Radorth

I'm laughing at his statement. It's ridiculous. And it's not like I never admitted mistakes. It is Toto I thnk who has refused any criticism, given the number of times he has admitted his debating errors (zero) and his failure to follow his own advice.

But I suppose by now any excuse will do for suspending Rad.

Rad

Toto

Rad proposed this rule for the debate here:

Toto said, in the context of Rad's proposed rule:

Obviously written in a hurry, but you get the drift.

From this Rad extracted

By taking the sentence out of context, Rad made it seem foolish. It was a statement about the effect of Rad's proposed rules of debate, not a general statement about what is happening now.

Rad, no one is proposing to ban you right now. You are much too useful to the cause of promoting atheism.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Radorth, 8:11 p.m. CST:
"I think Sabine understands that. In fact I think she's a lot smarter and more fair minded than almost anybody here thinks."

Originally posted by Radorth, 8:58 p.m. CST:
"Yeah Rad really thinks this, and Rad really thinks that, yak yak."

Textbook Radorthian hypocrisy.

Toto

You are always free to post any thoughts you have. It seems clear that Madison did not want the federal government to be spreading the gospel, which is the only issue here.

Of course, if you could learn to keep to the facts, ask questions, and present your thoughts in a calm manner, it would make this discussion more civilized.

Either Sabine is in league with you, or she has not read your schlocky posts, or because of the language barrier she does not realize how bad they are.

Quote:

Nice way folks here have of "reaching" Rad. Hey, I thought Toto said we were supposed to give specific examples. Oh wait. That was another rule meant only for Rad. Criminy. Keep it up. By all means.

I have no idea what this means. Does anyone?

Quote:

Since it's palm reading day, perhaps the reason we keep going around in circles is because you need to hear yourselves say the same thing ten times because you don't really believe yourselves. See? I can read palms.

Are you confusing palm reading with mind reading? I don't think you can read either one.

I don't think we're going around in circles. In fact, I think we have about reached the end of this topic.

You do have a way with words.

Sabine Grant

Hello Toto...Sabine has read many of rad's posts in various topics and threads and prefers to adress her observations about how he handles himself to him personaly by PM in a way which she feels is more constructive than the method engendered by the tone of the OP. Can you consider that as an alternative to your assumptions about Sabine?

Sabine in league... you would mean that Rad and I are conspiring to support one another and I would agree with anything he states or any ways he uses to express it. I tend to be rather individualistic and more on the minority side in what I usualy express. I think that this assumption is rather demeaning . My opinions are my opinions. They reflect my personal individuality. One long time observer of my 500 plus posts would have a difficult time proving that I am an individual who gives in to any Borg assimilation mentality.

The language barrier... I am afraid that cannot be used by me as an excuse to retract from my initial position that the method used in this thread and the tone engendered by the OP are IMO non constructive. I appreciate your attempt to find some rational to my position by refering to the fact that English is not my native language however the only rational coming from the horse's mouth about my position is again clearly : the message has been expressed in ways in the OP that make the message difficult to accept. The method calls for a defensive response. One needs not to be a linguistic expert to promote positive communication so the message is recieved.

Sabine is not defending the individual but the right for any individual to be adressed in ways which promote the willingness to introspect.

I think I have about expressed in any way possible why I disagree with the method and tone used in this thread. That subjective interpretation of my motives by other participants
blinding them from the benefit of what I am expressing is really a shame. I truly believe that there is some validity to what I brought up.

Of course it is a challenge to modify how we come across as we pertain to correct someone else. The long term goal is to be considered which is to edify the other person and help him see his errors rather than vent personal frustrations. That is of course if the real motivation is to help him see his errors. If it is about calling the person " an ass of a man", I cannot see how constructive it can be.

There is also the other approach where the accuser reveals his own struggles from an humble prespective and brings up the value and benefit of having worked on correcting those negative attitudes. I know that I am personaly more receptive to that approach than if anyone confronts me with insulting and character demeaning terms.

My hubby's favorite quote is to say " we would not call it character if it were easy". It applies here in this thread.

{edited by Toto to fix quote tags}

Seeker196

Then again, if it walks like a duck....shouldn't we call it a duck?

Do we have some sort of altruistic moral burden to provide R. a chance to 'enlighten' himself in the atheistic mode?

Why not battle, and mock, and contest like glorious beasts and infant gods, beautiful and cruel, kind and ugly.....why must we leap into the flames of self-sacrifice for the feelings of this identified enemy 'other'? Am I my brother's keeper asked Cain?

R. seems happy enough in his world, why should we presume to 'reach out' to him? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.











PS I wasn't being totally serious if nobody got that on this ethereal medium....

Family Man

Suspend Rad? Please no! What would I do for entertainment?

Radorth

Toto

Well now that I read it like that, I must admit my interpretation was wrong.

It is does seem other people read it wrong as well, as Winstonjen tried to paint a better face on it. Nevertheless, my apologies in this case to Toto.

My proposed "debating method" seems misunderstood. If I "spew out nonsense," then anyone can offer a counter quote, an opinion based on other evidence, or a context. The only way it would not work is if I gave a one-line quote or something, without providing the whole context. I'm willing to give up quoting one or two liners (if everyone else will) in exchange for the disallowance of all personal comments.

