Toto

Hi Amie

Thanks for your feedback. It was good that you pointed out that the opening post served to turn some people off. It sounds like the imagery may have been too graphic for you.

Some people prefer a more active sort of discussion. I know that some language will turn some people off, but I don't want to force a bland niceness on the combatants here.

If you have not read a lot of Radorth's posts, this thread will not make much sense to you in any case. But reserve judgment on who the bad guys are.

Amie

Hi Toto

nah not too graphic, I am just sort of opposed to the baiting threads...
To tell you the truth I was on another board and I had to deal with those sort of threads. I would log on and noticed there was a thread called "1angel and her God" or "whats up with 1angel" and even a "what do you think of 1angel" where everyone got to post how much I annoyed them for posting on their board. I was lucky though some very kind atheists helped me out somewhat and that place is completely different than here but still it was not such a good feeling at the time...
and I think that ultimately they get turned into flame fests...

yeah it's not good to be forced to be a certain way...

yeah I haven't followed them but he seems like a nice enough fellow.
The only post I was referring to was the OP...
I'll have to read some of those threads...
Have a good one Toto

Radorth
good luck...

Daggah

Radorth:

You do not know what an ad hominem actually is. Stop accusing people of it.

Gurdur

Toto,
much to my own dislike, I'll agree with Amie on this one.
I've tangled with Radorth myself (on his Libertarianism ); but the OP simply became an extended personal abuse piece; it's not appropriate to a "higher forum", and Radorth gains cheap points in pointing that out.

Personal abuse is hardly ever appropriate.

I'm aware of just who the bad guys here are; but since when is extended personal abuse valid ?
And it makes SecWeb look bad.

You also wrote before:
Well, well, well; Radorth was hardly the only person who habitually did that, is he now ?
I remember one who was expert at it; just so happens he was an atheist, so many actually praised him here.

You get what I mean:
1) Radorth's provocatory tactics are not valid - no matter who uses them, or why
2) Personal abuse of the OP kind is simply that. It wasn't substantiated well enough - it simply relied on the reader's knowledge.
It contributed no constructive message at all.
3) People might not like having to make endless refutations calmly, but it's still not valid to substitute anything else for calm refutations.

All the OP was was an invitation to a long flame-war. This really apppropriate here ? Had this being in ~Elsewhere~, Pitshade probably would have already deleted the offensive remarks.
See
here , or here for examples.

For the rest, I can only agree with Buffman's comments.

Radorth

No my "gift" is to note contradictions and ironies in statements and philosophy no matter how separated in space and time.

Thoughtfull readers will note this was admitted above, and IMO is what "free-thinkers" find so antagonizing.


And Jesus didn't exist and was a black if he did. I wonder how many skeptics count you a rational person Buffman.

Well folks, since I am the only person here who has called himself a "kettle" and a "fellow human hypocrite," I rest easy enough.

Rad

Radorth

My own purpose, for the record, is not to make it look bad, or get "cheap points" but to show it for what it is- a collection of people having mixed agendas, claiming superior intellect and rationality who are seldom more of either than the Christians they so readily attack.

In my view, we are all much alike, all frail and human, and if we knew that we would show a much higher tolerance for one another. The great attraction of nascent Christianity, for me, is it's acceptance of one and all, however frail or even irreverent. 'Tis only the unconfessed pots and kettles who are unwelcome, as I have tried to point out as well.

Of course I should give up convincing the worst offenders, for as Lewis said so insightfully of repentance, "the more you need it, the less you can do it."

Rad

Toto

Excuse me. What was admitted? You think you are finding contradictions and ironies because you distort what people say.

Clearly you wouldn't recognize irony if it hit you in the head.

I take this as an admission that Rad is not interested in a serious discussion.

hezekiah jones

Radorth:
"My own purpose, for the record, is not to make it look bad, or get 'cheap points' but to show it for what it is- a collection of people having mixed agendas, claiming superior intellect and rationality who are seldom more of either than the Christians they so readily attack."

In other words, you're a troll - right?

Toto

How touching, Rad. I might believe that you were not a troll if you had ever shown any humility or any willingness to learn, or get off your fixed position.

Your "nascent" Christianity tolerates liars for Christ like David Barton but not honest doubters like most of the posters here. There's something wrong here.

Radorth

Well it is not my only purpose, and I am no more a troll than those who chase me around the site, swatting gnats while avoiding the issues. Case in point: after my post of Madison's remarkable "A Memorial and a Remnstrance" the atheist trolls went into an ad hom feeding frenzy which did not let up.

If you don't liek "ad hom" Daggah, give me a word to describe irrelevant personal attacks, and I will use it.

Rad