'too many' of the immature theists and atheists on this board."

[Cal]

If you wish to converse further on this subject, or others, then do PM me. I realise by stating that I am a Christian, I am open to all sorts of slander or whatever. I only hope that we can have some mature and decent discussion. There are already too many theists and atheists engaged in immature and unreasonable petty arguments.

"I don't want to judge anybody, except to point out that I'm better than 'too many' of the immature theists and atheists on this board."

Exactly my point. You quote me, highlight some lines, and then interpret it into a completely different and inaccurate message. My overall message was directed to the person who was interested in a response. The sentiment at the end was in no way suggesting that I'm better than anyone else, rather that it is not my desire to get involved in petty arguments. I was honestly answering from my point of view someone else's query from their point of view. And the comment you quoted, as you will clearly see, nowhere suggested theists and atheists "on this board", but rather I was implying 'in general'. So please do not twist my words to say or imply something they do not.

If I'm going to just be misquoted or spoken to in a condescending manner, or be patronised, then I'll just not bother. I understand this is 'atheist forums', however I was hoping to get some reasonable discussion. I saw an invitation to respond and took it.

If it is the moderators wish that a Christian shouldn't be on this thread or board or forum, then I'll happily leave. But if not, then all I wish to do is have a reasonable discussion with a person who posted who seemed willing to discuss it with the 'other side'.

[Tonus]

Exactly my point. You quote me, highlight some lines, and then interpret it into a completely different and inaccurate message.

I highlighted it because I assumed that you didn't realize what you had written and how it could be interpreted. Do note that I did not remove the context of your message, simply emphasized the portion that indicated your double-standard. The context does not change that. If you didn't realize how your words were coming off, well now you know.

My overall message was directed to the person who was interested in a response.

He was interested in a response nearly four years ago. His user page shows that he hasn't logged in since August 16th, 2010. The forum rules (which new registrants are expected to read before posting) urge users to avoid responding to posts older than 30 days. You may have noticed the red message reading "The last post in this thread was made over 30 days ago. Please consider starting a new thread" when you decided to write your reply.

If your intent was to speak with only this person directly, then a private message would have been your best option. If that was not an option for some reason, you could have left out the passive-aggressive "I don't want to be slandered by these immature people" part of your message.

[LastPoet]

If it is the moderators wish that a Christian shouldn't be on this thread or board or forum, then I'll happily leave. But if not, then all I wish to do is have a reasonable discussion with a person who posted who seemed willing to discuss it with the 'other side'.

You forgot to read the forum rules. More precisely this part:

Do Not Necropost.
Necroposting is the act of posting a new reply to a thread that hasn't seen activity for a long period of time. Our specified limit in terms of necroposts is 30 days. That means if you post a reply to a thread that hasn't had any replies for more than 30 days, you are necroposting. We appreciate that checking the last reply date is hard, so you will see a warning notice whenever you try to reply. If you think you can make a new thread out of your reply, please try to do that instead.

No need to bring the persecuted theist complex, we are well acquainted with the usual rethoric. The no necroposting guideline is there because people that posted on those old threads may not even frequent the forum, that is the case with the user you quoted. For someone so quick to draw conclusions you didn't bother tho gather data (reading the rules)

[Cal]

Tonus,

I grant that some may have interpreted perhaps in that way, so I apologise, but it was meant in a general sense. It certainly was not my intention. I do not see that it indicated a double-standard, I was merely indicating that as one representing the other side, I was not posting to start a debate or petty argument, as is often seen among Christians and Atheists.

Anyway, that is besides the point. The issue here is that I made a mistake by necroposting. I honestly did not know about this. I had read the rules in the registration, however hadn't noticed the small 'rules' tab at the top right of the forum. I do not generally use forums, and in the registration I did not see anything advising to read further rules. This, however, seems, by way of your replies, to be the norm among forum users. Therefore I apologise.

Thanks Tonus & LastPoet for pointing these things out.

Cal