I do realize some will have severe withdrawal symptoms and may have to get professional help.

Another major problem here is skeptics congratulating each other on their lack of bias. Fair minded people would never do that IMO, but in any case it stops discussion altogether because the source of a quote is declared biased. Why not judst admit both sides are likely biased, and let the reader decide? Personally I don't think readers here are very dumb or gullible. That's only theists, remember?

Thus instead of discussing any problematic quotes, they are simple declared "David Barton quotes." Well guess what? Having started to read him for the first time, I have concluded Buffman misrpresented his work, and I find it a gold mine of information WITH SOURCES I can easily look up if available.

IF I CAN FIND a source online, I will give a larger context. I have no problem with that. If you are going to tell me to go out and buy books, forget it.

Rad

Toto

One the one hand, we have the words of the founders themselves. We have the work of professional historians.

On the other, we have ideologically driven historical revisionists like Barton.

The two are not comparable, and if we "let the reader decide", some casual readers will walk away with the impression that there might be something to Barton's case, when there is not.

There are atheists who pass along quotes that are not reliable, and they should be corrected.

Buffman

Rad

My proposed "debating method" seems misunderstood.

First, your positive reappraisal of the Toto post is most welcome and duly noted ...at least by me.

Second, I believe that you have surfaced a very important insight into what has really been happening here. (Please correct any misunderstandings/errors I present in my following comments/observations.)

(a) The reason you registered on the Sec Web was your belief that Atheists were being just as propagandistic and hypocritical as many radical right Christians and you felt that you could help to expose that failing.

(b) You have had considerable success in the past "debating" the merits of your personal interpretations of Christian dogma (faith beliefs) with self-proclaimed non-believers.

(c) You came here prepared to vigorously "debate" (vice discuss) and defend what you once thought were accurate quotes(insights) into the founding/framing fathers "Christian" underpinnings that were being ignored or manipulated by Atheists to unfairly and dishonestly support only a secular world view of these men and the American government.

(d) What you did not expect to find here were individuals who were as knowledgeable as you are about Christian dogma and who sincerely seek knowledge regardless of where it originates or what it exposes as being accurate...just as long as the evidence is verifiable.

(e) You were not prepared to supply original references for your contentions because you had no reason to suspect that those quotes were anything less than accurate or were the ones actually being used to further the propagandistic aims (mass conditioning) of the American public by the radical Christian right. When it was revealed to you that many of the quotes you were using were hardly accurate, your debater's personality resisted that possibility and sought some other way of expressing your original motivation for coming to these forums. IMHO, that's when things started heading down hill.

(f) Rather than being able to calmly, carefully and accurately analyze each quote, and how it was being used, by either group, to support/promote their position, you discovered that you were not properly prepared to "discuss" and support the contentions you had advanced based on the quotes that you had chosen to champion. Unfortunately, at that point, your "debater's" cap was pulled even further down over your eyes. The real issues were lost in an effort for a "victory" at any price. That is when your originally sincere effort to expose Atheistic propaganda was no longer in control of your reasoning process. It became imperative that you win regardless of accuracy or methodology.

(g) Suddenly you found yourself under siege from many quarters. Rather than using a precision weapon of accurate knowledge and verifiable evidence, you picked up a shotgun and began blasting at anything that seemed to be attacking you...even when some of those people were actually attempting to help you regain your sense of balance and direction.

(h) Regardless of what you have alleged on numerous occasions, there is no plot by every non-believer to destroy believers. (That does not mean that there aren't plenty of Atheists who hate Christian dogma or religious, supernatural, dogmas of any form. However, many non-believers only seek to be treated in exactly the same manner and with the same respect and advantages that are being conferred on the believers by a constitutionally secular federal republic form of government.

For any thoughtful believer to claim that non-believers have not been the relentless objects of "religiously correct" discrimination and subtle proselytizing conditioning, by our supposedly secular government, is tantamount to a self-deceiving, self-serving, ostrich with its head permanently in the sand. America was, and remains, solidly in the controlling hands of the supernatural believers....primarily Protestant Christians of various denominational beliefs. However, as America has evolved into a more religiously and non-religiously pluralistic society, those long-time Protestant Christian power brokers and manipulators have recognized that they must embrace a philosophy of inclusion of all Christian faith beliefs, regardless of dogma differences, if Christianity is to continue to dictate (impose)its definitions of ethical and moral beliefs and behavior on every American. The sad thing is that within Christianity there are many universally supportable ethical and moral values that promote a positive and productive relationship between all peoples. That is what many of our founding/framing fathers saw, understood and actively promoted....but not the specific dogmas or supernatural miracles found in the institutionalized Christian "faith" beliefs.

Thus, though you claim to be a supporter of Church-State Separation, your posts have done little to convince me that you actually practice what you preach or you would not be so quick to condemn and attempt to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you regarding the merits of a secular vice sectarian federal government simply because they are non-believers. (As always, these are merely one man's opinions and assessments.)